Friends with Benefits: Sussmann Trial Further Exposes the FBI and Washington Establishment

Below is a slightly expanded version of my column in the Hill on Sussmann trial and what it revealed about the role of the Federal Bureau of Investigation in the combined Russian collusion investigations. It also looks down the road at whether Special Counsel John Durham will be allowed to write the same type of public report that concluded the Mueller investigation.

Here is the column:

With the jury out in the trial of former 2016 Clinton campaign counsel Michael Sussmann, the usual odds-takers appeared on cable news, rating the chances of a conviction. Despite the seemingly overwhelming evidence against Sussmann, the jury’s makeup seems strikingly favorable for the defense.

One verdict, however, appears to need little deliberation. It concerns the Department of Justice, and particularly the FBI. The trial confirmed what many have long alleged about how top officials eagerly accepted any Russia collusion claim involving Donald Trump’s 2016 campaign. Special counsel John Durham’s investigation, which led to Sussmann’s trial, is an indictment of a department and a bureau which, once again, appeared willfully blind as they were played by Hillary Clinton’s campaign.

Despite the trial judge’s rulings imposing strict limits on the scope of the trial evidence, Durham’s case still revealed new information on how the Russia collusion theory was pushed into the FBI and the media by the Clinton campaign. Perhaps the most ironic moment came when Sussmann’s defense team outed Clinton as personally approving the campaign’s effort to spread a baseless claim that the Trump organization maintained a secret channel to the Kremlin through Russia’s Alfa Bank.

That claim was a real tinfoil-hat conspiracy theory without support. Durham previously disclosed how researchers tasked with supporting the claim were afraid it was so unsupported that they would be mocked. They argued, according to Sussmann’s indictment, that anyone familiar with analyzing internet traffic “would poke several holes” in the theory. One researcher warned: “Let’s assume again that they are not smart enough to refute our ‘best case scenario.’ You do realize that we will have to expose every trick we have in our bag to even make a very weak association.”

Yet, the Clinton campaign did not seem remotely concerned about even minimal inquiries that might expose the lack of proof. The researchers were told to just worry about creating a “very useful narrative.”

During the trial, Clinton campaign general counsel Marc Elias and campaign manager Robby Mook both said the campaign trusted the media to push the story. They were right: Slate quickly ran it, and then Clinton and one of her aides, Jake Sullivan (now President Biden’s national security adviser), released statements expressing alarm about the claim as if it were news to them.

The Clinton campaign similarly pushed the infamous Steele dossier into the news, too, after secretly helping to fund it. And both the Steele dossier and the Alfa Bank claim was pushed to friends in the FBI.

Regardless of what the jury decides regarding Sussmann, the combined record of the Steele dossier and the Alfa Bank claim makes the FBI look like an unindicted co-conspirator.

On the witness stand in Sussmann’s trial, for example, FBI general counsel James Baker was asked why it took him so long to turn over the most damaging evidence — a text message to him in which Sussmann said he was not representing any client in pushing the Alfa Bank claim to FBI officials. Baker explained that Sussmann was his friend and told prosecutors that “this is not my investigation. This is your investigation.”

In other words, there was no reason for the Justice Department to expect that Baker, a former top Justice lawyer, would help to make the case against Sussmann. It did not help the optics when Baker left the Justice Department and joined Brookings Institution, liberal think tank linked to key figures who framed the early Russian collusion claims. For some, it seemed like not just friends but “friends with benefits.”

Later, the supervisory agent for the FBI’s Trump-Russia probe, Joe Pientka, sent a note to FBI special agent Curtis Heide, stating: “People on the 7th floor to include Director are fired up about this server.” Pientka then messaged Heide: “Did you guys open a case? Reach out and put tools on?”

That description of the apparent eagerness of then-FBI Director James Comey and others only magnifies concern over the bureau’s alleged bias or predisposition on the Trump investigation. It was the same eagerness that led the FBI to pursue the Russian investigation for years despite being warned early by American intelligence that the Steele dossier contained not just unsupported allegations but possible Russian disinformation.

When FBI investigators were given Sussmann’s allegation, they were told by supervisors that it came from the Justice Department, not Sussmann. Even with that framing, however, investigators found what the Clinton campaign researchers feared — in Baker’s words, that there was “nothing there.”

The FBI, however, went on to pursue the other Russia collusion claims. That effort would result in a conviction of FBI attorney Kevin Clinesmith for making false statements by altering key evidence to obtain secret surveillance orders against Trump associate Carter Page. Another trial witness, the FBI’s Heide, admitted he is under investigation for allegedly withholding exculpatory information contradicting the premise of the Russia investigation.

Previously, of course, another special counsel, Robert Mueller, never found any basis for criminal charges related to Russia collusion. But what is now even more striking is how so much of this information about “fired up” FBI officials and the role of the Clinton campaign mysteriously escaped Mueller and his team.

The question now is whether Durham will be given the same opportunity as Mueller to write a report on his findings. All of these disclosures were made despite limitations placed on Durham by the court. Clearly, Durham is sitting on more information about how the collusion claims were packaged and pushed to eager friends in the media and the FBI.

Before Mueller declined to press criminal charges on any Russia collusion allegations, Democrats in Congress insisted that he should not just issue a report but that the report should be released unredacted, including ordinarily secret grand jury material.

There is no such hue and cry for a similarly unredacted report by Durham.

If Durham does not issue such a report, much of the true story behind the Russia collusion scandal could be buried. Indeed, even if control of Congress were to flip to Republicans in November, the Justice Department could refuse to turn over investigatory material and information. That is precisely what many in Washington undoubtedly would like to happen.

Yet, after the glimpses offered in Sussmann prosecution of still undisclosed evidence, the public deserves to have a full Durham report on how these scandals were conceived and crafted among “friends.”

Jonathan Turley is the Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at George Washington University. Follow him on Twitter @JonathanTurley.

169 thoughts on “Friends with Benefits: Sussmann Trial Further Exposes the FBI and Washington Establishment”

  1. “Sussmann’s defense team outed Clinton as personally approving the campaign’s effort to spread a baseless claim that the Trump organization maintained a secret channel to the Kremlin through Russia’s Alfa Bank. That claim was a real tinfoil-hat conspiracy theory without support.”

    Turley’s statement is a bald faced lie and emblematic of his dishonesty. Sussmann and others said there was unexamined evidence of communications between a Trump server and Alfa Bank. To say that anyone has discredited that evidence is a lie. The trial revealed that the FBI dismissed the evidence by relying on someone who lacked expertise in DNS communications.

    1. You said “unexamined evidence” – and then you say that the FBI examined it and you do not like the credentials of the person who examined it.
      That is NOT unexamined.

      But the Trial also produced evidence that Sussman tried to sell the same nonsense to the CIA – and the CIA concluded the data was bogus – manipulated by Humans – that it was not unaltered captures of DNS network traffic.

      In otherwords that it was a HOAX.

      Sussmans Defense was NOT – I am innocent – because the Steele Dossier has merrit. It was NOT I am innocent because the Alpha Bank data is is reliable.
      It was NOT I did not lie to the FBI.

      His defense was the lie was not material.

      That is laughable – the entire country suffered through this.

      Many good people – as well as clueless sychophants such as yourself beleived these lies for years

      Aparently you still do now.

      Obviously the lies were material.

    1. A statement from one of Sussmann’s attorney, Sean Berkowitz:
      “We have always known that Michael Sussmann is innocent and we are grateful that the members of the jury have now come to the same conclusion. But Michael Sussmann should never have been charged in the first place. This is a case of extraordinary prosecutorial overreach. And we believe that today’s verdict sends an unmistakable message to anyone who cares to listen: politics is no substitute for evidence, and politics has no place in our system of justice.”

        1. Durham spent $2.36 million in tax-payer dollars over the course of three years, doing nothing other than making wild accusations in court filing documents

          Durham’s claim that Trump’s White House was being spied on in the Oval Office was a lie. Evidence showed that all of the data was legally and properly obtained prior to Trump taking office.

          … the crux of the indictment is that Sussman didn’t disclose to the FBI that he represented Clinton — but the FBI knew he represented Clinton anyway. That, folks, is what prosecutors call a problem , or should have known that was a problem for them, a BIG problem.

          1. “… the crux of the indictment is that Sussman didn’t disclose to the FBI that he represented Clinton — but the FBI knew he represented Clinton anyway. That, folks, is what prosecutors call a problem , or should have known that was a problem for them, a BIG problem.”

            The charge isn’t what the FBI knew. It was what Sussman told the FBI, knowing it was a lie.

          2. This is for the record because you are not interested in the truth: Sussman knew he was lying to the FBI when he said he said wasn’t working on behalf of a client. That is the charge. He billed Hillary’s campaign for the hours and even for the thumb drives that carried the Alfa Bank data. The thumb drive billing names her campaign.

            Whether the FBI believed him or not is immaterial. I believe the FBI didn’t believe him, so that only incriminates them for starting an investigation based on opposition gossip.

            Why do you keep bringing that up?!? In trying to confuse people, you’re just making it more obvious that FBI was in on the conspiracy.

    2. as Expected – it is DC Courts they are corrupt and lawless.
      We have seen then convict republicans of things that never happened and aquit democrats of indisputable crimes.

      You think this is somehow good, and good for you. You are an idiot.

      It brings us one step closer to lawlessness.

      The courts FAILED before and after the election – you think that was a victory ? You undermined the rule of law. Peoples faith in courts and their trust in government as well as the legitimacy o government.
      The results of the Sussman trial – though predictable, just undermine the trustworthyness of our institutions further.

      We do not have the rule of law, we we are between anarchy and totalitarianism.

      That is not at all good.

      It is self evident to all but the most far left wingnuts that Hillary. The DNC, Perkins Coi, Sussman, Elias, and the FBI and DOJ perpitrated a Hoax on the country and they aused the power of the Federal government in the process.

      At the base of all this was not just a LIE – but a HOAX – the Steele Dossier was MADE UP. It was not even Gossip from Russian sources. It was Danchenko collecting Gossip from Democrats in the DNC.
      The Alpha Bank Hoax was human manipulated data – again not just a lie, but a HOAX.

      Whether the FBI bought it willingly or not – it was Sold by the hoaxsters who created it. We know the FBI knew that the Alpha bank story was a HOAX very early on.
      We KNOW the FBI learned that the Steele Dossier was a HOAX by Early Jan 2017. When did the FBI Learn that Susman was working for the DNC – does it really matter ?

      You pointed out that Baker did not provide Durham damning evidence against Sussman until recently – as if that is somehow a good thing ?

      Do you not grasp that Baker was an officer of the court, the Counsel for the FBI – IF Sussman was lying – it was not merely his duty to turn the evidence over to Durham – it was his duty to investigate Sussman’s LIE 6 years ago ?

      Are the top ranks of the FBI just supposed to sit back and watch while Crimes are committed ? All you have done is point out the criminal conduct of the FBI.

      There is no “Sussman is innocent” – b ut there is a “Sussman was guilty and the upper eschelon’s of the FBI were co-conspirators.

      We have the Top law enforcement agency in the country – not merely turning a blind eye but actively participating in a Hoax.

      You say that Sussman’s lie was not material – becausethe FBI knew he was working for Clinton – If true that makes the conduct of the FBI criminal.

      They hounded innocent people, they wasted government resources, they deceived the entire nation chasing what they most likely KNEW or less likely were obligated to KNOW was a hoax.

      How does celebrating what would be Treason if the US was at war, make you look good ?

      You rant because Trump refused to accept the outcome of a lawless and likely at th time and now certianly fraudulent election.

      Yet the Clinton campaign, Sussman, Perkin’s Coi, the FBI, the DOJ actively sought to remove a legitimagtely elected president – using FRAUD.

      Nor is that the only time you did so.

      The House Democrats led by Adam Schiif Impeached Trump for ….. seeking to get an investigation into corruption that is now plain as day. Joe Biden was for sale, and Hunter Biden was the bagman.
      Both would be convicted – anywhere but DC.

      The democrats running the impeachment – either KNEW the corruption of the Biden’s – or like the FBI – looked only into what served them politically.

      This is far worse than watergate – Much of our government was complicit, the FBI was complicit, the courts were complicit, Democrats in congress were complicit. The Press was complicit, Social media was complicit, and YOU were complicit.

      This all was far far worse than Watergate. I do not think there was so huge a corrupt endeavor in all US history.

      And you think that an ending with no consequences is a GOD THING ?

      1. Durham spent $2.36 million in tax-payer dollars over the course of three years, doing nothing other than making wild accusations in court filing documents

        Durham’s claim that Trump’s White House was being spied on in the Oval Office was a lie. Evidence showed that all of the data was legally and properly obtained prior to Trump taking office.

        … the crux of the indictment is that Sussman didn’t disclose to the FBI that he represented Clinton — but the FBI knew he represented Clinton anyway. That, folks, is what prosecutors call a problem , or should have known that was a problem for them, a BIG problem.

        1. You are nuts.

          The Entire collusion delusion rested on a couple of Hoaxes.

          The Cell phone data gathering was not likely spying – becuase it did not happen – the Clintonista’s made up the data. That is a hoax, it is fraud, it is not spying.

          That said there are plenty of actual incidents of spying. All spying is not illegal. The spying on Trump was unconstitutional – there was not sufficient probable cause to do so.

          Outside of the left wing but o sphere this is established fact.

        2. The issue is NOT whether the FBI knew that he was lying, but whether the investigation could have proceded as it did had he told the truth.

          I do not think it was established that the FBI knew at the time of Sussman’s meetings he was lying.

          More accurately they did not want to know he was lying. The allegation he made was more credible and therefore sufficient to initiate an investigation if the FBI could say – with a not so straight face that it was not coming from Clinton.

          Had Sussman been open that Clinton was his client the first investigation would have been of the dossier and the Alpha bank data – NOT Trump. And the whole mess would have died quickly.

          If I tell the FBI that you are downloading child porn on the internet – and I do not have actual credible knowledge of that – that is then a crime.

  2. Turley, you had better come up with some “H” story’s quick. Ya know, Hillary or Hunter, because the Trump cult is having a meltdown. Oh, that’s right, ok don’t do another Hillary story, You get those wrong so far, very wrong.

    1. No one is melting down.

      The lawlessness of the left is to be expected.

      It is the NORM.

      Maybe after the election in 2024 much of the federal government can be moved out of DC – where the criminal conduct of the left will be tried by Juries who apply the law and constitution.

      In the meantime – everyone on the left can engage in whatever criminal conduct they wish in DC without consequence, andif you are on the right you can not go into the Capital of the United states when Congress is in session without facing criminal prosecution.

      I note that you and many on the left keep saying Trump sought to overturn the results of the 2020 election.

      That is correct – it is also LEGAL. Trump or anyone else is free to go to court, to congress to the public with evidence of fraud with the hope and expectation of “overturning the election”
      They are even free to be WRONG and it is still not a crime.

      Hillary sought to “overturn the results of the 2016 election” – not a crime. Though she did participate in ACTUAL crimes she will never be convicted of.

      The Sussman Trial makes it self Evident Comey was right when he said a DC Court would not convict Hillary.
      The DC courts are corrupt.

      Democrats are to a very large extent corrupt.
      The left is entirely corrupt.

      Hopefully this will be fixed by election over time.

      If not, the only possible remedy is violence.

      When the rule of law fails.
      When the courts are corrupt and political.

      The next step is violence

      Read the declartion of independence.

      To be clear – I do not expect violence.

      We have learned the fraudulent ways of the left,
      and people are ready to expose and thwart them.

      The same tricks and lawlessness will be much less effective next time.

      Our election laws have not been fixed yet, but the fraud of 2020 is not repeatable on the same scale.

      It is likely that private citizens will surveil and photograph unattended ballot drop boxes in democratic cities.
      It is likely that many other measures will be taken to prevent stealing elections.

      These will NOT be perfectly effective – but we know who you are now. We KNOW you are fraudulent. We KNOW you are dishonest and can not be trusted.
      That is nearly all the battle.

  3. It will be interesting to discover how many articles Turley will author about the upcoming Jan 6 public hearings. Will he largely ignore it as one would expect his Fox News to do? Turley is already on the record disagreeing with Eastman’s legal theory, deploring the legal antics of Sidney Powell and Rudy Giuliani, refusing to accept that the election was stolen, approving of the prosecution of those who stormed the Capitol and condemning Trump’s 1/6 speech as “reckless” and calling for his Congressional censure!

    We’ll have to wait and see if Turley writes more articles about an attempt to overturn a presidential election than he has about the Sussmann trial…

    1. Nearly everyone is ignoring the House J6 committee heariings – they are clearly unconstitutional, They are in violation of the houses own rules.

      And nothing of consequence will come of them.

      The big revalations have already been made – and frankly were well known BEFORE J6.

      Trump sought to do everything constitutionally possible to stop the certification of a fraudulent and lawless election.

      Those of you on the left may not like that. But it is still acceptable.

      It is not Hillary Clinton’s hoax steele dossier that is the Crime, it is not the alpha bank hoax that is a crime.
      It is the false report to the FBI and the FBI’s subsequent corupt and political conduct.

      Clinton’s refusal to accept the 2016 election results are not a crime.
      Her efforts to persuade electors to change their votes were not a crime.
      Her efforts to persuade Democratic represenatives and senators to object were not a crime.

      Locking down the capital while it was in session – was unconstitutional.

      Murdering protestors was a crime.

      Nor one expects anything of the J6 committee.

      it is a tale
      Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury,
      Signifying nothing.

  4. Pelosi is a raging alcoholic Her Husband got arrested for drunk driving.

    Just using the the Gina Thomas logic, employed be the left. Feels like a stupid standard, but I’m not a leftist, making stuff up because the facts don’t support my agenda.

    1. Plenty of people get arrested for drunk driving.

      It is a moral failure whether you are on the right or the left.
      Pelosi’s husband, like any ordinary person or republican should face the consequences,

      The question is will he – this should not be a political question.

      If Donald Trump was arrested for driving under the influence – he should be given a fair trial and convicted if the evidence supports that.

      Who wants to bet this disapears ?

      It likely would disappear if it was McConnell too. Though I doubt he ever drives himself.

      It should not disappear – republican or democrat.

  5. Turley the cherrypicker strikes again.

    “On the witness stand in Sussmann’s trial, for example, FBI general counsel James Baker was asked why it took him so long to turn over the most damaging evidence — a text message to him in which Sussmann said he was not representing any client in pushing the Alfa Bank claim to FBI officials. Baker explained that Sussmann was his friend and told prosecutors that ‘this is not my investigation. This is your investigation.’”

    First of all, the text message didn’t say “he was not representing any client.” It said “I’m coming on my own – not on behalf of a client or company …,” and “on behalf of” has more than one meaning, not only “representing.

    More importantly, Turley cut off the next sentence of Baker’s testimony:
    Q [from prosecutor DeFilippis]: Did there come a time when you were asked by the Government to give any statements you might have on the subject of your testimony today?

    A [Baker]. Yes.

    Q. And just tell us how that happened and then what you did in response.

    A. There was a phone call with the Government. I think it was in March of this year. And it was to discuss discovery-related matters in part in the conversation. And I think it was Mr. Durham who asked me, you know: You need — we have an obligation to hand over discovery to the defense in this case. And can you go look for emails and other communications that you might have had with Mr. Sussmann?
    And so in response to that, I — after we got off the phone, I immediately went to my phone and started looking through emails and then I looked for texts. And I did a search for texts with Michael’s last name; and texts came up, and I scrolled through them. They took a while to down — it was clear to me at least that they were downloading from the cloud.

    And as I scrolled through and got to the beginning of my set of communications with Michael, this is the first one that I had.

    Q. Now, had you — have you spoken to and met with the Government in connection with this case previously?

    A. Yes.

    Q. And had you previously located this text message here?

    A. Not to the best of my recollection. No.

    Q. What, if anything, was the reason for that?

    A. It’s — I was not — I mean, the way I thought about it was that frankly, like, I am not out to get Michael. And this is not my investigation; this is your investigation. And so if you ask me a question, I answer it. If you ask me to look for something, I go look for it. But to the best of my recollection, nobody had asked me to go look for this material before that.

    Turley omits that no one asked Baker to search for relevant communications until March! He found it and turned it over soon after being asked to look through his communications.

    1. Apropos of nothing.

      Obfuscation herein is substituted in the absence and utter dearth of any material, relevant, eloquent or otherwise discernible and distinguishable defense of any of the coup co-conspirators.

      – Sussmann lied to the FBI.

      – Sussmann initiated the criminal Trump-Russia collusion soft coup d’etat for Hillary Clinton.

    2. Anonymous: “First of all, the text message didn’t say “he was not representing any client.” It said ‘I’m coming on my own – not on behalf of a client or company …,’ and ‘on behalf of’ has more than one meaning, not only ‘representing.’”
      Diogenes: Wrong. I don’t even need to explain this.
      Anonymous: “Turley omits that no one asked Baker to search for relevant communications until March! He found it and turned it over soon after being asked to look through his communications.”
      Diogenes: Baker was the FBI’s legal freaking general counsel. It was his job to turn over all relevant evidence to the Bureau without being asked, and this evidence was totally relevant. Baker is either incompetent or disingenuous. I can reasonably conjecture that he resigned over this sort of nonsense because he would probably have been fired because of it.

      1. The fact remains: Turley cherrypicked, and he does it regularly.

        Legally, “on behalf of” can mean both “representing” and also “seeking a benefit for.”

        Baker was no longer the FBI General Counsel, and he’d turned the phone over years earlier, and Durham knew about the phone years earlier. Durham had a legal responsibility to ask Baker to search for evidence, and Durham screwed up.

        1. Anonymous: “Legally, ‘on behalf of” can mean both “representing” and also “seeking a benefit for.'”
          Diogenes: A swing and a miss. That’s strike two. If you want to keep claiming that, I won’t stop you.

          Anonymous: “Baker was no longer the FBI General Counsel, and he’d turned the phone over years earlier, and Durham knew about the phone years earlier. Durham had a legal responsibility to ask Baker to search for evidence, and Durham screwed up.”
          Diogenes: How does one find a message in a phone one no longer has? Your story doesn’t even make walking around sense.

          1. See, if you were actually paying attention to the details of the case, you’d know that some of the phone evidence was also backed up in the cloud, and that’s where Baker found a copy of the text message, even though he was no longer in possession of the phone. But hey, keep digging your hole deeper in demonstrating that you haven’t actually been paying attention to the details.

            No surprise that you’re silent about Durham f’ing up in failing to ask Baker in a timely fashion to look for relevant communications.

            1. But the text message confirms the testimony, right? You have no evidence Baker is mistaken regarding the Sussman’s statement about not representing a client, and the prosecution has Baker’s testimony and the text message, both of which were presented to the jury.

              1. Have you read all of Baker’s testimony, both in the trial and earlier (e.g., before Congress)? He’s given several different mutually inconsistent statements about it under oath and has said that he doesn’t really remember. That’s probably one of the reasons that the jury voted to acquit.

                1. Don’t ask me if I’ve read his testimony. You’re the one who is cherry-picking and trying to obscure things.

                  Sussman wrote the text message. Nobody denies that. It confirms sworn testimony, and Baker had a HIGH LEVEL OF CONFIDENCE in remembering that Sussman told him in the meeting he wasn’t representing anybody. Baker was uncertain about some things, but he was not uncertain about that.

                  Witnesses frequently have problems with details. That’s why we have written documents like text messages to back up testimony.

                  1. I’ll ask whatever I want. I see that you cannot bring yourself to answer.

                    Baker *was* uncertain about that, as is clear if you compare his testimony about it at different times. And unlike an FBI agent, Baker didn’t take any notes at the meeting.

    3. “I am coming on my own – not on behalf of a client:” is THE SAME as “not rtepresenting a client” FURTHEr it is A LIE REGARDLESS.

      Sussman was coming on behalf of a client – he BILLED THEM FOR coming. He BILLED them for ALL his work with the FBI.

      The FACT that you can try to weasel out of this is precisely why No one should ever Trust you.

      Papadoulis was forced to plead guilty of be destoryed over incrrrectly telling the FBI a couple of email dates when being interviewed for hours and not being allowed to see his own emails.
      Nothing could be more stupid. OR vicious or politically motivated by the FBI or DOJ, or Mueller.

      Not only was Flynn tortured by the FBI over a lie that he never told, was ACTUALLY not material, and did not occur during a legitimate investigation – the FBI had closed the investigation almost a month early – But Peter Strzok ordered it to remain open to attempt to entrap Flynn. Further there are no FBI records hat Flynn actually lied to the FBI.
      This and much more was HIDDEN from Flynn and his lawyers by the FBI – a violation of Brady.

      Then when it all came to light and the DIJ withdrew the case – a lunatic DC judge took the law into his own hands and essentially attempted to prosecute the case himself.
      A pannel of DC judges that were not idiots reversed but then the DC courtt en banc proved how politically biased they were and reversed.

      The decisions of courts – both judges and juries should NOT have any relationship to politics at all. When they do it is WORSE than mere hypocracy – like yours. it is lawlessness, it is the destruction of he rule of law.

      This case reflects exactly why Stone and Manafort did not and could not get a fair trial – Stone was convicted of something that did not happen – that we know did not happen from the Mueller report AND from the Sussman Trial.

      We also all expect that Hunter Biden has ZERO risk of conviction by a DC court – even though his conduct is orders o magnitude worse than what Manafort was accused, of.

      I have ZERO doubt that if we could find a DC jury that was sufficiently oblivious to events of the past 6 years such that they would not know that Manafort, Papadoulis Stone worked for Trump and that Sussman, Worked for Clinton and that Hunter Biden was Joe Biden’s son.

      That if we could present a jury these cases without any ability to determine what the politics of the defendants were – Flynn, Papadoulis, Manafort, Stone could not be convicted and Sussman and Hunter would easily be convicted.

      And I think most actually intelligent people understand that.
      The DC courts are self evidently CORRUPT

      And that is incredibly dangerous for the country.

      When the government is lawless – the remedy is violence.

      1. John,

        You’re free to post whatever you want in response to my comments, but don’t expect me to waste my time reading your garbage. You’re the guy who made the wildly false claims like “No Equation is a function” and “x^2 + y^2 = 4 can be rewritten as y = SQRT(-2 + ln(4)/ln(x)) which can be turned into a function,” and who couldn’t bring himself to admit that it’s false, even when faced with the actual solution for y — y = ±sqrt(4 – x^2) — and when confronted with the fact that x^2 + y^2 = 4 cannot “be turned into a function” because most of the elements of the domain have more than one image.

        You’ll have to find someone who’s willing to wade through your word vomits. I am not that person.

        1. Most people probably didn’t follow that debate to the end. You didn’t deal with physics you dealt with conventions that you preferred. That is why you became the assistant librarian. You can know file the conventions in your order.

          1. I want to make it clear – if ATS proves what he claims EXACTLY as he claims, I will apologize.

            If not HE OWES ME an apology.

            False accusations are much more serious than error.

            I made a couple of minor errors in this debate – none that were consequential. All centered on mistakenly following DB down his rabbit hole.

            My iniital statement that DB took issue with was NOT a mathematical assertion – unless every single use of the word exponentially is a step in a math proof.

            My point which DB eventually got was that the energy curve has a rising rate of increase with linear increases in temperature.

            That is inconsisten with the thesis of Catastrophic Global Warming. It is why the models are wrong.

            DB’s digression into the language of math – was irrelevant, and it was wrong.
            I made a few errors chasing DB arround his math straw man, but those were minor and I corrected myself.

            No one else has – even though their errors were more significant.

        2. Please cite what I actually wrote.

          Equations are not functions. But Some equations can be transformed – sometimes trivially into functions.

          An equation is an absolute statement about the relation between two expressions.

          A function is an expression that transforms a set of inputs into an output.

          With respect to the rest of your nonsense – I NEVER posted any math at all that was not sourced to another poster that included ln().
          Please cite the actual comment BY ME, If you can provide a link to a comment in which I applied the distributive, communative, associative laws to an equation improperly – I WILL apologize.
          Otherwise YOU owe me an apology.

          Further I verified every single restructuring of an equation that I offered using online equation solvers.
          If one of those was in error – I WILL apologize – but I highly doubt that.
          Otherwise AGAIN YOU owe me an apology.

          You make alot of bold claims that require PROOF.

          You are entitled to my apology – IF AND ONLY IF you can prove I erred
          I am entitled to YOURS otherwise.

          Errors of fact are forgiveable, False accusations are not, and the burden of proof is on the accuser.

            1. DB,

              I have already provided myriads of sources that demonstrated that you are using terms artificially narrowly.

              You STILL do not seem to grasp that I can cite ONE source to prove that my use of the language of math is acceptable.
              You could cite 100 and that would at very best prove that my language is less common.

              You do not seem to understand what you are trying to prove – and failing.

              Worse still my initial use of “exponential” – was obviously not intended as part of a scientific paper.
              It was purely to demonstrate that you do not have the curve you need for the warming you are claiming – whatever you wish to call a curve with an increasing rate o increase.

              As to your other nonsense,

              Please refer back to what I ACTUALLY wrote – not the shifting misrepresentations that are in your head or your posts.

              I will defend what I have actually written – MY WORDS, or I will correct them if fully cited and in context they are wrong.

              I am not interested in arguing with your idiotic misrepresentations of what you think I wrote weeks ago.

              If you think something I posted in the past was wrong CITE IT DIRECTLY and we can all judge.

              I am not even going to try to make sense of your claims ofo what you think I said hundreds of posts ago.

              1. Still beating that straw man to death.

                You wasted myriads of posts on an irrelevant demand for super precise language where common language was more than sufficient and correct.
                And you were and remain WRONG in your claim that your specific prefered precisde language is the only expression in this contexted accepted by mathematicians.

                You make much the same error repeatedly.

                You fixate – often inaccurately on details about glaciers and ice sheets, oblivious to the fact that those details are a small part o a much larger story that is radically different.

                You reject the MWP using this idiotic claim that something that occurred throughout the world at approximately the same time might not have been t exctly the same time in the same spot
                As if today warming is uniform through out the world.

                Further the same though more extensive, evidence of the MWP is all that you have for the past 1400 years of climate.

                Everywhere and in everything you use the unusual to reject the norms.

                CAGW is a GENERALIZATION about the climate of the world – it had better be supported by big patterns as well as small it had better be supported by the whole not just the details.

                But it isn’t.

                  1. You make my point.
                    A single source or a couple of warmist sources refultes 1200+ actual scientific studies.

                    Are you going to pretend that nearly the entire holocene has not been warmer than the present ?

                    That theYounger Dryas never happened ?

                    One way or the other you have a huge problem – Climate has changed NATURALLY in the past.

                    In fact it has changed RADICALLY during the period of Human existance.
                    It has beem much hotter than today, it has been much colder than today.

                    I frequently provide you with data from sources like Wikipedia – not because they are trustworthy on controversial issues – but because YOU accept them.

                    BTW did yu read YOUR source. It specifies the MWP as regional – north atlantic. I have already provided you with multiple proxies/studies from Antartica – not in the north atlantic. There are proxies from all over the globe – not just north atlantic.
                    Look at the Wikipedia Graph – the error bars are huge.

                    And you are still arguing this idiotic argument that the MWP was global warming – the data clearly shows that pretty much everywhere on earth there is evidence of the MWP, But YOUR claim is that there were not all warm simultaneously ?

                    And how is it that you actually know that ?
                    The same types of proxies that demonstrate the MWP.

                    Your back selling hockey sticks. The hockey stick was a FRAUD.

                    Here is the MWP mapping project
                    You can try to attack the mapping project – but the papers, and studies they are linking to are published scientific papers – both pro MWP and the very few that show no warming in some region.


                    Regardless, you are demonstrating AGAIJ why you are an IYI.

                    You are incapable of thinking for yourself, you can not grasp fundimental science.
                    Everything is religious for you

                    The MWP can not exist – because the GCM’s can not explain it. So rather than accept that the GCM’s have been falsified by both the past and the present. You rewrite the past.

                    Is the MWP proven beyond any doubt ? No!
                    But given the actual evidence we have the odds that the MWP did not exist are very very very low.

                    You will even find the MWP on other graphs on Wikipedia – where the warmist censors of Wacky wiki world did not notice.

              2. Mathematicians – like every other profession do NOT speak in a universal language they speak in the jargon specific to their profession – often specific to sub segments of their profession.

                There is nothing wrong with that – but it is error to presume that is universal.
                It is error to use he jargon of a profession to speak generally to a wide audience.

                You fixated on the definition of function as an example. In architecture the meaning of function is significantly different than mathematics. In computing it is similar to mathematics, but far from identical.

                I have demonstrated that many of your claims about the language of mathematics – are too narrow – that there are synonyms in math too, as well as instances were words have multiple meanings depending on how they are used.

                Basically you have been pretty much universally wrong about language – both language generally and the language of math.

                1. John B Say is still Making Stuff Up. The notion of function, mathematical function, is universal to mathematics. gave the very nice Wikipedia page. I now doubt that John B Say could read it with comprehension.

                  1. Nope DB,

                    You keep misrepresenting what I have said.

                    No one has claimed there is no such thing as a function in mathmatics.

                    Only that function is not defined identically in all domains – technical or otherwise.

                    Are you debating that ?

                    I am further asserting the obvious – that synonyms exist – both in common language, and even in technical language.

                    You have wasted hundreds of posts debating the precise meaning of specific words in mathematics.
                    When that has been irrelecant to the issue being debated – i.e you were debating a giant red herring.
                    AND you were in most instances wrong – that the language of math is not so narrow as to permit only a single way to say many things.

                    Language is important. But YOU do not control it.

                  2. Why are we still debating this ?

                    You are constantly pretending I said something different than I actually said.
                    This is called LYING.

                    Link to what I actually said.

                    Your inability to get what I have said correct, suggests you can not understand what anyone says problems – not just posters here, but even the science you link to.

    4. Baker is an officer of thecourt – he is litterally the FBI counsel, it is his OBLIGATION to provide this information.

      Baker’s testimony Damn’s him.

      but he was not on trial.

      Frankly it was not good for Sussman – who Baker admitted was a friend. It looks like Baker conspired to protect his friend.

      But I would ask a bigger question.

      BEFORE Durham – why wasn’t the head counsel of the FBI refering Sussman to DOJ for prosecution for lying to him ?

      Why is it that in 6 years of investigation – in which no stone was unturned int he effort to “get Trump” based on an obvious HOAX
      Why is it that no one in the FBI, the DOJ, the Mueller team said – We were lied to – we should prosecute the LIARS ?

      Why did it take Durham asking people who were obligated to do so themselves ?

      There were numerous DOJ prosecutions for lying to the FBI – why is it that all of those were for immaterial and inconsequential lies of Republicans ?

      Further Flynn did not come the the FBI with his purported lie, nor did stone, nor did papdoluous.

      But Sussman did. No one was investigating him in 2016 ? The FBI didnot call him up and say “do you have Dirt on Trump ?”

      He knocked on their door and LIED big time – not just about who he was representing. But about the allegations he was making.

      There is a world of difference in nearly every possible way.

      Sussman committed the classic criminal lie – he lied to start a criminal investigation of others.
      He did not lie to protect himself. He did not lie while personally under investigation.

      He came forward and voluntarily without anyone compulsion Lied to law endforcement about a hoax crime.

  6. “Despite the seemingly overwhelming evidence against Sussmann”

    This is total BS.

    And Turley, despite touting his bonafides as a defense lawyer elsewhere, certainly doesn’t act like one here.

    First, Baker was the only witness, and Baker’s testimony about what Sussmann did/didn’t say has been quite inconsistent.

    Second, Sussmann was charged with violating 18 U.S. Code § 1001, on the following charge: “on or about September 19, 2016, the defendant stated to the General Counsel of the FBI that he was not acting on behalf of any client in conveying particular allegations concerning a Presidential candidate, when in truth, and in fact, and as the defendant knew well, he was acting on behalf of specific clients, namely, Tech Executive-1 and the Clinton Campaign.”

    To prove a 18 U.S. Code § 1001 violation, Durham has to show that Sussmann knowingly made a materially false statement to Baker at the 9/19 meeting.

    Even if Sussmann said what’s alleged, how could it possibly be material, given that later that day, FBI agents described the meeting as “Essentially a lawyer representing DNC and Clinto[n] brought an envelop to GC Baker this am with info that a private cyber group has identified an IP associated with Trump company (not necessarily campaign) is using a computer in a hospital in Michigan to talk to a Russian Bank”?

    1. Even if Sussmann said what’s alleged, how could it possibly be material,

      Tell it to Flynn.

      All your whining is doing is pointing out the double standard employed by the DoJ. and you personally Persecuting Flynn and letting Baker skate.

      1. If you’re too stupid to understand the difference in the statements, materiality, evidence, and pleas, that’s on you.

            1. Turely is a lawyer. His analysis lays out the double standard the DoJ is using in the two cases. You have done nothing to show Turely wrong.

              I just pointed out the flaws in Flynns persecution being discussed at the time. Materiality was just one. The FBI had the transcript of the call. Nothing Flynn said changed the way the FBI did the investigation.

              Materiality is required or not.

              I’m not the one needed a tutor. You need the tutor.

              1. “His analysis lays out the double standard the DoJ is using in the two cases.”

                It doesn’t.

                “Nothing Flynn said changed the way the FBI did the investigation.”

                Sure it did. And Mueller addressed that very issue, even though you wish to pretend that he didn’t.

                “Materiality is required or not.”

                It’s required for both.

            2. Only the non-thinking believe there was materiality in the Flynn case.

    2. Anonymous: “First, Baker was the only witness, and Baker’s testimony about what Sussmann did/didn’t say has been quite inconsistent.”
      Diogenes: Except that the text message fully supports Baker’s claim that Sussman lead him to believe that Sussman was NOT coming to the FBI “on behalf of any client.”
      Anonymous: “To prove a 18 U.S. Code § 1001 violation, Durham has to show that Sussmann knowingly made a materially false statement to Baker at the 9/19 meeting.”
      Diogenes: Sussman billed the Hillary campaign for the meeting with Baker! And Sussman was an expert in data security. Sussman had to know the information he was giving to the FBI was oppo-research baloney. He knew his source for the data, Joffe, and Joffe was working for Hillary, too. I can reasonably conjecture that Sussman expected Hillary to win, so he got sloppy trying to push this phony Alfa Bank story. He never expected to face an investigation.
      Anonymous: “Even if Sussmann said what’s alleged, how could it possibly be material, given that later that day, FBI agents described the meeting as ‘Essentially a lawyer representing DNC and Clinto[n] brought an envelop[e] to GC Baker this am with info that a private cyber group has identified an IP associated with Trump company (not necessarily campaign) is using a computer in a hospital in Michigan to talk to a Russian Bank’?”
      Diogenes: This makes no sense.

      1. “the text message fully supports Baker’s claim that Sussman lead him to believe that Sussman was NOT coming to the FBI “on behalf of any client.””

        But for all you know, THAT is the only time that Sussmann said it, not at the meeting. Sussmann was charged with saying it to Baker in person in their 9/19 meeting, not with texting it on 9/18, and if Durham were competent, he’d have asked Baker to search his communications long prior.

        “Sussman billed the Hillary campaign for the meeting with Baker!”

        Durham did not show evidence of that. All he showed was that Sussmann billed HFA for a few hours of work on the same day, but nothing linking that bill to the Baker meeting. And Sussmann billed the taxi he took to the meeting to Perkins Coie, not to HFA, when he’d have done the latter if the meeting were for HFA.

        “This makes no sense.”

        What doesn’t make sense to you? For it to be a material omission, it has to impact the FBI’s actions afterwards. How did the alleged omission impact their response?

        1. Anonymous: “But for all you know, THAT is the only time that Sussmann said it, not at the meeting.”
          Diogenes: No, the text message and the testimony under oath agree. It’s you that knows nothing.

          Anonymous: “All he showed was that Sussmann billed HFA for a few hours of work on the same day, but nothing linking that bill to the Baker meeting.”
          Diogenes: Sussman even billed the Hillary campaign for the thumb drives to carry Alfa Bank data. Check it out for yourself:

          Anonymous: “For it to be a material omission, it has to impact the FBI’s actions afterwards. How did the alleged omission impact their response?”
          Diogenes: The FBI started the Alfa investigation because of Sussman, and then FBI officials (Baker himself?) leaked the investigation to the NYT so that the NYT would print the story.

          1. “Sussman even billed the Hillary campaign for the thumb drives to carry Alfa Bank data.”

            Sussmann bought a bunch of thumb drives and billed HFA for some of them, and Durham did not in any way establish that the thumb drives that HFA was billed for were the thumb drives that Sussmann gave to Baker.

            “The FBI started the Alfa investigation because of Sussman”

            Yes, and they would have done that regardless of who he was representing or not. That’s why I asked you how the alleged false claim would be material — a question you didn’t answer.

            “FBI officials (Baker himself?) leaked the investigation to the NYT”

            No! FFS, learn the relevant details! HFA had already contacted the NYT, and Sussmann gave the FBI a heads-up that there was going to be a story about it and helped them postpone the publication. There’s no evidence that anyone at the FBI leaked it.

            1. When one looks at how Anonymous the Stupid went after Trump with no evidence, and the allegations now proven false, one recognizes ATS doesn’t have a complaint over evidence. It’s all about lying and deceiving. The rule of law in his mind doesn’t exist. He is a Stalinist.

    3. You are totally Bogus – Baker was perfectly consistent – but even that really does not matter – Sussman LIED in writing multiple times.

      Was Sussman’s Lie material ? Obviously. While you ca argue – and I agree that the FBI “knew” that Sussman was lying.

      It is still true that Had Sussman NOT lied, the investigation would have DIED. Baker said as much, the enthusiasm of the 7th floor exemplifies this.

      This is one of the problems with the left.

      The Truth does not matter, Words do.

      The FBI was able to start and continue this investigation BECAUSE Sussman of what Sussman said – not because it was True. But because what he said allowed them to to open an investigation then KNEW was bogus – so long as they never looked to deeply into the Truth.

      The mere FACT that Mueller never looked into this is PROOF of how important it was that Sussman lie.

      It is not about whether the FBI “beleived” him. It is about whehter he said what they needed to do what they wanted to do.

      And he did.

      I would have greatly prefered that Durham charge Sussman with False reporting. Who he was representing would have been unimportant.
      All that would have mattered is whether the claims made to the FBI were knowingly FALSE – and that was undeniably true.

    4. There is a much bigger lie – in fact it is “the big lie” that was told to the FBI and not prosecuted against Sussman.

      Not only did Sussman lie to the FBI when he said that he represented himself.

      He lied to the FBI when he said he was providing Evidence of Trump colluding with Russian.

      As should be self evident to Dolts like you know – that was not merely a lie – it was a HOAX, a Fraud.

      It was a Manufactured claim.
      The Steele Dossier was MANUFACTURED, the Alpha Bank data was MANUFACTURED.

      I would note that YOUR argument that the FBI KNEW that Sussman represented Clinton – means that the FBI – and Later Mueller LIED to the courts, in their warrant requests.

      And they LIED to the american people.

      You should be extremely Sad right now.

      The fact that no one will be held legally accountable for the most heinous political act in US history is very very dangerous.

      The core to the social contract – the legitimacy of government rests on adherance to the “rule of law”

      The description of The collusion delusion as an attempted Coup – is not far off.

      Nixon TRIED to get the FBI and IRS to go after his political rivals. In the end he had to settle for a small team of clowns who botched it royally.

      Clinton SUCCEEDED – not merely during the campaign but Long after in weaponizing the FBI, the CIA, the DOJ, the Intelligence community against a sitting president.

      If we were at war – this would be Treason – punishable by death, not lying to the FBI.

      If it is not self evident to you by NOW – what most of us understood when this nonsense first surfaced in 2016, that this was all a huge FRAUD.

      You claim that the FBI knew, possibly, but what the did not do is what would have been REQUIRED if they Actually Knew – was to check the credibility fo the claims being made and the people making them.

      Had Sussman told the truth the investigation would have died – because it would have required the FBI to investigate the source of the allegation FIRST.

  7. Turley we all know your agenda is dictated by Fox and that one of your little assignments is to try to defend Trump by attacking the FBI, the DOJ, Hillary Clinton and any other Democrat they tell you to go after, and to try to lend credence to the “Hunter Biden Scandal” and the “Sussman trial” as important, but the tenor of today ‘s little piece of trash hints to me that you know that there is likely to be an acquittal. So, you use the trial as an excuse to get in some licks at targets of Fox media and try to sell the idea that there was no validity to the investigation into Russia colluding with the Trump campaign to help him defeat the will of the American people, that it was all due to the Steele dossier, which isn’t the case, and that Trump will be vindicated, something else you know isn’t true. Trump never cooperated with the Mueller investigation, but if he had, what would the outcome have been? Because he didn’t cooperate, he wasn’t, and can never be, exonerated.

    This Sussman trial will never change the fundamental fact that Trump did cheat to get into the White House, that his campaign collaborated with Russian hackers to smear Hillary Clinton in key districts that could sway the Electoral College, and that the majority of Americans voted against Trump and never approved of him in 4 years’ time. Nothing will change the fact that he tried to cheat his way back into power a second time by claiming, even before Election Day and without any shred of proof, that the vainglorious landslide victory he believed he had coming was being stolen by fraud. After he failed at bullying, lying and litigation to get his way, he incited a riot, which also failed, five people died and his fans are going to prison. One of them got killed trying to force her way into the Speaker’s Lobby to prevent the peaceful transfer of power. He continues to lie to this very day and has bullied the Republican party into going along with the Big Lie, despite millions (maybe billions) being spent to salve his huge ego by trying to drum up nonexistent proof of widespread fraud that doesn’t exist. So, now, we have the Sussman trial that’s supposed to prove that Trump didn’t cheat, but that Democrats are really the ones who cheated. You know that’s not true, Turley. The Big Lie continues to be fed by the alt-right media of which you have chosen to be a part, and which continues to divide America. Just read the comments by the faithful–they’ve fallen for it. They don’t see how wrong it is for a losing candidate to continue pretending he’s in power, to continue holding rallies, continue lying, attacking the current president, and this arrogant and narcissistic basking in glory from adoring fans. No other POTUS has ever behaved like this, and you’ve decided to support this agenda. Where’s your decency, Turley?

    1. We had an entire DULY ELECTED PRESIDENTIAL ADMINISTRATION hamstrung before day 1 because of these lying criminals and you have the audacity to call out Turley? Who knows what else Trump could have done, besides record low unemployment, oil independence, record business growth, the Abraham Accords, etc.

      1. You believe lies. Trump was never LEGITIMATE because he CHEATED, which he had to do to get into office. America has never been fully energy independent, but the administrations of Obama and Biden have produced as much oil as the fat one did. It is BIDEN who has achieved record economic growth and set a record for reversing the Trump recession unemployment rate of 10+% down to less than 3.9%. Consider the starting point: Trump inherited a robust economy from Obama, which he trashed in 4 years’ time due to his utter incompetence in handling the pandemic, making it worse than it had to be by lying about the seriousness. Schools, businesses and factories were mostly shut down for about 2 years. Kids are behind in their school work. Oil production went down because school buses weren’t running, people were working from home and people weren’t going on vacation. Biden turned things around, but oil production and the supply chain haven’t caught up, and now, there’s the war in Ukraine with sanctions against Russia that has driven up the price of oil, which was artificially low due to low demand while your hero was in office because he botched the pandemic. Then, there’s the trade war Trump started with China when he couldn’t bully them, so we have a shortage of computer chips, resulting in shortages of things like automobiles, appliances, etc.. Shortages have driven up the cost of these consumer goods, contributing to inflation. Biden inherited a recession, a pandemic out of control, troops drawn down in Afghanistan from 14,000 to 2,500, shortage of computer chips, factories and schools closed down and record national debt, due to Trump’s tax cut for the wealthy. Interest on the national debt alone is a major contributor to inflation. Troops drawn down in Afghanistan caused the problems with US withdrawal, coupled with the Afghani government not being invited to participate in settlement discussions with the Taliban, so they just gave up, something Biden’s administration did not foresee. Most of the problems Biden is blamed for were caused by Trump and his incompetence, which is consistent with the long list of failed business ventures in his career.

        The “Abraham Accords” are nothing but a publicity stunt: Israel and UAE and Bahrain were already trading. So, in an effort to make the pathetic lack of achievements of the Trump administration look successful, little Jared went over there and formalized an agreement that really meant nothing because the parties were already trading. More Trump lies.

        1. Biden brought the “unemployment rate of 10+% down to less than 3.9%.”

          That’s like the arsonist-fireman taking credit for putting out the fire.

    2. natcha said the qiete part out loud

      defend Trump by attacking the FBI, the DOJ, Hillary Clinton and any other Democrat

      1. Democrat = Deluded LIARS who don’t deal in facts or truth!
        They think Joe Biden and Obama are the smartest people on the planet! And Hunter Biden was hired for his “talent”!

      2. You can’t defend Trump without lying and projecting his bad conduct, deceitfulness and incompetence onto others. Why do you Trumpsters constantly harp about Hillary Clinton, anyway? She avoids the spotlight. You don’t see her holding rallies and whining about her legitimate victory being stolen by Trump colluding with Russian hackers. Anything to get the disciples fired up with side issues to avoid the truth about Trump, the utter nonsense about the Sussman trial and the facts that the Jan 6th Committe is uncovering.

        1. “…and the facts the Jan 6th Committee is uncovering.”

          Hahahahahahahaha Facts? Hahahahahahahaha. Yeah, no.

    3. Illegal deportation is as legal and moral as illegal immigration.

      If the false president may engage in illegal acts and dereliction of duties, the people may engage in illegal acts and dereliction of laws and allegiances.

      Let’s get this party started!

    4. “attacking the FBI, the DOJ, Hillary Clinton and any other Democrat”

      Absolutely – it is objectively and undeniably true that these and more on the left have engaged in heinous and illegal conduct.

      We should hold them accountable – though that obviously will never happen – the rule of law in the US is dead.
      It will be long hard and dangerous to get it back.

      You like to rant about J6 – THINK.

      Our founders took up arms against the British – Why ?

      For much the same things we see now. Lawless govenrment, courts that can not be trusted. Government by a crazy few imposing their will on the majority by force.

      Democrats Spray the airwaves constantly with nonsense about White Supremecists as a threat.

      The threat is not from David Dukes. It is from ordinary people. It is not from white supremecists and racists, and it has nothing at all to do with race.

      It has to do with freedom – the liberty of people to live their own lives. The liberty of parents to not have thier children indoctrinated in schools.
      It is about the freedom of people to make their own medical choices in their lives.

      According to JHU the US unlike the rest of the world has NOT seen a 2nd Omicron spike. It is highly likely that is FALSE.

      What is likely true is that americans have gotten tired of this BS. They know that Covid is out there, and after 2 years they know there is little they can do about it and for most of us it is not much of a risk
      It is likely that Americans are catching Covid with the same frequency as the rest of the world – we are no longer testing to the same extent – or if we are we are doing so at home and not telling government when we test positive. We are getting sick – as those int eh rest of the world and getting better as those int eh rest of the world.

      But we have to the extent we can cut our govenrment out of the loop. We do not trust our government, the FBI, the DOJ, the CDC, the FDA, the Democrats, Clinton – all for very very good reasons.

      Get over yourselves – you have proven yourselves immoral and unethical. You are a cancer on the nation.

      We are not there quite yet, but if you continue this is where things are going.

      “Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.–Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.”

      1. “[T]he left have engaged in heinous and illegal conduct.”

        When Perkins Coie, the Clinton/DNC law firm, has an FBI “workspace” in its DC office, you know there is an incestuous relationship.

    5. Not only did the Sussman Trial prove that Hillary, Democrats, the Media, the DOJ, the FBI are hopelessly corrupt,

      But given the verdict – you have proven the rule of law is dead in the US and that our courts and juries – atleast in DC are untrustworthy and lawless.

      You may think the verdict was a good thing – but it was a very bad thing.

      Had the Jury followed the facts and the law – there was hope that the country could be fixed inside the law.

      Instead tens of millions of americans are painfully aware that The country is lawless, and there is no end to the ethical corruption of the left.

      You tried to compare Hillary to Trump .

      We should absolutely do that.

      Hillary DID behave morally bankrupt. Trump did not.
      In fact Hillary FRAMED Trump.

      1. I think the jury paid closer attention to all of the evidence presented in the trial than you did. They did “follow the facts and the law.” You’re the one who doesn’t want to. You would have been rejected as a possible juror, because the jury has to base its judgment solely on the evidence presented at the trial, not on things they’ve read elsewhere, not on prejudgements about the defendant’s guilt, not on alleged crimes that weren’t charged, …

        1. ATS just admitted that John Say was correct about Sussman. Indirectly he adds that information was not permitted to go in front of the jury that may have made the jury decide differently. Finally ATS thinks that John would ” have been rejected as a possible juror, because the jury has to base its judgment solely on the evidence presented at the trial, not on things they’ve read elsewhere, not on prejudgements about the defendant’s guilt”. However, ATS says nothing about the three Clinton donors on the jury along with a teammate of Hillary’s daughter.

          Hypocrisy is spelled ATS.

          1. This Jury was no going to decide this case differently.

            The odds of Durham ever getting a conviction for a democrat jay walking from a DC jury is NIL.

            I have a problem with 18 USC 1001. Lying to the FBI should not be a crime.
            When you lie to law enforcement – you make yourself a SUSPECT, that is the correct punishment.

            But False reporting is a Crime.

            There is a pretty good editorial by Andrew MacCarthy on this.
            MacCarthy says that Durham’s strategy was wrong. That he argued the FBI was easily Duped.
            It would have been better if he argued the FBI was Complicit.

            The FBI was OBVIOUSLY complicit. But Durham has thus far avoided serious allegations of criminal corruption or political bias against government.

            They are obviously there.

            I do not know that Baker knew Sussman was lying. I suspect he did.

            But it was Critical for Baker to be able to document that Sussman was not representing a client – otherwise the allegation did not have sufficient credibility to open an investigation -with out investigating those who made the allegation first.

            One of the Proiblems with the Durham investigation is that the greatest misconduct was by the FBI and DOJ and Mueller.

            Baker pointed out the problem when he responded that he never provided evidence to Durham because he was not asked

            It was not merely his duty to do so- without being asked – it was his duty to enquire as to whether he was being lied to FROM THE START.

            One of the great and obvious “Crimes” here is that the FBI opened an investigation, continued it into the Trump presidency, and then it was continued by the Special counsel for 2 years.

            When the entire foundation was a HOAX.

            Why did it take the appointment of a Special Counsel ?

            The FBI, DOJ, SC spent years trying desparately to prove that what they had to know was a hoax, what they were REQUIRED to figure out was a hoax was somehow true.

            Clinton played a dirty trick – that was NOT a crime.
            Selling it to the FBI was a crijme.

        2. This is NONSENSE.

          The FACTS are tririval.

          The Steele Dossier was a HOAX, the Alpha Bank nonsense was a HOAX.

          Are you actually itnerested in debating that now ?

          Sussman broaught these HOAXES to the FBI claiming they were credible allegations of a crime.

          If I go to the FBI and claim YOU have sent child porn over the internet, and provide them with a USB drive of doctored network logs as evidence do you think a Jury is not going to hang me by my nuts ?

          Durham lied to the FBI. That is beyond any doubt. The lie about whether he had a client was only one of several lies.

          Further Sussman was not merely a lawyer – on officer of the court, but a lawyer with access to the corridors of power. He bore higher far more responsibility for his acts than I would.

          Did the FBI know on day one – Sussman was lying ? I think the evidence is pretty good that they did not.

          But that is actually not relevant.

          While this is an unusual case – because the FBI was obviously politically corrupt.

          Materiality is not determined by whether the FBI Knew Sussman was lying.
          It is determined by what they would have done had he not lied.

          Sussman lied, and the FBI needed him to lie – or the investigation would have been of the SOURCE first
          Though one wonders why it took Durham to finally look into the SOURCES

          I would further note the Jury foreman aleady stated they did not decide based on the evidence.
          They decided based on THEIR oppinion of whether the case was important.

          I fully support Jury nullification and this is absolutely jury nullification.
          Lets not pretend otherwise.

          But it is very bad jury nullification.

          They did not decide the law was wrong.

          They decided that Democrats can not be prosecuted in DC.

          They gave the country the finger.

          It is inarguable that a crime was committed – not merely Sussman’s lie to the FBI – but the entire collusion delusion fiasco.

          And this jury said that was not important – in otherwords – it is OK to prosecute republicans using total garbage as the basis,
          But prosecute a democrat for manufacturing the garbage – no way.

    6. Has any other Potus behaved as lawless as Trump ?

      How did Trump act lawlessly ?

      I can name dozens of ways that Biden or Obama (or clinton) behaved lawlessly.

      One of the fundimental differences between the left and right, is the right follows the law. When they do not like it they change it, They draft and pass new laws.

      The left ignores the law when the do not like it – openly.

      I do not agree with all of the laws of this country. I agree with some of the changes the left wants.

      But when you are elected president or AG or DA or Judge … you SWEAR to uphold the law and constitution – not the laws you like.

      If you steal – you are to be arrested prosecuted convicted and jailed.

      If we do not like the sentences or the laws – change them.

      If you riot – you are to be arrested prosecuted convicted and jailed.

      If we do not like the sentences or the laws – change them.

      If you are a judge – and your conduct varies depending on the politics of the defendants – you should never have been a judge and you should be impeached and removed.

      If you are president – you are obligated to enforce the immigration laws of the country.
      If you do not like them – CHANGE THEM.

      If you are governor – you are obligated to enforce the election laws of the country.
      If you do not like them – CHANGE THEM.

      But the left does not do that. The left today is LAWLESS.

      And ultimately one way or the other the results will be total disaster.

      There are many things that can happen going forward.

      I would note to YOU – that left wing nut government is as likely if not more so to punish those on the left who deviate from dogma as those on the right who openly oppose them.

      Russia under Lenin and Stalin did not mostly send REAL dissidents to the gulags. ait sent those who found themselves on the wrong side of Lenin or Stalin’s latest whims.

      Much the same happened In Mao’s China.

      Look at our academic institutions – it is not the few conservative professors being “canceled” or fired. It is the insufficiently dogmatic Left.

      You make enemies of JRR Rowling, Joe Rogan, David Rubin Jordan Peterson, Elon Musk, Alan Derschowitz – you are slowly red pilling Turley.
      These are people who SHOULD be your hero’s.

      Yet, you call them right wing nazi’s.

      I have warned you that the next J6 could be 15,000 conservatives with AR-15;s.

      But it is probably more likely that you will self destruct or that you will become ever more despotic.

      As Mao said all power comes from the barrel of a gun.
      The question in the the future is whether hat will be the gun of left wing not despots or not.

  8. I am losing interest in the affairs of humans. I will live off the land like Grizzly Adams and befriend woodland creatures.


    Have faith, good people.

    The Deep Deep State is on a working-vacation in Davos.

    The Deep Deep State is working as hard as it ever has, and focused like a laser, on building the Centrally-Planned, Means-of-Production-Controlled, Wealth-Redistributed and Socially-Engineered future of mankind.

    Do remember to purchase your Chinese-batteried, electric car, and keep your wrist barcodes accessible at all times.

    The U.S. judicial branch has been assigned the case of the Obama Coup D’etat in America; it is in good hands.

    The judicial branch has adjudicated from the bench, through the execution of the extremely effective juridical tactics of control of venue, control of evidence and and control of testimony (what else is there?).

    Sorry, America, Super Chameleon Durham won’t be a national hero, merely the administrator of the colossal and historic whitewash of the Obama Coup D’etat in America.

    The Durham Debacle will be reminiscent of the Warren Commission’s Magnam Mendacium with respect to the JFK assassination.

    Not to worry.

    There is a God.

    Order will prevail.

    The “Swamp” of the Deep Deep State of global communism will retain dominion.

    Nothing to see here, move along, folks.

    “We are five days away from fundamentally transforming the United States of America.”

    – Barack Obama

    “We will stop him.”

    – Peter Strzok to FBI paramour Lisa Page

    “[Obama] wants to know everything we’re doing.”

    – Lisa Page to FBI paramour Peter Strzok

    “I want to believe the path you threw out for consideration in Andy’s office — that there’s no way he gets elected — but I’m afraid we can’t take that risk It’s like an insurance policy in the unlikely event you die before 40.”

    – Peter Strzok to FBI parmour Lisa Page

    “People on the 7th floor to include Director are fired up about this [Trump] server.”

    – Bill Priestap

    The Obama Coup D’etat in America is the most egregious abuse of power and the most prodigious crime in American political history. The co-conspirators are:

    Kevin Clinesmith, Bill Taylor, Eric Ciaramella, Rosenstein, Mueller/Team, Andrew Weissmann,

    James Comey, Christopher Wray, McCabe, Strozk, Page, Laycock, Kadzic, Sally Yates,

    James Baker, Bruce Ohr, Nellie Ohr, Priestap, Kortan, Campbell, Sir Richard Dearlove,

    Christopher Steele, Simpson, Joseph Mifsud, Alexander Downer, Stefan “The Walrus” Halper,

    Azra Turk, Kerry, Hillary, Huma, Mills, Brennan, Gina Haspel, Clapper, Lerner, Farkas, Power,

    Lynch, Rice, Jarrett, Holder, Brazile, Sessions (patsy), Nadler, Schiff, Pelosi, Obama,

    Joe Biden, James E. Boasberg, Emmet Sullivan, Gen. Milley, George Soros, John McCain,

    Marc Elias, Igor Danchenko, Fiona Hill, Charles H. Dolan, Jake Sullivan, Strobe Talbot,

    Cody Shear, Victoria Nuland, Ray “Red Hat” Epps, Don Berlin, Kathy Ruemmler, Rodney Joffe,

    Paul Vixie, L. Jean Camp, Andrew Whitney et al.

  10. Really maddening how the Clinton campaign, the FBI, and the press colluded against a political opponent. They justify it by saying that Trump was dangerous and had to be taken out, and many Democrats really do not care one bit how it was done. But Trump wasn’t the dangerous one.

    1. They justify it by saying that Trump was dangerous and had to be taken out,

      No that was the narrative. Trump never posed a threat. This plan was going to be used no matter who the Republican candidate was. This is the way the modern Democrat Party operates. Never forget, Obama has never stood for election. Check out his house election and his Senate election.

      Thjis is just some small time Dem shenanigans, but still an example of their disdain for the people, and principles of democracy. Power by any means.

      “We don’t give a shit if it’s unfair,” he explains to those in attendance. “We gotta get this done. We gotta do it now or we’re going to lose 7%. ”

    2. The ends do not justify the means – ever.

      And worse to justify evil acts by SUBJECTIVE judgements.

      I did not vote fro Trump ever. But there is no way that he ever was more of a threat than Obama Hillary of Biden.

  11. The radicals must be held accountable for what they are. What kind of mind will tell us how dangerous the parents of Virginia are for wanting to know what their children are being taught? What kind of mind tells us that these parents are domestic terrorist? What kind of mind will perpetuate a Russian hoax in order to stay in power? What kind of mind is so convinced that their philosophy is so correct it is willing to destroy freedom of speech to further its control of us all? The so-called domestic terrorist that we are told to fear don’t hold a candle to the radicals who sit in plush leather chairs in Washington D.C. what kind of mind has been taught to think that any and all actions are justified to meet its ends? The answer to these questions is that those who possess these minds are the real socialist radicals of our age. What are they willing to do? Their actions tell the truth. “ Day by day, month by month, doubt by doubt, law and order became fascism; education, constraint; work, alienation; revolution, mere sport; leisure, a privilege of class; marijuana, a harmless weed; family, a stifling hothouse; affluence, oppression; success, a social disease; sex, an innocent pastime; youth, a permanent tribunal; maturity, the new senility; discipline, an attack on personality; Christianity . . . and the West . . . and white skin.” The real domestic terrorist holds the gavel at the socialist political convention. It should be fully understood what kinds of minds these are.

    1. The best you can hope for is a red wave in November – and even that will not be of the scale it should be.

      No one will be held accountable for this – an though I think we have hit “peak woke” – there will be no consequences for the immoral, unethical and often illegal actions of the left.

      The US left is NEVER held accountable, and that is not going to change.

      It is odd – but Joe MacCarthy – the Evil Republican pushing better dead than red, looks presciently correct today.

      Marxism – or the current postmodern permutation is CANCEROUS. It is a vile destructive ideology.
      Marxism resulted in more deaths in the 20th century than any other ideology EVER.

      Today – Post modernism – the identity politics permutation of marxism is working hard to do as much damage.

      It is going to take decades to clean the mess that progressives have done to our system and it is going to take just short of war to do so.

      Our Campuses are still taking students and severly damaging them. Though the process starts in public schools.

      These problems are not easily fixed. And far to much of the reigns of power are in the hands of a tiny portion of the population that does not represent the people.

Comments are closed.