The acquittal of Clinton campaign lawyer Michael Sussmann has been the subject of furious debate among politicians and pundits. Some have argued that the case collapsed from lack of evidence while others have alleged that prosecutors faced as biased judge and jury. For his part, Sussmann claimed that the jury found that “I told the truth.” The truth is more complex and few would assume that the verdict was based on Sussmann’s veracity. However, a statement from a juror immediately after the verdict fueled speculation of the impact of juror bias. According to the Washington Times’ Jeff Mordock, the juror reportedly said “I don’t think it should have been prosecuted. There are bigger things that affect the nation than a possible lie to the FBI.” If that statement had been made during voir dire, it is likely that the juror would have been challenged.
Before the verdict, some of us noted the adverse elements for the prosecution. Few would honestly question that trying a Clinton campaign lawyer in a city that voted over 90 percent for Clinton was not an advantage for the defense. The same is true for some cases tried in conservative areas. In this case, prosecutors challenged some jurors but were overruled by Judge Christopher Cooper. I believe that the court was wrong on a couple of those rulings. In the end, the prosecution was faced with a jury that contained three Clinton donors, an AOC donor, and a woman whose daughter played on the same team as Sussmann’s daughter. As I previously said, that does not mean that the jurors could not be impartial.
The prosecutors were also hit with a series of adverse rulings by the judge that limited the scope of evidence and examinations. That denied the prosecution the ability to show how the campaign knowingly pushed unsupported claims.
Nevertheless, I noted at the outset that “this is not an easy case to prove.” There was overwhelming evidence, in my view, that Sussmann lied to conceal his work with the Clinton campaign. Yet, the defense did a good job in attacking elements like materiality in how the allegedly false statement impacted the FBI.
The juror statement is not something that is likely to be raised with the court. The juror could have still rendered an unbiased decision despite viewing the prosecution as much to do about nothing. If such a statement were made during voir dire, it would have been viewed as more serious as a preexisting view that could impact the impartiality of the juror.
In the end, there is no proof of actual juror nullification. While the evidence of lying seems overwhelming to some of us, there were interstitial questions on how the lying impacted the investigation. Yet, I believe that the court undermined the prosecution in a number of its rulings. Moreover, there is a legitimate concern over how this trial was handled as opposed to the trial of figures like Michael Flynn in the same courthouse.
The more important issue following this verdict is whether Special Counsel John Durham will be allowed to release a public report on his overall findings. Democrats previously demanded such a report from Special Counsel Robert Mueller. Some even demanded the release without redactions, including grand jury material. In the end, a report was released with a comparably small number of redactions. The same should be true with Durham. This trial resulted in the release of new information, but it is clear that Durham was strictly limited in what he could reveal at trial. The public has a legitimate interest in a full account of these findings, as it did after the Mueller investigation.
Perjury and false statement cases are generally only brought when the evidence of deception is overwhelming. The cases most often turn on whether the deception was meaningful, material to an actual case. In this case the evidence that Sussmann deceived anyone was extremely thin. The argument that the notional deception was material to anything was even weaker.
Durham’s probe has gone on more than a year longer than the Mueller probe it was purportedly investigating. And it’s biggest “get” was this absurd indictment that was ignominiously tossed.. This was never a true investigation or prosecution. It was always a political assignment created by Bill Barr for the benefit of Donald Trump. Corrupt from the first moment, fruit of the poison tree.
Exactly +100
I agree +100
Natacha replies to Svelaz within minutes. Dennis is feverishly posting within the same time frame.
These DNC paid trolls are not even pretending anymore.
🤡
Are you an RNC paid troll?
Yours are the only opinions that require the aid of graft to push them forward.
They still believe Trump is a “Russian agent” and account for most of CNN’s audience. This bogus acquittal is the best news they have had for over a year, hence the misplaced triumphant tone.
Durham’s probe has gone on more than a year longer than the Mueller probe it was purportedly investigating. And it’s biggest “get” was this absurd indictmen
Which is far greater than anything Mueller did.
Mueller’s team had multiple convictions — Gates, Papadopoulos, Stone, Manafort, am I forgetting anyone?
You are forgetting or ignoring all the convictions had nothing to do with Muellers investigation of Trump and his campaign conspiring with Russia.
Durham exposed the FBI was involved in spreading the Russia hoax and tied Clinton to the creation of that hoax.
All of them horrible abuses. Manafort might’ve been guilty but justice was abused in the way it was handled. Gates who I believed was uninvolved with Trump got tied in because of Manafort.
Papadopoulos was a ridiculous charge, but sometimes it is easier to agree with despots then fight them.
You are so full of gas, you shouldn’t be near an open flame.
@Dennis,
Do you remember OJ’s trial?
Clearly not.
Everyone knew he was guilty.
He was found not guilty… because of the glove.
Turley is pointing out the evidence that we know and have seen, wasn’t allowed in court.
Jurors who shouldn’t have been seated were seated.
-G
G,
Durham stated:
“While we are disappointed in the outcome, we respect the jury’s decision and thank them for their service.”
Case closed.
These jurors maliciously ignored the facts, even with written evidence of Sussman lying to the FBI/DOJ (“I’m coming on a personal”) and the proven facts showing that the Russia story was a concocted lie by the DNC and HRC campaign. When one of the jurors admits it’s just a “lie and there are more important things to consider” we realize that they are ignorant and inadequate jurors. Their job is not to consider “other important things” but only the fact pattern that proved he willfully lied to the FBI.
They are certainly a jury of Sussman’s peers – politically-motivated, ignorant people with no respect for the law or ethics and morals. That’s why they’re Dems, just like Sussman.
Were you there in the court room? There are rules as to what “evidence” can be admitted.
The last 6+ years has been like watching an outbreak of tornadoes from a slow-moving, anti-Trump supercell inflict massive damage on our country. The Mueller storm chasers focused on the damage (they didn’t look up) and the Durham storm chasers focused on the supercell and the tornadoes it spawned (they looked up). Flynn was a victim of the former and Durham proved Sussman was spawned by the former. Durham has now shifted attention away from the debris and onto the supercell.
Margot Cleveland says it very well:
And there was little trust left after the FBI launched Crossfire Hurricane on the most ridiculous of pretexts; after text messages revealed Lisa Page and Peter Strzok’s anti-Trump sentiments drove the Crossfire Hurricane team members; after the FBI and DOJ obtained four court surveillance orders based on fraud and then illegally surveilled Carter Page; after fired FBI Director James Comey leaked to the press, via an attorney friend, memos he had written following meetings with then-President Trump, to prompt the appointment of a different special counsel; and after FBI agent William Barnett told investigators that he believed Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s office used the prosecution of Gen. Michael Flynn “to get Trump.”
The special counsel’s prosecution of Sussmann offered an opportunity for the country to see at least a small acknowledgment that the politicization of the FBI would not be tolerated. Instead, Americans witnessed confirmation by former FBI agents, the OIG, and the DC jury that the FBI is theirs, not ours.
https://thefederalist.com/2022/06/01/the-special-counsel-proved-the-fbi-belongs-to-the-swamp/
Succinct and to the point – thank you for this!
Thanks Richard. Molly gets it and explains it like no other.
Olly,
Just as the failure of the Mueller investigation to establish a criminal conspiracy has been exploited by Trumpists to falsely claim that it was a witch-hunt, NeverTrumpers similarly will disingenuously exploit the Sussmann exoneration as proof that the Durham investigation was a wild-goose chase.
NeverTrumpers similarly will disingenuously exploit the Sussmann exoneration as proof that the Durham investigation was a wild-goose chase.
Oh, why not. Mueller completed his investigation and was checkmated in the end. Durham lost a pawn in his opening move. Of course NeverTrumpers are going to celebrate. They haven’t proven to be that bright and they certainly don’t think strategically. We’ll see who is celebrating when Durham is finished.
Stay tuned.
Olly,
As much as I may disagree with your views, at least they are cogent unlike most Trumpists here particularly S.Meyer and John B. Say.
You would be wise to be a little more guarded in your assertions about the fruits of the Mueller investigation. There is more yet to be revealed. I refer you to Team M’s heavily redacted final report which clearly evidences collusion with an ostensible Russian agent:
https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/22039718-051322_-_team_m_-_response
If Durham’s investigation does not lead to the conviction of more or, at least, as many people as Mueller’s, won’t NeverTrumpers be entitled to claim that the Trumpists *lied* about the existence of a “Deep State engaging in a coup d’etat. After all, Trumpists *falsely* charge that NeverTrumpers *lied* that there *was* a criminal conspiracy with Russian agents when, in fact, we just wanted Mueller to discover *if* there was.
Durham;s investigation has already been far more damning than Crossfire Huricane or Mueller.
Durham not only DESTROYS Crossfire Huricane and the SC investigation,
But he obliterates even Horowitz’s claim that there was no political bias.
Sussman’s deffense LITTERALY is
I lied,
They knew I lied.
But they pretended I did not and investigated a hoax anyway.
Whether Sussman was found guillty of not the FBI is between a rock and a hard place – they were either Criminally negligent, or criminally biased. Or Both.
You do not seem to grasp that Durham PROVED what Horowitz was reluctant to say – that this ebntire mess was corrupt and politically motivated from the start.
And your still hoping against Hope that readin betweent he lines of the Mueller report than inuendo in an investigation that has long ago crumbled to dust that somewhere in those tea leaves is something to save your ass.
Grow up – many of us KNEW this whole thing was nonsense from the start, though how incredibly large a pile of horeschiff it was is still shocking.
Just as many of us KNEW that the Biden syndicate was CORRUPT – which is pretty much self evident.
We have a REAL allegation of a REAL crime – VP Biden selling his office to the rich and powerful accross the world with Hunter serving as his agent
That has no actual investigation, no special counsel, no FBI or DOJ inquiry.
And yet we WASTED massive effort – by the house by the senate, by the FBI and DOJ and SC and the press – nearly every reporter in the country and many many more to investigate and wait brethlessly for the proof that a Hoax was actually real.
It was a HOAX – have you not yet grasped that ?
From day one you would have to be stupid to beleive that a Billionarie would go hat in hand to Putin to get a few idiotic campaign adds, when you could have written a small check to Cambridge Analytica to get far better results for far less risk. And you would have ot be an even bigger idiot to beleive that Putin would work to elect a president who promised policies that would universally be harmful to russia.
And you are STILL hoping against hope for proof of russian collusion ?
We have actual proof that the Clinton campaign colluded with the FBI.
We have actual proof that the Clinton campaign MA?NUFACTURED false allegations.
And to he extent it is humanly possible we have PROOF that Trump did not collude with Russia – because we have had the most massive public and press investigation of that possibility that has ever occured and they turned up NADA.
Your Mueler hints nonsense is the Same type of HOAX idiocy that started all this.
It is me telling the FBI you are a pedophile and expecting that it is YOUR life not mine that is going to be ruined.
But in DC – if I am a democrat and you are a republican – that is exactly what would happen.
And that i why DC is lawless.
Why the Rule of law has broken down and why You are still idiotically a part of its destruction.
I hope that you are never the target of a baseless allegation and have your life torn apart by fraudulent claims intended to destroy you.
But unfortunately that appears to be the only way you will learn why we have a 4th amendment and why government can not investigate whatever it pleases,
And WHY lying to trigger and investigation is prima fascia ALWAYS a crime.
John, leftist Democrats like Jeff Silberman are down with hoaxes and liars because they themselves are hoaxers and liars, and of low moral character. That’s why they continue to believe hoaxes and liars – it makes them not feel like they’re not the only ones. “Birds of a feather flock together.”
The social contract does not work unless most people – particularly those in power are not moral.
“. . . that the FBI is theirs, not ours.”
It must be nice to have personal, extrajudicial law enforcement agency.
It must be nice to have personal, extrajudicial law enforcement agency.
No doubt. That is until that abuse of power comes calling for you.
“That is until that abuse of power comes calling for you.”
“That won’t happen. Will it?” (Robespierre)
Here is the ideal purpose of the law:
The law is the organization of the natural right of lawful defense. It is the substitution of a common force for individual forces. And this common force is to do only what the individual forces have a natural and lawful right to do: to protect persons, liberties, and properties; to maintain the right of each, and to cause justice to reign over us all. Frederic Bastiat
Here is the reality of how it currently functions:
But, unfortunately, law by no means confines itself to its proper functions. And when it has exceeded its proper functions, it has not done so merely in some inconsequential and debatable matters. The law has gone further than this; it has acted in direct opposition to its own purpose. The law has been used to destroy its own objective: It has been applied to annihilating the justice that it was supposed to maintain; to limiting and destroying rights which its real purpose was to respect. The law has placed the collective force at the disposal of the unscrupulous who wish, without risk, to exploit the person, liberty, and property of others. It has converted plunder into a right, in order to protect plunder. And it has converted lawful defense into a crime, in order to punish lawful defense. Frederic Bastiat
“The law has been used to destroy its own objective: It has been applied to annihilating the justice that it was supposed to maintain; to limiting and destroying rights which its real purpose was to respect.”
That is spot on. And that is America today. (As just one example, see the pandemic “laws.”)
Government cannot control the innocent. So authoritarians and tyrants pass so many laws, with countless laws being open-ended and vague — that everyone becomes a potential “criminal.” And them you can control.
I’m reminded . .
https://twitter.com/AKA_RealDirty/status/1289958396788199424?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1289958396788199424%7Ctwgr%5E%7Ctwcon%5Es1_c10&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.thegatewaypundit.com%2F2022%2F02%2Fflashback-top-obama-adviser-valerie-jarrett-refuses-answer-obama-directed-criminal-spying-trump-video%2F
@Sam,
Yes there’s that bias against anyone who doesn’t wear a letter D on their shirt.
The interesting thing… Barr recently made a comment about ‘sedition’.
More and more things are coming to light.
There are things that were raised by the charge against Sussman, regardless of the outcome that could come in to play down the road.
I wonder if Turley will do an article on the statute of limitations and then the impact if a conspiracy is alleged and somewhat proven?
Its also interesting that Turley didn’t point out that regardless if there was jury nullification… in a criminal trial where there is an acquittal… there’s no recourse.
-G
The government CAN appeal an adverse verdict, just like any other litigant, but it has to have some grounds other than Trump needs vindication. The government rarely does appeal, but in the state where I live, the state has successfully appealed adverse judgments and court rulings. However, in the absence of an appeal, Sussman cannot be charged again due to double jeopardy. The case was flimsy from the get-go and was politically motivated, as Turley well knows.
“The government CAN appeal an adverse verdict, just like any other litigant,”
Not an innocent jury verdict.
You are correct. I wasn’t as clear as I could have been. The government could appeal any adverse rulings on evidence or anything else–for instance, jury instructions— that the government claims is reversible error that resulted in the acquittal. Judges have very broad discretion in ruling on the admissibility of evidence and if instructions were covered by the evidence, that’s not a ground for reversal, so this is not usually a route that is taken. However, I have seen it succeed in my ruby-red state. Also, the government could appeal a challenge for cause of a juror that the court overruled.
Natch. You still aren’t clear. The government cannot appeal an acquittal by a jury.
You aren’t understanding me. The government would be appealing adverse rulings by the judge that it would claim resulted in the acquittal. It’s called “reversible error”. Such rulings could include challenges to jurors for cause, rulings on evidence, rulings on motions and final instructions. That’s what i said.
No you are still wrong.
You call it a” reversible error”
An Acquittal cannot be reversed. Double jeopardy attaches with the reading of the verdict. A judge can reverse a guilty verdict, or more accurately set aside a guilty verdict.
You don’t know what you’re talking about. If a judge has committed reversible error in ruling on things like challenges for cause to a juror, evidence or instructions, then the verdict can be set aside. That’s what the word “reversible” means–it means an error so flagrant as to warrant reversing the verdict and judgment. BTW: a jury verdict must be reduced to a judgment by the judge.. In any event, there’s no reversible error here.
I should clarify further: appeals for acquittal can be had in state court if state law allows when there’s reversible error, but not federal court. I didn’t follow this case at all: was it in state or federal court?
You must be confusing civil law and criminal law.
This isCriminal law, a Jury acquittal is final
Clearly a biased juror.
However when it comes to Jury Nullification… there is nothing one can do when the result is an acquittal.
Based on the Evidence, Sussman should have been found guilty. Cooper, while within his purview, put his finger on the scale.
What is interesting is the following:
1) Durham brought only a single charge against Sussman. (I’d wager there’s more out there)
2) Yesterday Gaetz went on Tucker C’s show and talked about an FBI office within Sussman’s law firm.
One as to ask… was Durham’s end game a guilty verdict, or is there more behind the scenes?
I’ve also heard that Judge Cooper’s wife has served as legal counsel to DOJ attorney Lisa Page, of Strzok & Page – FBI Lovebirds.
Don’t forget. Sussmann is just a concerned citizen who said he wasn’t representing anyone when he went to the FBI and then he billed the Clinton campaign for his time and the two thumb drives that he handed over to the Clinton employees on the seventh floor of the J. Edgar Hoover building. Regardless of the outcome of the trial the public understands exactly what went on. The Democrats are trying to tell us that they are losing popularity because of the state of the economy but it’s not just the economy. It’s things like this trial, grooming children in elementary school, forming a ministry of truth, investigating parents as domestic terrorist and concocting stories to say that Donald Trump was a spy that have exposed what they really are. They blame their down fall on an economy that is out of their control but it’s not just the economy stupid.
The public has no idea what was said in this trial. The Mickey Mouse Evening News with David Muir, the most watched news source in the United States, made no mention of this trial ever before last night when Muir reported that Sussmann was found innocent and that the charge that Trump kept a secret link with Putin through Alfa Bank was true
“The acquittal of Clinton campaign lawyer Michael Sussmann . . .”
The moral of the story:
Run a con to topple a president, and you too can go free — if you’re a “D.” If you’re an “R,” you’re screwed — for doing something-or-other.
In Washington it appears that even the judges engage in jury tampering.
The rule of law in America–and America itself–is on life support when veracity is no long seen as important. Sad sad that FBI has morphed into a modern-day version of a secret police organization under an authoritarian regime. Our enemies are chomping at the bit.
Jonathan: I had a high school baseball coach who told my teammates after a heartbreaking loss to a rival cross-town team: “Guys, I know how you feel. It was a bad loss. But let’s not dwell on the past. Let’s work even harder next week so we will be better prepared for next week’s game. We often learn more from our losses than our wins”. Sage advice. But you won’t let go of Durham’s failure to get a conviction in the Sussmann trial. You say: (1) Sussman lied; (2) adverse rulings from Judge Cooper; and (3) Durham had to try the case in a city “that voted 90% for Clinton”. Q: Why didn’t Durham ask for a change in venue?
You know trial lawyers often get adverse rulings from a judge and they don’t always get the jury they would have preferred. It’s part of the process. Trial lawyers are often satisfied if they win over 50% of their cases. 500 ball in high school baseball ain’t bad–at least at my high school. Some of us on my team were nerds–although my coach told me I might have a future in AAA ball. I decided instead to go to college. Had you been my high school coach I suspect you might have said something quite different after our loss: “Guys, were were robbed of this game! Did you see? The home plate umpire was blind or maybe worse. I think he gave the winning run to the other team because his daughter is dating the son of the other coach.”
You spent a lot of column space pushing the conspiracy theory that the Clinton campaign engineered a conspiracy to get the FBI to frame Donald Trump. Durham failed in his attempt to prove Sussmann lied. Durham has graciously accepted his defeat. Why can’t you?
Denny So you still just believe that it is a conspiracy that the Dems attempted a coup against DT? The OJ jury pool gets deeper and the gene poll is shrinking badly. This jury and judge are pathetic, and the rule of law is now gone in America. But it will soon be resurrected bout Aug til Oct 31.
Turley is paid to criticize anything other than a guilty verdict, facts and perspective be damned.
In Dennis’ world of propaganda, the truth is always a conspiracy.
Someone should tell Martha Stuart so she could try and get back the year she lost serving time at Alderson
So if one person is innocent, then all people are innocent?
Same sort of excuse given when President Clinton perjured himself. Way too many Democrats shrugged off the lie.
There are really big problems affecting the nation–one of the biggest is Truth. If we were honest with ourselves about a lot of things, this ship of state would stop taking on water.
Like Republicans shrugged off Bush’s lies about WMDs in Iraq?
Yep, that was a problem, too.
Rose,
I’m on the record stating that I was in favor of impeaching and convicting Clinton. A lie under oath is perjury regardless of the subject matter. I admired Turley’s stance then and do not question his stance on impeachment now. Unlike a Trumpist, he believes in the rule of law. However, in the face of the Sussmann verdict, Fox News is pushing the false narrative that there is a two-tiered judicial system:
https://video.foxnews.com/v/6307070903112/
Turley would NEVER subscribe to that lie.
More evidence — if you needed it — that we’re not a nation of laws anymore. We’re screwed.
I consideration of the fact that the FBI lies to the public , myself included all of the time and never once have I seen anything come of that. With the FBI refusing to investigate Judicial Corruption coast to coast, apparently it is a case of mind over matter, whereas they don’t mind because we the public don’t matter. .
Isn’t lying to the FBI precisely what they convicted Roger Stone of doing?
Under Democrat Authoritarian Rule (as opposed to Rule of Law), it’s only a crime when ________ fill in the blanks.
Nope. Stone was convicted of witness tampering.
If we used the same standards in Stone’s trial, Sussman might have gotten life imprisonment.
And if I had wheels I’d be a wagon. What’s your point?
Anomaly,
And if you had a brain…
That would be an improvement. At least wagons are useful.
Since DC corruption of the federal govt is the current topic, this applies
In response to a letter sent by Rep. Matt Gaetz and Jim Jordan, Perkins Coie, the legal arm of the DNC and Hillary Clinton, admitted they have been operating an FBI workspace in their Washington D.C. office since 2012. Pay attention to that date, it matters.
That interesting. 2012 ?
The start date of 2012 is important for several reasons, not the least of which is FISA presiding Judge Rosemary Collyer criticizing the scale and scope of unlawful FBI database access going back to exactly 2012. Keep in mind a FISA-702 search, is simply an unlawful FBI warrantless electronic search of an American (“702” represents the American citizen) into the central database -maintained by the NSA- that contains all electronic data and communication.
https://theconservativetreehouse.com/blog/2022/05/31/breaking-the-fbi-maintains-a-workspace-including-computer-portal-inside-the-law-firm-of-perkins-coie-the-ramifications-are-significant/#more-233701
As bad as this is, you must understand that these illegal 702 searches have been going on for 14 years. At least four audits of four different time spans, with no change.
Chief Justice John Roberts the man overseeing the FISA judges, has done nothing to throttle the abuse. That a lowly DC judge is flagrantly abusing his power, is barely worth noticing, given the abuse Justice Roberts is encouraging through his intentional neglect.
I wouldn’t be surprised if there’s a lot left out from that article given the fact that it came from Rumble. A site rife with conspiracy theories as nutty as they come.
Svelaz read the article and review the documents. Also the admission of Perkins Coie having a FBI work station in their office. Also the fact that FISA judges have documented of 70% of 702 searches are ilegal, and by FBI contractors.
Perkins Cioe, DNC lawyers
FBI work space in their offices
Illegal 702 lookup originating from FBI contractors
Nothing in that article shows that the illegal lookups were done by the law firm. It’s purely conjecture. All it says is that they shared workspace.
That could also mean they were coordinating with the FBI regarding the Russian hacks of the DNC emails which did occur.
That could also mean they were coordinating with the FBI regarding the Russian hacks of the DNC emails which did occur.
The coordination or the alleged hack by the Russians?
It’s a curious thing that the FBI was so concerned with the Russians interfering with our 2016 election, that they went scorched Earth on the Trump campaign based on unverifiable intel. But when it came to the investigation into the alleged Russian hack of the DNC email, they outsourced it to Crowdstrike, a private company working for the DNC, and then just took their word for it.
I understand that after 6+ years of being proven wrong that you would cling bitterly to a perceived win. The Sussman trial is as much a win as the taking of the first pawn in a chess match.
Iowan2,
“ It’s a curious thing that the FBI was so concerned with the Russians interfering with our 2016 election, that they went scorched Earth on the Trump campaign based on unverifiable intel.”
It’s their primary job. They are in the business of investigation. The Russians did hack the DNC servers. That’s not in dispute.
“ One lone hacker has tried to take credit for the recent breach of the Democratic National Committee, calling it “easy.” But some security researchers aren’t convinced.
On Monday, security company Fidelis Cybersecurity came forward, and agreed that expert hacking groups from Russia were indeed behind the attack.
The malware involved was advanced, and at times identical to malware the Russian hacking groups have used in the past, Fidelis said in a blog post on Monday.”
https://www.arnnet.com.au/article/602118/russian-hackers-were-indeed-behind-dnc-breach-claims-another-security-firm/
The President of Crowd strike, Shawn Henry, testified to Congress that Crowd strike NEVER had evidence the emails were hacked and left the DNC servers,
“Asked directly if he could “unequivocally say” whether “it was or was not exfiltrated out of DNC,” Henry told the committee: “I can’t say based on that.””
Fidelis Cybersecurity is not a part of any official govt documents pertaining the DNC email situation
It’s their primary job. They are in the business of investigation.
It’s actually in their name: Federal Bureau of Investigation. And yet when presented with an allegation from the DNC that their servers had been hacked by Russians, instead of going scorched earth and conducting their own forensic investigation, they simply accepted the analysis of a private firm paid by the DNC. Now why would the DNC pay a private firm instead of turning over the investigation for free to the FBI? It is inconceivable that an “apolitical” agency like the FBI would not immediately put their own investigative resources on the alleged breach. Clearly, they have no problem doing early morning raids to secure computer hardware, etc. and preserve crime scenes. Heck, they’ve even had CNN there to record it for a receptive audience. But the FBI has proven to be a political agency. In this one instance where it was their job to investigate, they didn’t. And because of that, the forensic analysis remains in dispute.
Nothing in that article shows that the illegal lookups were done by the law firm. It’s purely conjecture. All it says is that they shared workspace.
I never said that.
These are three facts;
FACT: Perkins Coie is the law firm used by the DNC and Clinton, and Clinton’s campaign
FACT: An FBI workspace in a private law firm. Will need Wray to explain the need of the FBI for a workspace in a DC law firm,and in how many law firms across the nation this is happening.
FACT: Four different audits of 702 look ups found +70% of ALL 702 look ups were illegal, Traced back to private contractors under the supervision of the FBI
You are the person accusing Perkins Coie of being part of the illegal 702 lookups as exposed by audits done by FISA judges. I believe they call that a Freudian slip.
Iowan2,
What you ARE doing is exactly what conspiracy theorists strive for. Anything to support their fantasies about some evil wrongdoing afoot.
The article does nothing more than just point out that the FBI shared office space. You and everyone else is already jumping to conclusions and thinking up assumptions about what all that means and some are already convincing themselves that this is “proof” that the law firm and the FBI are conspiring against Trump.
You’re witnessing the birth of another outlandish conspiracy theory based on nothing more than conjecture and wild assumptions. Congratulations, you’ve been indoctrinated into the conspiracy theory riddle world of nut jobs.
Svelaz,
what is the purpose for the FBI setting up a work station in a private law firm? Not a desk. A work station.
Why is the FBI and Chief Justice Roberts ignoring the abuse of spying on citizens?
You are the one drawing inferences.
When the village idiot incessantly talks, no one seriously listens, but he creates some interesting dialogue about how the left is taking over the country by force. So far only 2 women died from bullets jan6, but as people reject force more is applied until guns become the mechanism of enforcement.
I suggest people review the history of the French Revolution for it was very messy. I don’t think the stars will align for an American type Revolution. The British were far more civil than the leftists presently in power.
—-
Svelaz, try and restrain yourself from responding for you have no self respect.
“ Svelaz, try and restrain yourself from responding for you have no self respect.”
Too late. 😆
“ So far only 2 women died from bullets jan6”
Which two women died from bullets Jan 6? Ashli Babbitt obviously. Who was the other?
You can look it up yourself. You can lie, make up a name or do whatever you usually do to prove yourself ignorant.
SM
I don’t see any other woman shot at the Jan 6 riot. Why can’t you list the two? Obviously you know of them.
Are you making stuff up again S. Meyer?
Svelaz, we leave making up things to you. When I discussed the FDA and Covid reports I quoted more than once from the site and I gave the link at least twice. You kept saying you never saw it even though you responded to at least some of those posts. I finally sent a new post with two links so that everyone could see what a fool you were because it proved what I said. Did you care? No. Really stupid people are that way.
S. Meyer, YOU said TWO women died from bullets at the Jan6 riot. Obviously you’re lying. Because you can’t produce the two names.
S. Meyer is a liar. Stop deflecting and produce the names of the two women YOU claim died from bullets jan6.
No one wants to deal with your nonsense any longer. This is not a claim that is unknown to this blog. This was discussed previously, but what goes in one of your ears quickly exits the other. My credibility stands, and I believe by now most know about the other woman who died, and what some of the circumstances were. You don’t because the space between your ears is empty so after you are told you will once again be unaware of that bit of knowledge.
No. I will no longer feed you you. When that is done you deny it ever happening. If you wish I will post examples in the form of links and reproduce entire responses, like I have done before. Do you remember? Of course not.
OT: “Five dead, including suspect, following Tulsa hospital shooting”
Was he a white nationalist? No. Information on the gunman is at https://justthenews.com/nation/crime/multiple-deaths-reported-after-tulsa-okla-medical-clinic-shooting?utm_source=breaking&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=newsletter
S. Meyer, you said two women died from bullets Jan 6.
Looks like you’re lying again.
“ Two civilians who died during the violent Jan. 6 insurrection at the U.S. Capitol died of natural causes, and a third succumbed to amphetamine intoxication, according to the D.C. medical examiner’s office.
Get the full experience.
Choose your plan
A fourth person, 35-year-old Ashli Babbitt, who was fatally shot by a Capitol police officer inside the Capitol, was struck by a bullet to her front left shoulder, the medical examiner said in a statement.
The cause of death for a fifth person, Capitol Police Officer Brian D. Sicknick, who collapsed after confronting rioters and died Jan. 7, remains pending”
https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/public-safety/trump-riot-death-medical-exainer/2021/04/07/53806608-97cf-11eb-a6d0-13d207aadb78_story.html
Where’s the second woman that died by bullet Jan 6?
Search for it yourself. In the past I proved what I said to you and then in future posts you said the same rot. There is no use dealing with you as you are wrong on almost everything. That is proven all the time. Many don’t bother any more. You don’t learn. I think you are intellectually incapable of learning.
There are videos of the other woman. We do not have certainty, but it is more likely she was killed by the police than George Floyd’s cause of death was the knee. We have a pathology report on G. Floyd.
S. Meyer, so your proof that two women got killed by a bullet Jan6 is that one of them “we” are not certain, but is more likely?
“ There are videos of the other woman. We do not have certainty, but it is more likely she was killed by the police than George Floyd’s cause of death was the knee.”
So you lied about there being two women killed by bullets. Thanks for confirming your a liar.
The claim is that two women were killed by police. Ashli was shot. The second woman who died seems to have been beaten and stepped on. You can look at the video and determine for yourself. If I used the word bullets for both that would be wrong, but that is not the point. We are looking at who died from violent action and the left claimed certain policemen died from violent action when one was medical and the other a suicide. I think you were one of those making such a claim, but I can’t be sure. You are wrong about so many things it is hard to keep count.
A team of four top-of-their-game lawyers from a prestigious firm defended a fellow top-notch lawyer. How much did this defense cost? It is every citizen’s right to the best defense possible (or that they can afford). Who paid for the legal costs? Conflicts of interests not fully addressed? No problem. This is legal. Verdict? Unless there is a bombshell it will stand.
All of this is perfectly normal and standard operating procedure in a town where one vigorously avoids being victimized by the truth (to borrow a phrase).
This is the town where our current President has had a string of outright, pants on fire lies that have followed him through his half century in D.C. The biggest are his direct plagiarism of Bill Kinnock’s speech in the U.K., nearly word-for-word. He did the same with the words of Robert Kennedy. He plagiarized five pages of a law school assignment. Biden said, “I’ve done some dumb things and I will do dumb things again.”
One reporter in the 1990s said, “He looks like a Joe Biden wind up doll with somebody else’s words coming out.”
He said lied about his standing in law school and academic achievements. He said he was arrested in South Africa on his way to see Nelson Mandela. He said he pinned a silver star on an Army Captain (which he didn’t). He said he didn’t support the war in Iraq and later said that he did. He said he marched in the Civil Rights Movement and later said that he didn’t,
Hillary was under gunfire in Bosnia when she got off the plane. She said that all her grandparents were immigrants. She said she was for NAFTA and later said she was against NAfTA. She said she was against gay marriage and later said that she was for it. The list goes on. She faked accents wherever she went. If it were the south, then a southern accent, etc.
Donald Trump blurted out some pretty fair whoppers himself. Everything is “The Most, to Say the Least” with superlatives. “I saw thousands and thousands cheering when the towers fell.”
“The Biggest…”
“The Best…”
“The Most…”
“Never in the History of the World….”
“Mexico will pay for the wall!”
Is it any wonder that American Citizens are fed up with these characters? Is this why they were so eager to take down the Ten Commandments from public display? “You shall not lie. You shall not kill. You shall not commit adultery.” These three alone would have the Washington crowd running for the hills.
Is this why politicians “Lie in State” when they die? So they can do it some more?
For instance, it is no surprise that used car salesmen rank higher in veracity than Congress. So what is a lie? In Washington, apparently, it depends on what the meaning of is is. One legal definition is “misrepresentation of one or more facts in order to gain a benefit or harm to another person where the actor knows or should know that the misrepresentation will be relied upon by another person.
“ Who paid for the legal costs? Conflicts of interests not fully addressed? No problem. This is legal. ”
The firm’s insurance paid for it. Yes they do have insurance for such cases.