Barr and Durham

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

There are emails to back Durham’s statements up

Durham’s statement is stupid. The FBI knew he worked for the DNC.

The text message he revealed in Monday's filing said this to General Counsel for the FBI James Baker:

"Jim—it’s Michael Sussmann. I have something time-sensitive (and sensitive) I need to discuss. Do you have availability for a short meeting tomorrow? I’m coming on my own—not on behalf of a client or company—want to help the Bureau. Thanks."

This text was sent the day before he told Baker about "purported data and 'white papers' that allegedly demonstrated a covert communications channel" between the Trump Organization and Alfa Bank, which has ties to the Kremlin.

[b]So, he claimed to be representing himself. A lie.

The bolded is the crux of the issue.

Is a personal text message subject to those laws? Doubtful.

So we are no longer denying that Sussman lied, just debating if he can be held accountable?

What is the evidence that he was in fact there on behalf of a client? What client specifically?

He worked for Hillary Clinton. That's been established.

What is the evidence he was there on behalf of Hillary Clinton? He denies it. The burden is on Durham to prove it. So what's the evidence?

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10689769/John-Durham-releases-damning-text-message-proving-Clinton-lawyer-Michael-Sussman-lied-FBI.html?fr=operanews

There's a lot more as stated in this article.

The article just repeats Durham's allegations. Allegations are not evidence.

Jig is up. More will come out soon. Wait for it.

Translation: you got nothing. The trial is mid-May. Better hurry up with that evidence.

If you want a laugh, scroll back to the first few pages of this thread.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

There are emails to back Durham’s statements up

Durham’s statement is stupid. The FBI knew he worked for the DNC.

The text message he revealed in Monday's filing said this to General Counsel for the FBI James Baker:

"Jim—it’s Michael Sussmann. I have something time-sensitive (and sensitive) I need to discuss. Do you have availability for a short meeting tomorrow? I’m coming on my own—not on behalf of a client or company—want to help the Bureau. Thanks."

This text was sent the day before he told Baker about "purported data and 'white papers' that allegedly demonstrated a covert communications channel" between the Trump Organization and Alfa Bank, which has ties to the Kremlin.

[b]So, he claimed to be representing himself. A lie.

The bolded is the crux of the issue.

Is a personal text message subject to those laws? Doubtful.

So we are no longer denying that Sussman lied, just debating if he can be held accountable?

What is the evidence that he was in fact there on behalf of a client? What client specifically?

He worked for Hillary Clinton. That's been established.

What is the evidence he was there on behalf of Hillary Clinton? He denies it. The burden is on Durham to prove it. So what's the evidence?

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10689769/John-Durham-releases-damning-text-message-proving-Clinton-lawyer-Michael-Sussman-lied-FBI.html?fr=operanews

There's a lot more as stated in this article.

The article just repeats Durham's allegations. Allegations are not evidence.

Jig is up. More will come out soon. Wait for it.

Translation: you got nothing. The trial is mid-May. Better hurry up with that evidence.

If you want a laugh, scroll back to the first few pages of this thread.

I am looking forward to the wailing when this trial ends in an acquittal. But knowing these folks, they will quickly be on to the next conspiracy, telling us how "more is coming soon," and they are "getting out the popcorn."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

There are emails to back Durham’s statements up

Durham’s statement is stupid. The FBI knew he worked for the DNC.

The text message he revealed in Monday's filing said this to General Counsel for the FBI James Baker:

"Jim—it’s Michael Sussmann. I have something time-sensitive (and sensitive) I need to discuss. Do you have availability for a short meeting tomorrow? I’m coming on my own—not on behalf of a client or company—want to help the Bureau. Thanks."

This text was sent the day before he told Baker about "purported data and 'white papers' that allegedly demonstrated a covert communications channel" between the Trump Organization and Alfa Bank, which has ties to the Kremlin.

[b]So, he claimed to be representing himself. A lie.

The bolded is the crux of the issue.

Is a personal text message subject to those laws? Doubtful.

So we are no longer denying that Sussman lied, just debating if he can be held accountable?

What is the evidence that he was in fact there on behalf of a client? What client specifically?

He worked for Hillary Clinton. That's been established.

What is the evidence he was there on behalf of Hillary Clinton? He denies it. The burden is on Durham to prove it. So what's the evidence?

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10689769/John-Durham-releases-damning-text-message-proving-Clinton-lawyer-Michael-Sussman-lied-FBI.html?fr=operanews

There's a lot more as stated in this article.

The article just repeats Durham's allegations. Allegations are not evidence.

Jig is up. More will come out soon. Wait for it.

Translation: you got nothing. The trial is mid-May. Better hurry up with that evidence.

You're right. Nothing will probably happen with this crew.

However, it's not 'nothing'. The whole Trump/Russia collusion story was made up. So Sussman giving info to the FBI 'on his own behalf to help' (i.e. information laundering for Clinton) is a pretty big deal. None of it is true. The bank, the pee tape, the dossier. None of it. Sussman worked for Clinton. The odds he was going on his own behalf is laughable.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

There are emails to back Durham’s statements up

Durham’s statement is stupid. The FBI knew he worked for the DNC.

The text message he revealed in Monday's filing said this to General Counsel for the FBI James Baker:

"Jim—it’s Michael Sussmann. I have something time-sensitive (and sensitive) I need to discuss. Do you have availability for a short meeting tomorrow? I’m coming on my own—not on behalf of a client or company—want to help the Bureau. Thanks."

This text was sent the day before he told Baker about "purported data and 'white papers' that allegedly demonstrated a covert communications channel" between the Trump Organization and Alfa Bank, which has ties to the Kremlin.

[b]So, he claimed to be representing himself. A lie.

The bolded is the crux of the issue.

Is a personal text message subject to those laws? Doubtful.

So we are no longer denying that Sussman lied, just debating if he can be held accountable?

What is the evidence that he was in fact there on behalf of a client? What client specifically?

He worked for Hillary Clinton. That's been established.

What is the evidence he was there on behalf of Hillary Clinton? He denies it. The burden is on Durham to prove it. So what's the evidence?

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10689769/John-Durham-releases-damning-text-message-proving-Clinton-lawyer-Michael-Sussman-lied-FBI.html?fr=operanews

There's a lot more as stated in this article.

The article just repeats Durham's allegations. Allegations are not evidence.

Jig is up. More will come out soon. Wait for it.

Translation: you got nothing. The trial is mid-May. Better hurry up with that evidence.

If you want a laugh, scroll back to the first few pages of this thread.

I am looking forward to the wailing when this trial ends in an acquittal. But knowing these folks, they will quickly be on to the next conspiracy, telling us how "more is coming soon," and they are "getting out the popcorn."

No one's going to wail. I expect it. The best part is they will all be emboldened to do more. Eventually they will hang themselves with their own noose.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

There are emails to back Durham’s statements up

Durham’s statement is stupid. The FBI knew he worked for the DNC.

The text message he revealed in Monday's filing said this to General Counsel for the FBI James Baker:

"Jim—it’s Michael Sussmann. I have something time-sensitive (and sensitive) I need to discuss. Do you have availability for a short meeting tomorrow? I’m coming on my own—not on behalf of a client or company—want to help the Bureau. Thanks."

This text was sent the day before he told Baker about "purported data and 'white papers' that allegedly demonstrated a covert communications channel" between the Trump Organization and Alfa Bank, which has ties to the Kremlin.

[b]So, he claimed to be representing himself. A lie.

The bolded is the crux of the issue.

Is a personal text message subject to those laws? Doubtful.

So we are no longer denying that Sussman lied, just debating if he can be held accountable?

What is the evidence that he was in fact there on behalf of a client? What client specifically?

He worked for Hillary Clinton. That's been established.

What is the evidence he was there on behalf of Hillary Clinton? He denies it. The burden is on Durham to prove it. So what's the evidence?

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10689769/John-Durham-releases-damning-text-message-proving-Clinton-lawyer-Michael-Sussman-lied-FBI.html?fr=operanews

There's a lot more as stated in this article.

The article just repeats Durham's allegations. Allegations are not evidence.

Jig is up. More will come out soon. Wait for it.

Translation: you got nothing. The trial is mid-May. Better hurry up with that evidence.

You're right. Nothing will probably happen with this crew.

However, it's not 'nothing'. The whole Trump/Russia collusion story was made up. So Sussman giving info to the FBI 'on his own behalf to help' (i.e. information laundering for Clinton) is a pretty big deal. None of it is true. The bank, the pee tape, the dossier. None of it. Sussman worked for Clinton. The odds he was going on his own behalf is laughable.

Actually, a lot of it was true. Go read the Mueller report.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

There are emails to back Durham’s statements up

Durham’s statement is stupid. The FBI knew he worked for the DNC.

The text message he revealed in Monday's filing said this to General Counsel for the FBI James Baker:

"Jim—it’s Michael Sussmann. I have something time-sensitive (and sensitive) I need to discuss. Do you have availability for a short meeting tomorrow? I’m coming on my own—not on behalf of a client or company—want to help the Bureau. Thanks."

This text was sent the day before he told Baker about "purported data and 'white papers' that allegedly demonstrated a covert communications channel" between the Trump Organization and Alfa Bank, which has ties to the Kremlin.

[b]So, he claimed to be representing himself. A lie.

The bolded is the crux of the issue.

Is a personal text message subject to those laws? Doubtful.

So we are no longer denying that Sussman lied, just debating if he can be held accountable?

What is the evidence that he was in fact there on behalf of a client? What client specifically?

He worked for Hillary Clinton. That's been established.

What is the evidence he was there on behalf of Hillary Clinton? He denies it. The burden is on Durham to prove it. So what's the evidence?

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10689769/John-Durham-releases-damning-text-message-proving-Clinton-lawyer-Michael-Sussman-lied-FBI.html?fr=operanews

There's a lot more as stated in this article.

The article just repeats Durham's allegations. Allegations are not evidence.

Jig is up. More will come out soon. Wait for it.

Translation: you got nothing. The trial is mid-May. Better hurry up with that evidence.

Follow the money. There's a paper trail.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

There are emails to back Durham’s statements up

Durham’s statement is stupid. The FBI knew he worked for the DNC.

The text message he revealed in Monday's filing said this to General Counsel for the FBI James Baker:

"Jim—it’s Michael Sussmann. I have something time-sensitive (and sensitive) I need to discuss. Do you have availability for a short meeting tomorrow? I’m coming on my own—not on behalf of a client or company—want to help the Bureau. Thanks."

This text was sent the day before he told Baker about "purported data and 'white papers' that allegedly demonstrated a covert communications channel" between the Trump Organization and Alfa Bank, which has ties to the Kremlin.

[b]So, he claimed to be representing himself. A lie.

The bolded is the crux of the issue.

Is a personal text message subject to those laws? Doubtful.

So we are no longer denying that Sussman lied, just debating if he can be held accountable?

What is the evidence that he was in fact there on behalf of a client? What client specifically?

He worked for Hillary Clinton. That's been established.

What is the evidence he was there on behalf of Hillary Clinton? He denies it. The burden is on Durham to prove it. So what's the evidence?

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10689769/John-Durham-releases-damning-text-message-proving-Clinton-lawyer-Michael-Sussman-lied-FBI.html?fr=operanews

There's a lot more as stated in this article.

The article just repeats Durham's allegations. Allegations are not evidence.

Jig is up. More will come out soon. Wait for it.

Translation: you got nothing. The trial is mid-May. Better hurry up with that evidence.

If you want a laugh, scroll back to the first few pages of this thread.

I am looking forward to the wailing when this trial ends in an acquittal. But knowing these folks, they will quickly be on to the next conspiracy, telling us how "more is coming soon," and they are "getting out the popcorn."

No one's going to wail. I expect it. The best part is they will all be emboldened to do more. Eventually they will hang themselves with their own noose.

Np- Who is “they”?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

There are emails to back Durham’s statements up

Durham’s statement is stupid. The FBI knew he worked for the DNC.

The text message he revealed in Monday's filing said this to General Counsel for the FBI James Baker:

"Jim—it’s Michael Sussmann. I have something time-sensitive (and sensitive) I need to discuss. Do you have availability for a short meeting tomorrow? I’m coming on my own—not on behalf of a client or company—want to help the Bureau. Thanks."

This text was sent the day before he told Baker about "purported data and 'white papers' that allegedly demonstrated a covert communications channel" between the Trump Organization and Alfa Bank, which has ties to the Kremlin.

[b]So, he claimed to be representing himself. A lie.

The bolded is the crux of the issue.

Is a personal text message subject to those laws? Doubtful.

So we are no longer denying that Sussman lied, just debating if he can be held accountable?

What is the evidence that he was in fact there on behalf of a client? What client specifically?

He worked for Hillary Clinton. That's been established.

What is the evidence he was there on behalf of Hillary Clinton? He denies it. The burden is on Durham to prove it. So what's the evidence?

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10689769/John-Durham-releases-damning-text-message-proving-Clinton-lawyer-Michael-Sussman-lied-FBI.html?fr=operanews

There's a lot more as stated in this article.

The article just repeats Durham's allegations. Allegations are not evidence.

Jig is up. More will come out soon. Wait for it.

Translation: you got nothing. The trial is mid-May. Better hurry up with that evidence.

You're right. Nothing will probably happen with this crew.

However, it's not 'nothing'. The whole Trump/Russia collusion story was made up. So Sussman giving info to the FBI 'on his own behalf to help' (i.e. information laundering for Clinton) is a pretty big deal. None of it is true. The bank, the pee tape, the dossier. None of it. Sussman worked for Clinton. The odds he was going on his own behalf is laughable.

Actually, a lot of it was true. Go read the Mueller report.

And the senate intel report.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

There are emails to back Durham’s statements up

Durham’s statement is stupid. The FBI knew he worked for the DNC.

The text message he revealed in Monday's filing said this to General Counsel for the FBI James Baker:

"Jim—it’s Michael Sussmann. I have something time-sensitive (and sensitive) I need to discuss. Do you have availability for a short meeting tomorrow? I’m coming on my own—not on behalf of a client or company—want to help the Bureau. Thanks."

This text was sent the day before he told Baker about "purported data and 'white papers' that allegedly demonstrated a covert communications channel" between the Trump Organization and Alfa Bank, which has ties to the Kremlin.

[b]So, he claimed to be representing himself. A lie.

The bolded is the crux of the issue.

Is a personal text message subject to those laws? Doubtful.

So we are no longer denying that Sussman lied, just debating if he can be held accountable?

What is the evidence that he was in fact there on behalf of a client? What client specifically?

He worked for Hillary Clinton. That's been established.

What is the evidence he was there on behalf of Hillary Clinton? He denies it. The burden is on Durham to prove it. So what's the evidence?

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10689769/John-Durham-releases-damning-text-message-proving-Clinton-lawyer-Michael-Sussman-lied-FBI.html?fr=operanews

There's a lot more as stated in this article.

The article just repeats Durham's allegations. Allegations are not evidence.

Jig is up. More will come out soon. Wait for it.

Translation: you got nothing. The trial is mid-May. Better hurry up with that evidence.

You're right. Nothing will probably happen with this crew.

However, it's not 'nothing'. The whole Trump/Russia collusion story was made up. So Sussman giving info to the FBI 'on his own behalf to help' (i.e. information laundering for Clinton) is a pretty big deal. None of it is true. The bank, the pee tape, the dossier. None of it. Sussman worked for Clinton. The odds he was going on his own behalf is laughable.

Actually, a lot of it was true. Go read the Mueller report.

And the senate intel report.

Whenever someone claims that the Russian collusion story was made up, it is a dead giveaway that they haven't read these reports and are just mainlining right-wing disinformation.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

There are emails to back Durham’s statements up

Durham’s statement is stupid. The FBI knew he worked for the DNC.

The text message he revealed in Monday's filing said this to General Counsel for the FBI James Baker:

"Jim—it’s Michael Sussmann. I have something time-sensitive (and sensitive) I need to discuss. Do you have availability for a short meeting tomorrow? I’m coming on my own—not on behalf of a client or company—want to help the Bureau. Thanks."

This text was sent the day before he told Baker about "purported data and 'white papers' that allegedly demonstrated a covert communications channel" between the Trump Organization and Alfa Bank, which has ties to the Kremlin.

[b]So, he claimed to be representing himself. A lie.

The bolded is the crux of the issue.

Is a personal text message subject to those laws? Doubtful.

So we are no longer denying that Sussman lied, just debating if he can be held accountable?

What is the evidence that he was in fact there on behalf of a client? What client specifically?

He worked for Hillary Clinton. That's been established.

What is the evidence he was there on behalf of Hillary Clinton? He denies it. The burden is on Durham to prove it. So what's the evidence?

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10689769/John-Durham-releases-damning-text-message-proving-Clinton-lawyer-Michael-Sussman-lied-FBI.html?fr=operanews

There's a lot more as stated in this article.

The article just repeats Durham's allegations. Allegations are not evidence.

Jig is up. More will come out soon. Wait for it.

Translation: you got nothing. The trial is mid-May. Better hurry up with that evidence.

You're right. Nothing will probably happen with this crew.

However, it's not 'nothing'. The whole Trump/Russia collusion story was made up. So Sussman giving info to the FBI 'on his own behalf to help' (i.e. information laundering for Clinton) is a pretty big deal. None of it is true. The bank, the pee tape, the dossier. None of it. Sussman worked for Clinton. The odds he was going on his own behalf is laughable.

Oh, honey, no, stop. You’re in over your head and as you’ve spent the last decade in a RWNJ bubble, you have no idea what you don’t know.

[Anonymous]

"The year is 2039" - about right

[Anonymous]

Durham: "SUSSMAN LIED BECAUSE HE SAID 'TURQUOISE' WHEN HE SHOULD HAVE SAID 'BLUE' AND WE NEED TO THROW THE BOOK AT HIM!!!"

Meanwhile:

Durham himself lies and it's OK?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

There are emails to back Durham’s statements up

Durham’s statement is stupid. The FBI knew he worked for the DNC.

The text message he revealed in Monday's filing said this to General Counsel for the FBI James Baker:

"Jim—it’s Michael Sussmann. I have something time-sensitive (and sensitive) I need to discuss. Do you have availability for a short meeting tomorrow? I’m coming on my own—not on behalf of a client or company—want to help the Bureau. Thanks."

This text was sent the day before he told Baker about "purported data and 'white papers' that allegedly demonstrated a covert communications channel" between the Trump Organization and Alfa Bank, which has ties to the Kremlin.

[b]So, he claimed to be representing himself. A lie.

The bolded is the crux of the issue.

Is a personal text message subject to those laws? Doubtful.

So we are no longer denying that Sussman lied, just debating if he can be held accountable?

What is the evidence that he was in fact there on behalf of a client? What client specifically?

He worked for Hillary Clinton. That's been established.

What is the evidence he was there on behalf of Hillary Clinton? He denies it. The burden is on Durham to prove it. So what's the evidence?

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10689769/John-Durham-releases-damning-text-message-proving-Clinton-lawyer-Michael-Sussman-lied-FBI.html?fr=operanews

There's a lot more as stated in this article.

The article just repeats Durham's allegations. Allegations are not evidence.

Jig is up. More will come out soon. Wait for it.

Translation: you got nothing. The trial is mid-May. Better hurry up with that evidence.

You're right. Nothing will probably happen with this crew.

However, it's not 'nothing'. The whole Trump/Russia collusion story was made up. So Sussman giving info to the FBI 'on his own behalf to help' (i.e. information laundering for Clinton) is a pretty big deal. None of it is true. The bank, the pee tape, the dossier. None of it. Sussman worked for Clinton. The odds he was going on his own behalf is laughable.

Actually, a lot of it was true. Go read the Mueller report.

I’m sorry. None of it is true

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

There are emails to back Durham’s statements up

Durham’s statement is stupid. The FBI knew he worked for the DNC.

The text message he revealed in Monday's filing said this to General Counsel for the FBI James Baker:

"Jim—it’s Michael Sussmann. I have something time-sensitive (and sensitive) I need to discuss. Do you have availability for a short meeting tomorrow? I’m coming on my own—not on behalf of a client or company—want to help the Bureau. Thanks."

This text was sent the day before he told Baker about "purported data and 'white papers' that allegedly demonstrated a covert communications channel" between the Trump Organization and Alfa Bank, which has ties to the Kremlin.

[b]So, he claimed to be representing himself. A lie.

The bolded is the crux of the issue.

Is a personal text message subject to those laws? Doubtful.

So we are no longer denying that Sussman lied, just debating if he can be held accountable?

What is the evidence that he was in fact there on behalf of a client? What client specifically?

He worked for Hillary Clinton. That's been established.

What is the evidence he was there on behalf of Hillary Clinton? He denies it. The burden is on Durham to prove it. So what's the evidence?

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10689769/John-Durham-releases-damning-text-message-proving-Clinton-lawyer-Michael-Sussman-lied-FBI.html?fr=operanews

There's a lot more as stated in this article.

The article just repeats Durham's allegations. Allegations are not evidence.

Jig is up. More will come out soon. Wait for it.

Translation: you got nothing. The trial is mid-May. Better hurry up with that evidence.

You're right. Nothing will probably happen with this crew.

However, it's not 'nothing'. The whole Trump/Russia collusion story was made up. So Sussman giving info to the FBI 'on his own behalf to help' (i.e. information laundering for Clinton) is a pretty big deal. None of it is true. The bank, the pee tape, the dossier. None of it. Sussman worked for Clinton. The odds he was going on his own behalf is laughable.

Actually, a lot of it was true. Go read the Mueller report.

I’m sorry. None of it is true

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

There are emails to back Durham’s statements up

Durham’s statement is stupid. The FBI knew he worked for the DNC.

The text message he revealed in Monday's filing said this to General Counsel for the FBI James Baker:

"Jim—it’s Michael Sussmann. I have something time-sensitive (and sensitive) I need to discuss. Do you have availability for a short meeting tomorrow? I’m coming on my own—not on behalf of a client or company—want to help the Bureau. Thanks."

This text was sent the day before he told Baker about "purported data and 'white papers' that allegedly demonstrated a covert communications channel" between the Trump Organization and Alfa Bank, which has ties to the Kremlin.

[b]So, he claimed to be representing himself. A lie.

The bolded is the crux of the issue.

Is a personal text message subject to those laws? Doubtful.

So we are no longer denying that Sussman lied, just debating if he can be held accountable?

What is the evidence that he was in fact there on behalf of a client? What client specifically?

He worked for Hillary Clinton. That's been established.

What is the evidence he was there on behalf of Hillary Clinton? He denies it. The burden is on Durham to prove it. So what's the evidence?

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10689769/John-Durham-releases-damning-text-message-proving-Clinton-lawyer-Michael-Sussman-lied-FBI.html?fr=operanews

There's a lot more as stated in this article.

The article just repeats Durham's allegations. Allegations are not evidence.

Jig is up. More will come out soon. Wait for it.

Translation: you got nothing. The trial is mid-May. Better hurry up with that evidence.

You're right. Nothing will probably happen with this crew.

However, it's not 'nothing'. The whole Trump/Russia collusion story was made up. So Sussman giving info to the FBI 'on his own behalf to help' (i.e. information laundering for Clinton) is a pretty big deal. None of it is true. The bank, the pee tape, the dossier. None of it. Sussman worked for Clinton. The odds he was going on his own behalf is laughable.

Actually, a lot of it was true. Go read the Mueller report.

I’m sorry. None of it is true

Note the word ‘likely’. That’s a weasel word. Meanwhile, this was Sussman’s TESTIMONY under oath:

The prosecutor noted that in House testimony a year later Sussmann admitted he made the FBI approach at the instruction of his client.

"We had a conversation, as lawyers do with their clients, about client 1 needs and objectives and the best course to take for a client," Sussmann testified in a deposition taken by then-House Intelligence Committee Republican investigative counsel Kash Patel. "And so it may have been a decision that we came to together. I mean, I don't want to imply that I was sort of directed to do something against my better judgment, or that we were in any sort of conflict."