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.

Anonymous wrote:Why is Durham releasing this info? This is a fed investigation.

Releasing what? The information is out due to indictments and legal filings.

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.

Why is Durham releasing this info? This is a fed investigation.

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.

Daily Mail is a conservative rag. They routinely have misspellings and typos in all their articles. But they do have good paparazzi photos of stars doing nothing.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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?

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?

The is just a silly QAnon-level drama.

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.

This text is just more evidence that he lied.
And, written by Sussman. Oops.

Not really. Durham still has no admissible evidence that Sussmann made this statement on Sept. 19, which is what is charged, except for Baker's testimony, which is contradicted by Baker's other testimony. And Durham also has no evidence that Sussmann was in fact there on behalf of a client.

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.

This text is just more evidence that he lied.
And, written by Sussman. Oops.

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.

Maybe or maybe not, but that text was not charged in the indictment. The charged lie was on Sept. 19 in the meeting with Baker. At best, that text supports an inference he said the same thing the next day in the meeting. But, assuming the text is allowed into evidence, the defense could easily argue that this text was actually the source of the Baker's hazy recollection and not anything that was said in the meeting.