This is how its done, CHS are media, but they are protectedcircular reporting perfected, otherwise known as “The Wrap Up Smear”
https://twitter.com/15poundstogo/status/1529403381516746758?s=20&t=faD7-fh5Bygo2RIWy_aWRg
RememberPatrick Byrnes coming out party in 2019 of Strzok giving orders on dirty tricks? Posting three videos what he said at that time
GabrielThomasFiction @NeonGodKiller Replying to
@Techno_Fog
Puzzle Pieces aligning or is this Disinformation?
#SussmannTrial #PeterStroyk
https://twitter.com/NeonGodKiller/status/1529322002997080065
https://twitter.com/NeonGodKiller/status/1529321653963923456
Ex-Overstock CEO Patrick Byrne says he got 'fishy' orders from Peter Strzok; former acting AG unsure of claims
Charles Creitz
https://www.foxnews.com/media/patrick-byrne-overstock-claims-interview-politics
I was being ironic, we know many in media are the corn, this guy in particular has to be held accountable!
I wonder if Durham will include all the media in the conspiracy, because they willingly participated for fame and accolades, while they knew it was BS. Remember WSJ said told Fusion the story was BS and they weren’t publishing it. Even Tucker said the story was peddled to every news agency in DC and many wouldnt touch it.
What would be hilarious is if Durham uses their pulitzers as proof that they were involved willingly for a group venture to take down the President!
Next trial in VA will be easier to get an objective jury.
Seriously anon
Anons “occasionally, when having a hard time”, write a post in regular letters and words and asks for help and or prayers, and anons willingly help. Why dont you do that and stop with the fucking red text, or not.
One post only, you can’t go on and on. Or get a buddy or therapist to work out your issues.
We are afterall a research board, why dont you take your mind off your problems and help with research?
2nd video
3rd
Fusion did the opposition research and fed it to all the stooges, perkins Coie law firm for HRC that ran it all and paid all, not that hard. Dont forget GA tech researchers and Joffe,just wait until Durham team brings in Ukraine and Crowdstrike. They actually asked a witness “did anything from Ukraine come up”, or I read it in a filing.
Ok stop using red text, it’s annoying and you, as my mother would say, “are an intention seeker”.
Explain yourself in regular text and do some research please. You’ll get enjoyment and satisfaction and you can switch your frown upside down. Try it, it works
Anon I tried to help but you either have to choose to speak in normal text and ask for advice or just stop!
Why is the FBI preventing Dagon (GA tech researcher, that was immunized by Durham), from speaking? I don’t quite understand this tweet.
https://twitter.com/UndeadFoia/status/1529281927798218753?s=20&t=faD7-fh5Bygo2RIWy_aWRg
https://twitter.com/RuthlessRufus1/status/1529417175085244416?s=20&t=faD7-fh5Bygo2RIWy_aWRg
https://twitter.com/UndeadFoia/status/1529247980754288640?s=20&t=K8emiK0HZCbpFlbL7DOUZg
Prosecution closing today
https://twitter.com/SarahNLynch/status/1530191093312143360?s=20&t=K8emiK0HZCbpFlbL7DOUZg
I remembered that, interesting
That seems doubtful to me but I do think Durham got any real evidence from Mueller and went on a deep research project
>>16350488 UPDATE: Fox's Bill Melugin says Rep. Gonzales's assertion that the TX shooter was arrested 4 years ago for plotting to shoot up the school is incorrect
God damn it, if someone says they want to shoot people they evetualluy will, we need mental health facilities back to lock them up.
My uncle was in one, when they closed them all, many became homeless without any assistance or help
Savage reporting from closing (I’ll post 10 pics), 5 on this one and 5 on another. They are numbered
https://twitter.com/charlie_savage/status/1530195919911657474?s=20&t=K8emiK0HZCbpFlbL7DOUZg
Interesting barricades go up in front of courthouse
Radicals will probably protest if Sussmann is found guilty. Why though?
https://twitter.com/JFHaughey58/status/1530169076705796096?s=20&t=K8emiK0HZCbpFlbL7DOUZg
I guess the jury will be there all weekend. Libs cannot agree on anything
https://twitter.com/UndeadFoia/status/1530172339991633920?s=20&t=K8emiK0HZCbpFlbL7DOUZg
Defense closing
https://twitter.com/SarahNLynch/status/1530202754748231680?s=20&t=a9q8QbCIx535XXi6D12Fqg
Another EXTREMELY LONG article from Professor Margot Cleveland
https://thefederalist.com/2022/05/27/why-the-jury-should-convict-michael-sussmann-of-lying-to-the-fbi-but-probably-wont/
End of Cleveland’s aticle
Also Lots of Evidence This Affected the FBI
The special counsel likewise provided substantial evidence related to the second factor, “materiality.” Here, the jury was instructed that Sussmann’s lie must have been “material,” meaning the statement “has a natural tendency to influence, or is capable of influencing, a discrete decision of the decision-making body to which it is addressed.”
In this case, the government presented testimony of several federal agents showing how Sussmann’s lie altered their decisions, with Baker testifying “he would not have taken the private meeting with Sussmann if he knew Sussmann was working on behalf of the Clinton team.” Baker also told the jury he had “vouched for” Sussmann and treated him as a sensitive confidential human source, protecting his identity from other agents because he believed Sussmann had come to the FBI on his own.
Other agents also testified that they hit a roadblock in determining the source for the Alfa Bank data and that in assessing the data, knowing whether it came from someone with “a political affiliation or motivation” would affect the initial steps of an investigation.
Evidence Sussmann Lied On Purpose
Finally, the government must establish that Sussmann held the required “mens rea” or “guilty mind.” Section 1001, which criminalizes false statements, requires a defendant make the false statement “intentionally” or “knowingly.”
Circumstantial evidence can establish a defendant’s state of mind. So can the evidence admitted at trial, which included Sussmann’s congressional testimony with his acknowledgment that he was acting on behalf of a tech expert. All this provides overwhelming evidence that Sussmann’s lie was intentional.
In an attempt to counter this overwhelming evidence, during Sussmann’s closing argument his attorneys will likely hammer inconsistencies in statements Baker previously made concerning what Sussmann said during their September 19, 2016 meeting. Sussmann’s lawyers are also likely to highlight testimony they presented that the Clinton campaign did not want Sussmann to take the evidence to the FBI, including testimony from Clinton campaign manager Robby Mook. The government, however, countered that evidence with testimony establishing that Perkins and Coie attorneys and Fusion GPS held great discretion to act on behalf of the Clinton campaign.
The defense is also certain to highlight trial evidence showing the FBI’s national security concerns about Trump’s connection with Russia, as well as testimony touting Joffe’s reputation as a tech expert, to argue Sussmann held serious concerns about the data. But the special counsel will quickly counter that Sussmann’s concerns do not excuse him for lying to the FBI. Finally, Sussmann’s legal team will likely stress the testimony of character witnesses who spoke of Sussmann’s stellar reputation.
Why an Acquittal Is Likely Despite the Evidence
While there can be no certainty in predicting the jury’s eventual verdict, an acquittal seems likely—even with the overwhelming evidence of Sussmann’s guilt detailed. Baker’s trial testimony provided the clearest foreshadowing of this outcome when he told prosecutors, “I’m not out to get Michael. This is not my investigation. This is your investigation. If you ask me a question, I answer it. You asked me to look for something, I go look for it.”
Bill Priestap, who served as the assistant director of the Counterintelligence Division for the FBI in 2016, displayed an even more grudging demeanor in testifying on behalf of the special counsel. When questioned by prosecutors whether it was “important” for Sussmann “to fully disclose his ties to the Clinton campaign,” Priestap said it “would have been part of several factors,” telling the government attorney, “I’m struggling on your use of the word ‘important.’ It’s a motivation that is relevant, but not the only factor.”
If Baker, the man to whom Sussmann lied, adopts such a disinterested approach to justice, andPriestap, an assistant director at the FBI, shows disdain for the special counsel’s case, surely a jury of Sussmann’s peers will too.
The men and women of the jury live and work in D.C., with men and women like Sussmann, Baker, and Priestap. Their kids go to school together—literally in the case of one juror—and they likely can envision a friend or neighbor in Sussmann’s position.
While Sussmann’s lie was “material” in the legal sense, jurors seem likely to shrug the lie off as harmless, mentally parroting the woman several jurors acknowledged they donated money to when she ran for president in 2016: “What difference at this point does it make?”
I may be wrong. But I don’t think so.
https://thefederalist.com/2022/05/27/why-the-jury-should-convict-michael-sussmann-of-lying-to-the-fbi-but-probably-wont/