The Russia Hoax - Not

drummerboy said:

"studying hard" is now a bad thing?

even if he did lie - SO WHAT? That was a major point of the piece - the lie was not material to anything.

There were many analysts saying immediately after the case was revealed that the case was very weak and questioned why it was even brought. If it was so obvious so soon, you have to think that Durham knew full well how weak it was.

from the piece:

When the Sussmann case was filed, back in September, I described it as “one of the very weakest federal criminal indictments I have ever seen in more than 25 years covering federal investigations and prosecutions.”

Of course, he's from Brookings, so, you know.

I thought a real interesting part of the piece was the description of how so much of the case presented to the jury and absolutely nothing to with the supposed lie, but was mostly an attempt to get the Russia-hoax mythology into the record.

Indeed, a huge percentage of the many hours of testimony given in this case related to Sussmann’s alleged lie—which, remember, is the only offense charged in the indictment—in the most glancing sense. You could watch hours upon hours of testimony and completely forget that this was supposed to be a case about a lie told in a brief conversation between two men with nobody else present at a single meeting six years ago.

You can see this point in the text of the indictment itself. The document is 27 pages long. And it takes Durham until the eighteenth page before he bothers to discuss the charge that he is alleging. By the twenty-first page, he is on to other uncharged conduct.

My point here is that Durham was not merely trying to prove that Sussmann made a single false statement to Baker. He was trying to prove a much larger conspiracy that he details but does not charge. The alleged lie was merely the aspect of this supposed conspiracy that he could find a way to charge. His purpose here, in large part, was evidently to tell this larger story.

Still waiting to hear why you don't believe Aaron Mate when he has the best understanding of this trial.  According to Mate:

• verdict not surprising because DC jury pool heavily favors the Democrats
• Susmman clearly lied because, as it came out during the trial, he was plotting with the Clinton campaign and billing the Clinton campaign. 
• The FBI was 100% in on the lie because it benefited them.  (See bridge comment above.)  They are not idiots who can be duped by Clinton campaign lawyers.  He said he was doing it as an individual, not for the Clinton's was a cover for everyone. 
• We know the FBI was in on it because so much of their case was based on Clinton campaign information (all fake stuff made up by Sussaman and the people he hired).  Example:  Steele Dossier (used to get FISA court surveillance warrant).  But, this would be hard to prove so a reason why case failed.
• Lots of important stuff came out during trial that show the real scandal is not that Sussman lied, but that the FBI worked with the Clinton campaign and their contractors (Fusion GPS, Crowdstrike) which generated the core allegation of Russiagate that Trump colluded with Russia.  Fusion GPS, which was a Clinton campaign client and produced the Steele Dossier, which the FBI used and the allegations of Russian hacking from Crowdstrike (which Crowdstrike has now under oath said they could not tell if they came from Russia).  
• So basically, the FBI was using material created by the Clinton campaign to frame Trump and to lie to the public about  it.

nan said:

He did not lie to the FBI because they were working with him on his lie. They knew why he was there--they are not dummies.  It was a "wink wink" situation.   Sussman is a lawyer who knows how to cover his butt.

I was going by what was asserted by the prosecutor.  In your version, there's no reason for any prosecution to be brought.

nan said:

Still waiting to hear why you don't believe Aaron Mate when he has the best understanding of this trial.  According to Mate:

• verdict not surprising because DC jury pool heavily favors the Democrats ...

Aaron doesn't have "the best understanding" just because he invents reasons that you like. That first one is silly, because "DC jury pool sympathizes with rich white lawyer" is something nobody actually believes.

drummerboy said:

you're citing the heritage society?

I can't even.

And yet you complain about Brookings.

just amazing.

I'm citing the Heritage society about something that was in the court record.  It was the first place I found that had that information besides Jimmy Dore/Aaron Mate.  Naturally, the Brookings Institute was not going to mention that, even with all the studying.

However, it is interesting to compare right-wing think tanks to left-wing think tanks.  

In the left-wing, it's stated that there was lots of time spent reading thousands of pages and it's the weakest case in 25 years and Durham is an idiot and it's a battle between the right and the left with no in-between.

The right-wing does not brag about studying the documents, but instead compares this to other things they notice in the world and basically say, WTF, how does anyone who worked for Hillary Clinton ever get conviced? They note the make up of the jury was multiple Clinton and Democratic donors.  They also note that Sussman billed the Clinton campaign for his time spent with the FBI and for two thumb drives, one of which was handed to the FBI.  How come the Brookings guy missed this? 

Anyway, I don't care for the Heritage Society OR the Brookings Institute.  They are both heavily biased. Aaron Mate is the most objective view to be found because he works for himself. 

nohero said:

Aaron doesn't have "the best understanding" just because he invents reasons that you like. That first one is silly, because "DC jury pool sympathizes with rich white lawyer" is something nobody actually believes.

You invented the idea of a jury sympathizing with a white lawyer.  Everyone else who commented on bias in the jury blamed it on them being actual Clinton or Democratic party donors.  

nohero said:

I was going by what was asserted by the prosecutor.  In your version, there's no reason for any prosecution to be brought.

He got away with his lie.  In the big scheme of things it does not matter because the real scandal was brought to light--Hillary Clinton invented Russiagate and the FBI took and ran with her lies.  

drummerboy said:

anyway nan, answer these simple questions:

how was the supposed lie material to anything?

why did Durham spend so much time in the indictment and during the trial on subjects that had nothing to do with the supposed lie?

I answered the first question in my long previous post.

I don't know what Durham was doing as I did not pay much attention to his investigation until this ruling came out.  I did hear someone (maybe Aaron Mate, but I'm not sure) question why no one ever questions Hillary Clinton directly on these matters.  The person suggested that the Clintons are so powerful, even the right-wing is afraid of them.  Don't know what I think of that, but I do wonder what Hillary would say under oath about Russiagate if the right questions were posed. 

ZaZworld!

All I have to say is OMG!  

nan said:

He got away with is lie.  In the big scheme of things it does not matter because the real scandal was brought to light--Hillary Clinton invented Russiagate and the FBI took and ran with her lies.  

They did? Who did they wrongfully arrest?

nan said:

Read Thomas Frank's book, "Listen Liberal!" for more insight into this view.

You present me with a conundrum.

ridski said:

They did? Who did they wrongfully arrest?

The attention of millions of Democrats who still think Putin got Trump elected and who, for years, have had Trump living rent free in their brains.  It's a major crime.

nan said:

The attention of millions of Democrats who still think Putin got Trump elected and who, for years, have had Trump living rent free in their brains.  It's a major crime.

nan

DaveSchmidt said:

nan said:

Read Thomas Frank's book, "Listen Liberal!" for more insight into this view.

You present me with a conundrum.

lol

nan said:

drummerboy said:

"studying hard" is now a bad thing?

even if he did lie - SO WHAT? That was a major point of the piece - the lie was not material to anything.

There were many analysts saying immediately after the case was revealed that the case was very weak and questioned why it was even brought. If it was so obvious so soon, you have to think that Durham knew full well how weak it was.

from the piece:

When the Sussmann case was filed, back in September, I described it as “one of the very weakest federal criminal indictments I have ever seen in more than 25 years covering federal investigations and prosecutions.”

Of course, he's from Brookings, so, you know.

I thought a real interesting part of the piece was the description of how so much of the case presented to the jury and absolutely nothing to with the supposed lie, but was mostly an attempt to get the Russia-hoax mythology into the record.

Indeed, a huge percentage of the many hours of testimony given in this case related to Sussmann’s alleged lie—which, remember, is the only offense charged in the indictment—in the most glancing sense. You could watch hours upon hours of testimony and completely forget that this was supposed to be a case about a lie told in a brief conversation between two men with nobody else present at a single meeting six years ago.

You can see this point in the text of the indictment itself. The document is 27 pages long. And it takes Durham until the eighteenth page before he bothers to discuss the charge that he is alleging. By the twenty-first page, he is on to other uncharged conduct.

My point here is that Durham was not merely trying to prove that Sussmann made a single false statement to Baker. He was trying to prove a much larger conspiracy that he details but does not charge. The alleged lie was merely the aspect of this supposed conspiracy that he could find a way to charge. His purpose here, in large part, was evidently to tell this larger story.

Still waiting to hear why you don't believe Aaron Mate when he has the best understanding of this trial.  According to Mate:

• verdict not surprising because DC jury pool heavily favors the Democrats
• Susmman clearly lied because, as it came out during the trial, he was plotting with the Clinton campaign and billing the Clinton campaign. 
• The FBI was 100% in on the lie because it benefited them.  (See bridge comment above.)  They are not idiots who can be duped by Clinton campaign lawyers.  He said he was doing it as an individual, not for the Clinton's was a cover for everyone. 
• We know the FBI was in on it because so much of their case was based on Clinton campaign information (all fake stuff made up by Sussaman and the people he hired).  Example:  Steele Dossier (used to get FISA court surveillance warrant).  But, this would be hard to prove so a reason why case failed.
• Lots of important stuff came out during trial that show the real scandal is not that Sussman lied, but that the FBI worked with the Clinton campaign and their contractors (Fusion GPS, Crowdstrike) which generated the core allegation of Russiagate that Trump colluded with Russia.  Fusion GPS, which was a Clinton campaign client and produced the Steele Dossier, which the FBI used and the allegations of Russian hacking from Crowdstrike (which Crowdstrike has now under oath said they could not tell if they came from Russia).  
• So basically, the FBI was using material created by the Clinton campaign to frame Trump and to lie to the public about  it.

as I said before, Mate is simply a liar.

I (or anyone else here) could explain why he's a liar based on that post, but since you are impervious to facts, what would be the point of our efforts?

drummerboy said:

as I said before, Mate is simply a liar.

I (or anyone else here) could explain why he's a liar based on that post, but since you are impervious to facts, what would be the point of our efforts?

You always say negative things about him, but you never provide any real details.  

nan said:

drummerboy said:

as I said before, Mate is simply a liar.

I (or anyone else here) could explain why he's a liar based on that post, but since you are impervious to facts, what would be the point of our efforts?

You always say negative things about him, but you never provide any real details.  

I guess I need to repeat myself.

I (or anyone else here) could explain why he's a liar based on that
post, but since you are impervious to facts, what would be the point of
our efforts?

ridski said:

nan said:

The attention of millions of Democrats who still think Putin got Trump elected and who, for years, have had Trump living rent free in their brains.  It's a major crime.

nan

I mean

c'mon

drummerboy said:

I guess I need to repeat myself.

I (or anyone else here) could explain why he's a liar based on that
post, but since you are impervious to facts, what would be the point of
our efforts?

 I went back and looked at the tweet and it's a summary of what he explains in the video.  Don't see what he lied about.  Please explain. 

nan said:

drummerboy said:

I guess I need to repeat myself.

I (or anyone else here) could explain why he's a liar based on that
post, but since you are impervious to facts, what would be the point of
our efforts?

 I went back and looked at the tweet and it's a summary of what he explains in the video.  Don't see what he lied about.  Please explain. 

let's take the first point:

verdict not surprising because DC jury pool heavily favors the Democrats

This is an absurd contention, and a responsible journalist would never make this claim. Only an ideologue would, which is what Mate is.

Look at the implications of this statement:

• it's not possible to get a fair trial in D.C. because of Democrats. An impossible to prove assertion. Besides being ridiculous.
• Democrats can't possibly ever be fair on a jury.
• Durham's lawyers are so incompetent that they can't pick a fair jury.
• Was everyone on the jury a biased Democrat? No. Then why did the other jurists agree so quickly on a not guilty verdict?

drummerboy said:

let's take the first point:

verdict not surprising because DC jury pool heavily favors the Democrats

This is an absurd contention, and a responsible journalist would never make this claim. Only an ideologue would, which is what Mate is.

Look at the implications of this statement:

• it's not possible to get a fair trial in D.C. because of Democrats. An impossible to prove assertion. Besides being ridiculous.
• Democrats can't possibly ever be fair on a jury.
• Durham's lawyers are so incompetent that they can't pick a fair jury.
• Was everyone on the jury a biased Democrat? No. Then why did the other jurists agree so quickly on a not guilty verdict?

Is what Mate said strictly a lie? Maybe not, but it's certainly meant to mislead, based on no evidence. Which is as good as a lie, coming from a "journalist".

You will. of course, discount every one of my points.

I think you are making a big deal out of nothing.  He just said that the DC juror pool favors Democrats and he was not surprised at the decision.  He did not make any of the claims you infer. 

nan said:

drummerboy said:

let's take the first point:

verdict not surprising because DC jury pool heavily favors the Democrats

This is an absurd contention, and a responsible journalist would never make this claim. Only an ideologue would, which is what Mate is.

Look at the implications of this statement:

• it's not possible to get a fair trial in D.C. because of Democrats. An impossible to prove assertion. Besides being ridiculous.
• Democrats can't possibly ever be fair on a jury.
• Durham's lawyers are so incompetent that they can't pick a fair jury.
• Was everyone on the jury a biased Democrat? No. Then why did the other jurists agree so quickly on a not guilty verdict?

Is what Mate said strictly a lie? Maybe not, but it's certainly meant to mislead, based on no evidence. Which is as good as a lie, coming from a "journalist".

You will. of course, discount every one of my points.

I think you are making a big deal out of nothing.  He just said that the DC juror pool favors Democrats and he was not surprised at the decision.  He did not make any of the claims you infer. 

You understand what the word "implications" means, right?

Everything I listed is implied by his claim.

That's why it's disingenuous and misleading.

Don't even see how you can argue with it, it's so obvious.

nan said:

The attention of millions of Democrats who still think Putin got Trump elected and who, for years, have had Trump living rent free in their brains.

Does the FBI have anything to add on nouns that start with an H and can convey us to the netherworld? That's what it takes to arrest my attention.

DaveSchmidt said:

Does the FBI have anything to add on nouns that start with an H and can convey us to the netherworld? That's what it takes to arrest my attention.

Hawks from handsaws? Won't get you downward, but can tell you which way the wind is blowing.

PVW said:

DaveSchmidt said:

Does the FBI have anything to add on nouns that start with an H and can convey us to the netherworld? That's what it takes to arrest my attention.

Hawks from handsaws? Won't get you downward, but can tell you which way the wind is blowing.

boy am I confused.

drummerboy said:

You understand what the word "implications" means, right?

Everything I listed is implied by his claim.

That's why it's disingenuous and misleading.

Don't even see how you can argue with it, it's so obvious.

You called him a liar.  These are not lies.  These are you reading into his words and disagreeing. 

nan said:

drummerboy said:

You understand what the word "implications" means, right?

Everything I listed is implied by his claim.

That's why it's disingenuous and misleading.

Don't even see how you can argue with it, it's so obvious.

You called him a liar.  These are not lies.  These are you reading into his words and disagreeing. 

You don't read too well.

This is how I closed my post.

"Is what Mate said strictly a lie? Maybe not, but it's certainly meant to
mislead, based on no evidence. Which is as good as a lie, coming from a
"journalist"."

The point is that he presents that assertion about the jury as fact. It certainly is not.

What would you call it? Of course, you believe it, so you think it's a fact.

Anyway, so far I've taken his most ridiculous assertion and shown why he's clearly full of sh!t. You discount everything I say because you think Hillary is a She-Devil controlling the world.

This has taken a significant amount of my time, and this was the easiest assertion to talk about. I'm not about to spend more time on Mate's crap.

Believe him if you want. Consider him some crusader for the truth if you want.

But he's filling your head with crap.

drummerboy said:

You don't read too well.

This is how I closed my post.

"Is what Mate said strictly a lie? Maybe not, but it's certainly meant to
mislead, based on no evidence. Which is as good as a lie, coming from a
"journalist"."

The point is that he presents that assertion about the jury as fact. It certainly is not.

What would you call it? Of course, you believe it, so you think it's a fact.

You have written posts where you just said he was a liar.  Did you watch the video where he elaborates on his views beyond a short twitter post.  I think you are making a big deal out of this because you said he was a liar and you don't have anything but you think you can turn this into something.  I think it's possible that the DC jury pool skews Democratic.  I also think this guy getting off does not change anything about the real scandal which is that Russiagate was orchestrated by the Democrats.  That is a big deal that most Democrats will never face. 

drummerboy said:

Anyway, so far I've taken his most ridiculous assertion and shown why he's clearly full of sh!t. You discount everything I say because you think Hillary is a She-Devil controlling the world.

This has taken a significant amount of my time, and this was the easiest assertion to talk about. I'm not about to spend more time on Mate's crap.

Believe him if you want. Consider him some crusader for the truth if you want.

But he's filling your head with crap.

Again, you have failed to show how he is full of ****.   You have nothing.   You also don't do a good job of reading my mind.