USA 2020 Elections: Thread

[grarpamp]

When lying Democrat election fraudsters Sussman et al
authorized and ordered by corrupt Hillary Clinton, their
maldeeds exposed for all to see in court transcripts, get let
off by a biased jury in DC city that is populated by Dems 20:1.

"
No trials by judge/jury should occur in Washington, D.C. It has been
proven by #J6 and #Sussmann trials that bias and sympathy (and
prejudice) control verdicts notwithstanding jury instructions.
Evidence & law mean nothing.
I was wrong. I predicted guilty but not much you can do when the jury
is not fair and impartial. The fix was in. Justice is not blind. Clear
case of guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Big loss for Durham.
"

"The State always protects and preserves all of it's own,
including for murder, unless it thinks it can screw over
an opposing faction under hangout of acceptable loss."

"Maybe 1% of Europe is wearing masks right now. In DC its like 75%."





"Our Legal System Is Corrupt" - Trump Responds After Sussman
'FBI-Russia-Hoax-Lie' Acquittal

https://twitter.com/JonathanTurley/status/1531716082997678080
https://www.theepochtimes.com/fbi-lawyer-knowing-clinton-was-behind-trump-allegations-would-have-changed-things_4478501.html
https://technofog.substack.com/p/michael-sussmann-has-been-acquitted
https://twitter.com/Techno_Fog/status/1232814923765493760
https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2022/may/19/judge-sussmann-trial-denies-prosecution-request-re/
https://technofog.substack.com/p/how-fbi-hq-hamstrung-the-alfa-bank
https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1531662402797936640.html
https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/2022/05/19/james-baker-sussmann-fbi-lie-durham/


Following the Sussman acquittal, Former President Donald Trump was
quick to respond, raging that the legal system isn’t working
properly...

    “Our Legal System is CORRUPT,” Trump said in a post on Truth
Social, adding that “our Judges (and Justices!) are highly partisan,
compromised, or just plain scared” before lamenting that Michael
Sussmann, the lawyer, was found not guilty.

Jason Miller, a former Trump campaign aide, also reacted to the
verdict, writing on Gettr that Sussmann admitted to giving opposition
research to the FBI and not telling the bureau that the research was
conducted for Clinton.

    “How did Sussmann get off??? RIGGED SYSTEM!!!” Miller wrote.

The jury unanimously found Sussmann not guilty.

    “I don’t think it should have been prosecuted,” one juror told reporters.

    “There are bigger things that affect the nation than a possible
lie to the FBI.”

    “It was the government’s job to prove it and they succeeded in
some ways and not in others,” she continued. “We broke it down and it
did not pan out in the government’s favor.”

    The woman, who did not give her name, declined to say how she
thought the government succeeded.
    — Jeff Mordock (@JeffMordock) May 31, 2022

We are unsure what that has to do with the legal principles involved
in judging Sussman's guilt?

As Constitutional lawyer Jonathan Turley responded to this juror's comments:

    "Telling a lie to the FBI was the entire basis for the
prosecution. It was the jury's job to determine the fact of such a lie
and its materiality.

    ...Of course, this statement can be a simple criticism of the
underlying charge without admitting to bias in weighing the elements.
Yet, it would have prompted a challenge in the courtroom if expressed
during jury selection."

But then again...

As we detailed earlier, Michael Sussmann, a lawyer representing
Hillary Clinton's 2016 campaign, has been found not guilty of a single
count of lying to the FBI when he said he was not working on behalf of
any client when he alleged a covert communications channel between the
Trump Organization and Russia's Alfa Bank.

    Sussmann sits back down. His face is impassive. Judge thanks jury
and dismisses them. /12
    — Charlie Savage (@charlie_savage) May 31, 2022

Sussmann was charged under 18 U.S.C. 1001 with lying to the FBI during
a meeting with then-FBI general counsel James Baker when he came
forward with what he claimed was evidence of possible covert
communications between the Trump organization and Alfa, a Russian
bank. Sussmann allegedly concealed that he was representing the
Clinton campaign, which he billed for his efforts.

The verdict comes after a two week trial led to more than a day of
deliberations... by this jury:

    TURLEY: “I mean, he is facing a jury that has three Clinton
donors, an AOC donor, and a woman whose daughter is on the same sports
team with Sussmann’s daughter. With the exception of randomly
selecting people out of the DNC headquarters, you could not come up
with a worse jury” pic.twitter.com/RHqen6AMAc
    — Benny Johnson (@bennyjohnson) May 26, 2022

Baker, who now works for Twitter, said that he likely would not have
have met with Michael Sussmann if he knew Sussmann was acting on
behalf of the Clinton campaign.

I don’t think I would have,” Baker said on the stand in federal court
in Washington, as noted by the Epoch Times.

Knowing Trump’s opponent was behind the allegations “would have raised
very serious questions, certainly, about the credibility of the
source” and the “veracity of the information,” Baker said. It would
also have heightened “a substantial concern in my mind about whether
we were going to be played.”

The testimony bolsters a key piece of special counsel John Durham’s
case against Sussmann—that knowing the sources propelling Sussmann to
meet with Baker would have altered how the FBI analyzed the
information, which the bureau ultimately found did not substantiate
the claims of a secret backchannel between the Trump Organization and
Alfa Bank.

“Absent Sussmann’s false statement, the FBI might have taken
additional or more incremental steps before opening and/or closing an
investigation,” prosecutors said in Sussmann’s indictment, which
charged him with lying to the FBI.

As Techno Fog notes:

The acquittal is no surprise. This is a DC jury, after all. In the
Roger Stone case, for example, we documented how a juror lied to get
on the panel. (That judge didn’t care.) Making matters worse, the
Sussmann judge wrongly allowed for a woman to remain on the jury,
despite the fact that her daughter and Sussmann’s are on the same high
school crew team. One can’t help but think that juror had her own
daughter’s interests in mind – the cohesion of the crew team – when
she reached a decision.

On the facts, there was more than sufficient evidence to prove
Sussmann’s guilt. Sussmann lied to then-FBI general counsel James
Baker in order to get a meeting to pass the Alfa Bank hoax materials
to the FBI. Sussmann lied again during the meeting – stating he was
not there on behalf of a client – in order to get the FBI to open an
investigation into the Trump Organization’s purported ties with Alfa
Bank. Later, during testimony to Congress, Sussmann admitted he met
with Baker on behalf of a client. Billing records proved he had been
working on the Alfa Bank project on behalf of the Clinton Campaign.

I won’t say the verdict doesn’t matter. Of course it matters. It would
have proven that a DC jury can convict one of their own. It would have
resulted in accountability for lying to the FBI. Not the gravest of
crimes, but it is still a crime.

In large part, the prosecution of Sussmann was hamstrung by the FBI’s
investigation into the Alfa Bank allegations. That goes to
materiality. How can the lies be material if the FBI’s investigation
was so sloppy? (Answer: they were material because the lies helped
open the investigation in the first place.)

On the issue of materiality, look to the testimony of FBI Special
Agent Curtis Heide, whose repeated requests to interview the source of
the Alfa Bank information were denied by headquarters. FBI
Headquarters didn’t want this thing thoroughly vetted - even though
they demanded the investigation be opened. As we stated during the
trial:

    Relatively early on in the investigation - on September 26, 2016 -
Agent Heide sent a message to Pientka, requesting an interview of the
source of the Alfa Bank white papers. By that time, Heide knew the
white paper was bunk. He received no response from Pientka. He
repeated this request on October 3, 2016. Agent Heide’s requests were
rebuffed by his liaison at FBI headquarters:

That’s not the say the public hasn’t benefited from the trial. The
information disclosed during the trial was important to understand the
broader Clinton/Fusion GPS/Perkins Coie effort to poison the public,
the press, and the FBI with their Trump/Russia lies.

Read the rest from Techno Fog here.

Meanwhile, here's more on why many thought Sussmann would be found guilty:

Why Sussman is guilty as charged.

The popular leftist narrative goes "who cares what Sussman told Baker?
Everyone knew he was working for the Clinton campaign." It's flawed
because it's asking the wrong question.

The right question is "would Baker have passed on Sussman's data to
investigators had Sussman informed him he was there representing the
Clinton campaign?" The answer is no. In fact Baker said he wouldn't
have even taken the meeting.

    Baker testifies that knowing whether or not Sussmann had client
was important to him to assess its reliability of information. He says
he would not have taken the meeting if Sussmann said he was working on
behalf of Clinton camp
    — Andrew Goudsward (@AGoudsward) May 19, 2022

"Baker insisted he had a clear memory that, at the 2016 meeting,
Sussmann claimed he was not bringing the allegations to the FBI on
behalf of any client.
“I’m 100 percent confident that he said that in the meeting,” he said.

The key point overlooked by most: Sussman didn't lie just to give
himself cover. He lied so BAKER would have cover to hand the data over
to Cyber Division. In fact the lie was necessary BECAUSE "everyone
knew" Sussman was working for the Clinton campaign. Including Sussman.

    Sussmann was found not guilty. Many of us viewed the evidence was
overwhelming. Yet, the jury either believed he did not lie or that the
lie was not material. https://t.co/A20o2GPhQi
    — Jonathan Turley (@JonathanTurley) May 31, 2022

And let the arguments begin:

    We literally found out that Hillary Clinton OKed dissemination of
disinformation meant to undermine trust in our presidential elections
-- which was spread widely by leftist media outlets (CNN being one of
the worst offenders.) But sure, do your thing! https://t.co/MG3MZx8TaZ
    — David Harsanyi (@davidharsanyi) May 31, 2022