ADVERTISEMENT

Sussmann case going to court

Lol 3 replies. I wonder why.
From the filing (again, emphasis in original):

[T]he Indictment does not allege that Mr. Sussmann knew — or should have known — that the Russian Bank-1 Information was false. Instead, Mr. Sussmann is charged simply with purportedly lying about whether he was acting on behalf of a particular client when conveying that information. That is, the alleged false statement concerns, at most, Mr. Sussmann’s purported motivation for providing the tip to the FBI — not the tip itself. A false statement of this sort does not have the requisite close nexus to the FBI’s decision whether to initiate an investigation and is thus incapable of influencing that decision as a matter of law.

To hear the former Clinton attorney tell it, he was simply providing the FBI with a tip. And, Sussmann says, the tip isn’t itself identified as “false” in the indictment.


The motion to dismiss also makes sure to argue that Sussmann didn’t even lie in the first place.

“Sussmann did not make any false statement to the FBI,” the introduction says.

The FBI has, however, since concluded the alleged link between Trump’s 2016 campaign and Alfa Bank was not true.

Additionally, Sussmann claims, the FBI already knew about the information he allegedly lied about.

Again, from the filing; again, the emphasis is in the original:

Moreover, even the Indictment’s own allegations undermine any claim that the false statement could have been material. The Indictment alleges that the FBI “might have” taken “additional or incremental steps” had it known of Mr. Sussmann’s purported clients. But there is no reason the FBI would have acted differently if it learned of Mr. Sussmann’s supposed relationship with the Clinton Campaign. The FBI was already aware of what the Indictment described as the “political nature of his work.” Indeed, the Indictment makes clear that the FBI and Mr. Baker himself were well aware that Mr. Sussmann was representing the Democratic National Committee at a time when Hillary Clinton, the Democratic nominee for president, was the Democratic National Committee.
 
From the filing (again, emphasis in original):

[T]he Indictment does not allege that Mr. Sussmann knew — or should have known — that the Russian Bank-1 Information was false. Instead, Mr. Sussmann is charged simply with purportedly lying about whether he was acting on behalf of a particular client when conveying that information. That is, the alleged false statement concerns, at most, Mr. Sussmann’s purported motivation for providing the tip to the FBI — not the tip itself. A false statement of this sort does not have the requisite close nexus to the FBI’s decision whether to initiate an investigation and is thus incapable of influencing that decision as a matter of law.

To hear the former Clinton attorney tell it, he was simply providing the FBI with a tip. And, Sussmann says, the tip isn’t itself identified as “false” in the indictment.


The motion to dismiss also makes sure to argue that Sussmann didn’t even lie in the first place.

“Sussmann did not make any false statement to the FBI,” the introduction says.

The FBI has, however, since concluded the alleged link between Trump’s 2016 campaign and Alfa Bank was not true.

Additionally, Sussmann claims, the FBI already knew about the information he allegedly lied about.

Again, from the filing; again, the emphasis is in the original:

Moreover, even the Indictment’s own allegations undermine any claim that the false statement could have been material. The Indictment alleges that the FBI “might have” taken “additional or incremental steps” had it known of Mr. Sussmann’s purported clients. But there is no reason the FBI would have acted differently if it learned of Mr. Sussmann’s supposed relationship with the Clinton Campaign. The FBI was already aware of what the Indictment described as the “political nature of his work.” Indeed, the Indictment makes clear that the FBI and Mr. Baker himself were well aware that Mr. Sussmann was representing the Democratic National Committee at a time when Hillary Clinton, the Democratic nominee for president, was the Democratic National Committee.
Sussmann billed Clinton and the DNC for his time during his FBI interview, then denied he was working for them. Pretty open and shut.
 
Sussmann billed Clinton and the DNC for his time during his FBI interview, then denied he was working for them. Pretty open and shut.
I have heard so many sides to this that I am not sure what to believe. I am just going to wait until there is a verdict.
 
From the filing (again, emphasis in original):

[T]he Indictment does not allege that Mr. Sussmann knew — or should have known — that the Russian Bank-1 Information was false. Instead, Mr. Sussmann is charged simply with purportedly lying about whether he was acting on behalf of a particular client when conveying that information. That is, the alleged false statement concerns, at most, Mr. Sussmann’s purported motivation for providing the tip to the FBI — not the tip itself. A false statement of this sort does not have the requisite close nexus to the FBI’s decision whether to initiate an investigation and is thus incapable of influencing that decision as a matter of law.

To hear the former Clinton attorney tell it, he was simply providing the FBI with a tip. And, Sussmann says, the tip isn’t itself identified as “false” in the indictment.


The motion to dismiss also makes sure to argue that Sussmann didn’t even lie in the first place.

“Sussmann did not make any false statement to the FBI,” the introduction says.

The FBI has, however, since concluded the alleged link between Trump’s 2016 campaign and Alfa Bank was not true.

Additionally, Sussmann claims, the FBI already knew about the information he allegedly lied about.

Again, from the filing; again, the emphasis is in the original:

Moreover, even the Indictment’s own allegations undermine any claim that the false statement could have been material. The Indictment alleges that the FBI “might have” taken “additional or incremental steps” had it known of Mr. Sussmann’s purported clients. But there is no reason the FBI would have acted differently if it learned of Mr. Sussmann’s supposed relationship with the Clinton Campaign. The FBI was already aware of what the Indictment described as the “political nature of his work.” Indeed, the Indictment makes clear that the FBI and Mr. Baker himself were well aware that Mr. Sussmann was representing the Democratic National Committee at a time when Hillary Clinton, the Democratic nominee for president, was the Democratic National Committee.
So your reply to me pointing out that hrot is ignoring this issue because politics is, it's OK because this particular indictment is about one lie and not the other. Makes complete sense.
 
So your reply to me pointing out that hrot is ignoring this issue because politics is, it's OK because this particular indictment is about one lie and not the other. Makes complete sense.
Well, in fairness it’s not discussed on msnbc or cnn. They simply don’t know what we are talking about
 
It’s actually pretty hard to get an indictment dismissed based on an argument that a false statement was not material, which is the very essence of a question for a jury.
 
I have heard so many sides to this that I am not sure what to believe. I am just going to wait until there is a verdict.
Well, he's going to trial for the subject of the investigation, which is more than can be said for anything that came out of Mueller
 
So your reply to me pointing out that hrot is ignoring this issue because politics is, it's OK because this particular indictment is about one lie and not the other. Makes complete sense.
I have no idea what this means.
 
Well, he's going to trial for the subject of the investigation, which is more than can be said for anything that came out of Mueller

We talking about Robert Mueller and his team?

Robert Mueller’s team indicted or got guilty pleas from 34 people and three companies during their lengthy investigation. That group is composed of six former Trump advisers, 26 Russian nationals, three Russian companies, one California man, and one London-based lawyer. Seven of these people (including five of the six former Trump advisers) have pled guilty.

So….yeah…like “nothing”.
 
We talking about Robert Mueller and his team?

Robert Mueller’s team indicted or got guilty pleas from 34 people and three companies during their lengthy investigation. That group is composed of six former Trump advisers, 26 Russian nationals, three Russian companies, one California man, and one London-based lawyer. Seven of these people (including five of the six former Trump advisers) have pled guilty.

So….yeah…like “nothing”.
What Mueller and Durham ultimately will both have in common is that, as is typical in these political investigations, the only convictions they get will relate to collateral misconduct during the course of the investigation and nothing to do with the substantive issue they were tasked with investigating.
 
Looks like he is got someone cooperating. Immunity for one of the people. It begins



A member of the jury said 'there could have been a better use of my time'. A unanimous not guilty decision on a bullshit charge by a bullshit prosecutor named by an idiot AG by an Orange dipshit conman.
 
So what did we learn from the trial.

Sussmann, who was working for the Clintons, planted the bank story to the FBI at the request of Clinton. Clintons own campaign manager testified to the fact.
Even if true, so what? You just keep digging, you are just shameless.
 
So what did we learn from the trial.

Sussmann, who was working for the Clintons, planted the bank story to the FBI at the request of Clinton. Clintons own campaign manager testified to the fact.

JFC. Grade school mentality. What is it with you wingnuts? If you're going to invent something, make it grandiose. Piddle around for years with mickey mouse shit like the dossier, or an FBI story. You always come out looking like fools.
 
ADVERTISEMENT