Look up “facial cosplay” in the dictionary and this guys picture is next to it.
3 Likes
“digging into a theory that Sussmann was secretly working on behalf of the Clinton campaign when he reported to FBI lawyer James Baker in 2016 his suspicions of a shady relationship between the Trump Organization and a Russian bank.”
In other words, he has absolutely nothing to show for all the time and money spent on his nonsense and has decided he needs to cut bait by inventing an absurdist conspiracy theory that will light up the far-right propagandasphere and the RNC/GQP establishment in a way that protects, and gets them to protect, his complete waste of taxpayer money from being criticized as such…all because it will be in their interests to prevent real scrutiny of it and keep it alive to try to squeeze political advantage out of it. He is LITERALLY going to indict Sussman on a he-said-she-said basis so that the accusations are wishy-washy enough to be immune from demonstrable disproof and will encourage and foster an entire online social media conspiracy manufacturing blitz.
12 Likes
Oh wow, I missed that distinction from my initial read. If Baker doesn’t even remember if Sussmann said he was reporting on behalf of a client, how is this even making to the indictment stage?
If I were called to a Grand Jury for this, I would be pissed at them for wasting my time.
9 Likes
Miscellany:
But women seeking reproductive health assistance do not?
23 Likes
Probably.
2 Likes
From the fuckwitted nincompoops who brought us Glenn Kessler…
4 Likes
Many years ago a notably choleric professor in my department is reported to have stared long and hard at a van Dyke-sporting passenger in the elevator they were sharing, before shouting at him: “For God’s sake, man, shave that thing off your face! You look like a crotch!” This was circa 1960 when facial shrubbery was much less common.
8 Likes
Ham sandwiches notwithstanding, this would not be the first Barr-era case that failed to get a grand jury indictment. I can’t remember the case. Anybody?
4 Likes
For sure. The reason to do this is twofold. First, the crap I said above. He needs SOMETHING to show for it all and this is an easy-peasy accusation to make if the guy previously represented Clinton or her campaign…or even concurrently represented Clinton and her campaign. It’ll all be circumstantial, conspiratorial conclusions…the kind of shit you holler “there’s X and there’s Y and you expect this jury to believe that Z isn’t the obvious conclusion???” about while cross-examining someone.
Second, he no doubt wants to route around in the Clinton-related client files. Anything he touches should be considered 100% known by and disclosed to the RNC/GQP.
6 Likes
I wonder if the source for both NYT and WaPo is James Baker himself. And why would Sussmann’s attorneys make any statement at all?
3 Likes
In short form: Durham is trying to save face.
(Wonder if he’s still in contact with Bill Barr?)
5 Likes
From whatever is infesting it.
13 Likes
Why would we want them back? They are, quite literally, a dying breed. The tide has turned on the RW and their ranting leader. The foot soldiers don’t want to get arrested and have been compromised to the point no one trusts the guy standing next to him. They are going down.
9 Likes
Miscellany Deux. Say what?
15 Likes
Sorry. Is this where I admit I didn’t do the reading assignment, or do I pretend to be asleep?
5 Likes
Certainly that. I think he’s also trying to spin gold from shit. The GQP and Trump KKKult have gotten nothing out of this investment. He’s trying to provide them something to show for it. He doesn’t want to be known as the guy Barr tapped to deliver but who didn’t deliver. So they’ll be handed their lump of gold-painted shit and they’ll run around with it pretending it’s bullion worthy of Fort Knox.
11 Likes
According to reports, Garland is going to let Durham proceed with the indictment. Maybe Garland is giving Durham all the rope needed to make a fool of himself & Barr. Attorney’s I have talked too tell me there is no ‘there’ there and even if Sussmann lied/mislead about a client, that has nothing to do with the information turned over to the FBI.
9 Likes
Someone posted this last night at Political Wire about Sussmann:
The characterization of Sussmann as a “Democratic Lawyer” has been disputed by Sussmann’s firm as very misleading.
Mr. Sussmann is a nationally recognized privacy, cybersecurity and national-security lawyer. He worked in the Justice Department as a cybercrime prosecutor for both Democratic and Republican administrations, and is regularly retained by clients to handle cybersecurity matters. He is not a political law attorney nor a member of Perkins Coie’s Political Law Group, and he was not remotely close to being the “point man for the firm’s DNC and Clinton campaign accounts.” As reflected in Mr. Sussmann’s biography (publicly available on Perkins Coie’s website), his representation regarding the DNC and the Clinton campaign was focused on advising on their responses to Russian hacking related to the 2016 presidential election.
In addition, and as Perkins Coie has previously publicly stated, Mr. Sussmann’s meeting with the FBI General Counsel James Baker was on behalf of a client with no connections to either the Clinton campaign, the DNC or any other Political Law Group client.
John Devaney
Managing Partner
[https://www.wsj.com/article…](https://disq.us/url?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.wsj.com%2Farticles%2Four-michael-sussmann-is-an-honorable-
(Had to fix that hot mess of a post. I blame the iPhone.)
16 Likes
Do you mean proceed with seeking an indictment?
Wolfred Brimley without the diabetes and humanity-hating partisan brain damage in its place.
4 Likes