I've read through the entire Sussmann indictment, found here:
https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/21063441/sussmann.pdf
A few questions come to mind.
- I saw some recent article about Dershowitz
https://www.newsmax.com/politics/fbi-dershowitz-durham-sussman/2021/09/18/id/1036979/
saying:
about the weakest indictment ever seen
I have no legal background but sounds like Dershowitz doesn't like the "lying to the FBI being a crime", which I can understand if the FBI is lying to the suspect trying to entrap them in a lie. However, this seems a bit different. From the indictment it says Sussmann approached the FBI. Doesn't sound like the FBI was trying to entrap Sussmann.
Also, not sure why Dershowitz would think this is a weak case. Sounds like Durham has quite a bit of evidence to back up his claim.
- With regards to the evidence, where might this all have come from? Were these emails kept around and then Durham told them nothing can be deleted and he was given access to the email servers? Or something else?
Also, the phone calls. Sounds like Durham knows what was discussed on the phone calls. He wasn't put on the case until after these phone calls had occurred so either this came from interviewing the suspects and them providing the context of the conversation, or all phone calls are recorded and stored. For instance:
22 d. In or about early August 2016, Tech Executive-1 called an individual at Internet Company-3. During the call, Tech Executive-1 instructed the individual to task Internet Company-3 employees to search for any Internet data reflecting potential connections or communications between Trump or his associates and Russia.
26 a. For example, on or about September 17, 2016, SUSSMANN spoke on the phone with Researcher-2. During the phone call, SUSSMANN, among other things requested that Researcher-2 speak on background with member of the media regarding the Russian Bank-1 allegations,...
- It's hard for me to believe that because Sussmann indicated he wasn't working on behalf of a client the FBI actually thought he was coming forward as a concerned citizen.
- ..., it was relevant to the FBI whether the conveyor of these allegations (SUSSMANN) was providing them as an ordinary citizen merely passing along information, or whether he was instead doing so as a paid advocate for clients with a political or business agenda. ...
I mean come on, how stupid do you have to be? His company had the DNC and Hillary as clients. Maybe if the FBI looked they would even find out Sussmann was working for the Hillary Campaign. And this information was coming in just before the election against the other candidate. If the FBI actually believed this was coming from a concerned citizen they should be fired on the grounds of stupidity. They were definitely in on it.
- Seems like all the others mentioned in the indictment should be guilty of some crime, though I don't know what crime that would be. Only Sussmann lied to the FBI so that's what he's being charged with. Can the others be charged with libel?
In the indictment, Did you ever figure out who “Tea Leaves” is?
No. It says "Tea Leaves" is "Originator-1" and:
Ok. I’m sure we’ll find out eventually. Thanks!
I think Dershowitz is trying to get invited to the cocktail parties again.
Christopher Steele was at that July 29 2016 meeting, even though he’s not mentioned in the indictment. Maybe he supplied email, phone records, etc. to Durham .
Stephen McIntyre (@ClimateAudit) Tweeted: Continuation of prior thread on Sussmann Indictment. Link is: https://t.co/6lJdxBE4Dp
I think the Dershowitz comment means that Dersh thinks that this (lying) being the only charge against Sussmann is too weak of a charge, because Durham has enough evidence to charge him with a lot more than what he did.
Could there be other indictments for sussman that haven't been unsealed?
Come forward with the weakest indictment, let the media run their spin campaign then drop a new one to poke through the narrative?
That's what we are all hoping for. Personally I would rather have seen Sussmann blasted with a number of major felony charges. But I can also understand that other, potential charges against him may, and are likely part of ongoing investigations. So, there may be (better be) a legally strategic reasoning for only hitting him with one charge at this time.
One thing that really bothers me about his indictment is that there were no cops kicking in his door at 3:00 AM, terrorizing his family, and hauling him off in cuffs- like the swamp gang did to Roger Stone. That is a bad sign. Very bad. To me, it shows a lack resolve for hurting the evil bastards who are destroying our country. Failure to inflict harm against evil, when harm is deserved is soft, and weak. And I don't like seeing missed opportunities to inflict harm against the swamp, not one bit.
I don't think we can do that 3am thing unless somebody is true immediate violent threat or flight risk. That's their game and to do it the right way is to do it with dignity and professionalism.
And don't get me wrong I know what you mean, but the Patriots can show people what justice is without media glamorization and photo ops during raids (though I'm sure they will use them when it's the right time/perp). We'll wait and see.
I also don't think there is a lack of resolve, I think that a lot of what's happening requires the kind of grit I can't imagine in my own mind and that's why the gruesomes are spared from the public.
I understand what you are saying, and mostly agree- it is more professional to avoid dramatic media hype antics when making arrests.
However, my point centers around the information war that we are actively engaged in, and how optics influences the public, law enforcement officials, and policy makers.
The left shamelessly (and unprofessionally) utilizes skewed public optics against patriots routinely to inflict real, and lasting damage through their MSM outlets. It's dirty; un-chivalrous- but it does accomplish their goals in the information war battlefield.
Therefore, I see no good reason for why conservatives should refrain from hitting them back using the same legal tactics to steer public optics. This [information war] is not a game. The left wants to throw sand in peoples eyes during a fight- kick them in balls. They need to be hurt for choosing to fight dirty. Action-reaction=Pain.
99% of lefty voters have no idea who Sussmann is, or what he has done. Our side needs to fix their ignorance. Sussmann should have been slammed to the ground, and had a cop in tactical gear put a knee on his throat for 10 minutes, while he screamed "I can't breathe!" while being filmed with TV cameras at 3:00AM.
Force the NPC's to learn about the swamp they fight for, and defend, by any (legal) means necessary. I bet the left would know a lot about Sussmann after a stunt like that. Information war- destroy their ignorance.
I know what you mean which is why I think making more dramatic scenery helps their narrative with making it political. Also, I don't think CNN shows up at 3am if it's not a story they want to bring attention to.
I think Dershowitz is saying the evidence to prove lying is not strong. It was a conversation between two people. One witness on each side.
He probably interviewed people. Prosecutors can issue subpoenas for testimony. By the way if folks are not named in the indictment they are not considered suspects.
Yes, but his firm is gigantic
4
It's weird that this level of detail is in there, but they are kept anonymous which usually means they are not a target . They could bring a different indictment later, but then why include all this detail?....a couple of possibilities I see.
A. What they did wasn't illegal.
B. The case was so complicated they couldn't be sure a jury would convict. DOJ policy is you should indict if you can win the case.
C. Another indictment.