yeh all seems old but don't specifically recall the text chain quoted. do you?
this is it copied and pasted:
"Jim – it's Michael Sussmann. I have something time-sensitive (and sensitive) I need to discuss," Sussmann texted Baker on Sept. 18, 2016, according to the new court filing. "Do you have availability for a short meeting tomorrow? I'm coming on my own – not on behalf of a client or company – want to help the Bureau. Thanks."
Yes, I recall that specific text chain quoted, because it was pretty much the entire case against Sussman and can be found on page TWO of what Durham filed back in April of last year.
Click on the OP text above and in the article there's a link to Durham's filing from last year and on page Two, there is that exact text.
Like I posted above, it's a common tactic for websites such as that to regurgitate old posts to get clicks and ad revenue.
Money. That's why.
The post itself was written a year ago.
All they have to do is "update" it. Which could just mean re-opening the file it's saved under. And then it gets bumped up in newsfeeds and people click on it, thinking it is new and they earn money from that.
It's not uncommon.
When there's an actual update to news articles, the news source will usually make an edit at the bottom telling you what has been changed or added.
The lack of such a thing is why I believe it's just been regurgitated for clicks.
Yeah, this is going to piss people off but here goes;
Do you guys ever bother to pay attention to shit going on?
We have people here who think it's some new bombshell that the Sussman thing was a conspiracy.
Even though it was plastered on news article after news article a year ago
And some person posting here seems to be completely unaware that there was an entire trial involving Sussman (or that he was acquitted).
You people are the reason we all look like idiots to normies when they come checking this place out.
And no wonder! I'm half convinced myself!
Do better. Be better.
I'm going to go put myself in timeout until I'm not absolutely disgusted by stupid people.
yeh all seems old but don't specifically recall the text chain quoted. do you?
this is it copied and pasted:
"Jim – it's Michael Sussmann. I have something time-sensitive (and sensitive) I need to discuss," Sussmann texted Baker on Sept. 18, 2016, according to the new court filing. "Do you have availability for a short meeting tomorrow? I'm coming on my own – not on behalf of a client or company – want to help the Bureau. Thanks."
Yes, I recall that specific text chain quoted, because it was pretty much the entire case against Sussman and can be found on page TWO of what Durham filed back in April of last year.
Click on the OP text above and in the article there's a link to Durham's filing from last year and on page Two, there is that exact text.
so why the heck is JustTheNews posting this article now?? strange for sure. and written by John Solomon who is pretty solid usually
Like I posted above, it's a common tactic for websites such as that to regurgitate old posts to get clicks and ad revenue.
Money. That's why.
The post itself was written a year ago.
All they have to do is "update" it. Which could just mean re-opening the file it's saved under. And then it gets bumped up in newsfeeds and people click on it, thinking it is new and they earn money from that.
It's not uncommon.
When there's an actual update to news articles, the news source will usually make an edit at the bottom telling you what has been changed or added.
The lack of such a thing is why I believe it's just been regurgitated for clicks.
Agreed. We need to stay frosty. Too many people see something that gives them a good feels and updoot it.
We need to prioritize quality instead of feels when we updoot.