-
Xenforo is upgrading us to version 2.3.7 on Tuesday Aug 19, 2025 at 01:00 AM BST (date has been pushed). This upgrade includes several security fixes among other improvements. Expect a temporary downtime during this process. More info here
Social Spying on Trump confirmed: Operation Crossfire Hurricane ***UPDATE: Comey Admits, "I Was Wrong" ***
- Thread starter bobgeese
- Start date
post 2345
Correct.
- Joined
- Dec 5, 2005
- Messages
- 11,215
- Reaction score
- 16,115
That doesn't refer to him representing either the Clinton Campaign, or Clinton herself. It refers to his connection to the clintons via tech. co 1& 2. The very title makes it clear that Sussman wasn't representing Clinton. Here's the actual TITLE of the article:
Lawyer whose firm represented Clinton campaign indicted by special counsel investigating Russia probe
The article you posted, is addressing the conflicts of interest his defense attorneys may have, which were waived by Sussmans camp a few days ago. This is the very first line of the article:
Durham raised the new set of allegations as part of a filing regarding concerns over whether Sussmann's defense attorneys have a conflict of interest in representing him. No additional criminal charges have been brought against Sussmann or others related to the new allegations.
So no bob. Sussman never represented the Clinton nor the Campaign in any matter. And you won't be able to find a single issue where Sussman was counsel for either of them.
So to recap, you first said that Sussman represented Clinton. This is false. Then when called out on that, you claimed that Sussman represented the Clinton campaign. You said you made that mistake, because it was quicker to type Sussman represented Hillary, than Sussman represented the Hillary campaign (a whole extra word). But that wasn't true either.
You don't even know your own position. This isn't the first thing you've gotten wrong in this thread either. You also claimed that Baker would be testifying against Sussman, and posted a Fox News article that dishonestly lifted a quote about the FBI's General Counsel meeting the judge over a conflict of interest. We covered that here:
--------------
So, where did this line come from? It was lifted from this Fox News article from two days ago:
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/du...e-people-cooperating-coming-before-grand-jury
That line, appears in the following context in the Fox article:
The indictment against Sussmann, says he told then-FBI General Counsel James Baker in September 2016, less than two months before the 2016 presidential election, that he was not doing work "for any client" when he requested and held a meeting in which he presented "purported data and 'white papers' that allegedly demonstrated a covert communications channel" between the Trump Organization and Alfa Bank, which has ties to the Kremlin.
Durham's Feb. 11 filing says that the "FBI General Counsel" will "likely be a central witness at trial."
The implication being, that Baker will be called as a witness in regards to the above.
But bob didn't do his due diligence (lets give him the benefit of the doubt and say he wasn't intentionally lying) and makes no effort to determine where that chopped up quote came from. And doing so would be easy, you just have to actually read what Durham filed. And since it's a federal investigation, it's a public document, and can be found here:
https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/21208256-john-durham-sussmann-filing-21122
So go ahead and copy and past bob's lifted line from fox into your search tab and see where that line appears in the actual filing. And it only appears once, here:
Defense Team Member-1 appears to have developed a professional relationship with the former FBI General Counsel to whom the defendant made his alleged false statement and who will likely be a central witness at trial. While it is unlikely that these past interactions and activities will give rise to an actual conflict of interest, the Government respectfully requests in an abundance of caution that the Court inquire with the defense concerning whether Defense Team Member-1’s relationships with persons and entities who might be witnesses in this case could give rise to a potential conflict or appearance issue and, if so, whether the defendant waives any such conflict.
And look at that. Durham isn't talking about calling Baker to testify against Sussman. He's talking about the FBI's General Counsel meeting with the court concerning potential conflicts of interest. It is NOT, as bob and Fox lead you to believe, about Baker testifying about Sussman's alleged lie.
-------------
Last edited:
Once again, you're
https://www.justice.gov/sco/press-release/file/1433511/download
"around the same time period, SUSSMANN was also advising the Clinton Campaign in connection with cybersecurity issues"
Over the ensumg weeks, and as part of their lawyer-client relationship, SUSSMANN and Tech Executive-I engaged in efforts with Campaign Lawyer-I and individuals acting on behalf of the Clinton Campaign to share information about the Russian Bank Data with the media and others, claiming that it demonstrated the existence of a secret communications channel between the Trump Organization and Russian Bank-1.
SUSSMANN Bills the Clinton Campaign for His Communications with Tech Executive-I and Campaign Lawyer- I
20. From in or about late July through in or about mid-August 2016, SUSSMANN, Tech Executive-I, and Campaign Lawyer-I coordinated and communicated about the Russian Bank-I allegations during telephone calls and meetings, which SUSSMANN billed to the Clinton Campaign (denoted in Law Firm-1 's billing records by its official corporate name, "HFACC
- Joined
- Dec 5, 2005
- Messages
- 11,215
- Reaction score
- 16,115
This isn't him representing the Clintons or their Campaign either bob. This refers to the 2015 work Sussman did with Tech Co's 1&2 for the contract that continued into the Trump administration. And he was not paid, be either the Clintons, nor their Campaign for that work.
The actual court filings, which you've been directed to, makes this clear:
Sussmann’s meeting with Agency-2 happened well after the 2016 presidential election, at a time when the Clinton Campaign had effectively ceased to exist. Unsurprisingly, the Motion also omits any mention of the fact that Mr. Sussmann never billed the Clinton Campaign for the work associated with the February 9, 2017 meeting, nor could he have (because there was no Clinton Campaign.
https://fingfx.thomsonreuters.com/gfx/legaldocs/lbpgnwxdyvq/Sussmann-response-Durham-2022-02-14.pdf
You're doing the same dishonest shit that Fox is doing. Conflating the work Sussman did with Tech's 1&2, for which he was paid by federal contract, with someone else in his firm being paid by Clinton, and coming out with "Clinton's lawyer was paid to....."
The bottom line, Sussman never represented either party. And saying such, is a lie. And you know how you could easily refute this bob? Not by posting another article with a title you leave out, but instead link us to any court filing (they are all a matter of public record) which lists Sussman as counsel for either Clinton or the Clinton campaign.
And you won't do that, because no such filing exists.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Feb 5, 2006
- Messages
- 28,579
- Reaction score
- 16,387
Trump lost. Get over it.
- Joined
- Dec 5, 2005
- Messages
- 11,215
- Reaction score
- 16,115
Pretty bold bob, when anyone can just swing by and watch you issue retraction after retraction in real time after you get called out on lying:
Here's you saying that Sussman was Clinton's lawyer (he wasn't):
After getting called out on that, here's you saying that Sussman was a lawyer who worked for the Clinton Campaign (he did not)
And then after getting called out you posted a link who's very title debunked the above:
And you omitted both the title and opening paragraph from that article, that makes it clear that Sussman once represented the DNC, NOT the Clintons and NOT the Clinton campaign. Here is the title to that article:
Special counsel, Democratic lawyer clash over new allegations regarding data purported to tie Trump to Russia
Notice how that title doesn't say anything about Sussman representing the Clintons, but instead just refers to his previous work with the DNC (which had nothing to do with Trump)?
This is just a really clear example of you being caught red handed lying your balls off, and just pushing on without a care.
It might even be worse than that time earlier in the thread, where you lied and said that Baker was going to testify against Sussman, and cited a Fox News article that was talking about conflicts on interest within the FBI's General Counsel.
- Joined
- Feb 26, 2008
- Messages
- 14,950
- Reaction score
- 15,025
I have read that Sussman is a former Clinton campaign lawyer, so as far as I know this is true.
But it seemed to me like Jack was offering a bet to bob over bob's statement that he'd be surprised if more people from Clinton's campaign weren't charged. So I don't see how Sussman would count.
As far as I can tell, the Trump campaign did a bunch of shady shit that got them caught up in an fbi investigation that was in progress long before the election. To date there is one charge and conviction that is related to how the fbi got warrants. Now, I mean, I am glad Clinesman was caught, but what he did is a far cry from an fbi conspiracy to bring down Trump. If you're not claiming that, then never mind, I misunderstood.
It also seems there are two non-fbi guys who are alleged to have lied to the fbi about their associations with the Clinton campaign (and some additional lies for Danchenko). Not sure how those will turn out, but the Sussman allegations look very flimsy to me. Still, regardless of any convictions, I'd say the Clinton campaign may have been just as shady as Trump's.
I invite you to actually examine the dates, as well as the reason the fbi claims it opened the investigation (GP's meeting). What you'll find is that spies were dispatched and already in contact with members of the Trump campaign before GP's conversation was ever relayed back to the US.
I don't know where you came up with a "conspiracy to bring down Trumps". I'm interested in government corruption and abuse of power, which undeniably happened. Furthermore, the public should be made aware that Clinton paid a foreign intelligence person to buy literal Russian propaganda, which was used to damper the agenda of the President of the United States.
Of course many would bury their heads rather than admit the truth. You've already seen the 3 goofs left here defending corruption do it. It's pathetic.
- Joined
- Oct 30, 2004
- Messages
- 95,963
- Reaction score
- 35,163
In what sense? I'm not aware of any even questionable activity.
- Joined
- Oct 30, 2004
- Messages
- 95,963
- Reaction score
- 35,163
Well, the actual truth is that your assertion is ridiculous. No one is defending corruption; people are just defending truth against dishonest accusations of corruption.
- Joined
- Dec 5, 2005
- Messages
- 11,215
- Reaction score
- 16,115
Not really though.
The reality was that Sussman never represented either Hillary nor the Clinton Campaign. He never appeared for them as counsel, either in court or in any pleading before the court. And Sussman was never billed by either Hillary or her campaign.
The way Durham, and right wing media get there, is that the Clinton campaign did hire Sussman's Law Firm, Perkins Coie towards the end of 2016 in regards to the hack of the Democratic National Committee. One of the lawyers from Perkins Coie used the data collected by Sussman in 2015 regarding Trump servers pinging off Alfa Bank.
The devil is in the details, which Durham kinda buries in the middle of his filing here:
'On or about September 15 , 2016, Campaign Lawyer-1 [not Sussman] exchanged emails with the Clinton Campaign's campaign manager, communications director, and foreign policy adviser concerning the Russian Bank-1 allegations that SUSSMANN had recently shared with Reporter1,' it says.
Essentially, Durham takes the work Sussman did under a federal contract along with Tech Co's 1&2, that was turned over to the Justice Department (under Obama, and later Trump) and the CIA; and makes the claim that since another lawyer who WAS counsel for the Clinton Campaign used that same data (two years after it had been handed over to the press and the federal government), then Sussman worked for the Clintons.
I'd call that a lie. First, it's flat out false to say that Sussman was the lawyer for Clinton or her campaign. If you say someone is someones lawyer, then that means they have an attorney client relationship (actual representation) and not just, well there was another guy at firm who relied on some of his previous work for a different client (the federal government under Obama and Trump) for a later case.
Perkins Coie isn't a small law firm. It's got more than 1,200 attorneys spread out over 20 worldwide offices.
https://www.perkinscoie.com/en/professionals/index.html?start=0&count=30
And it would be inaccurate to refer to one of them, who is not actually representing the client, as "her lawyer," or "a lawyer for the Clinton Campaign, simply because a different lawyer in your mega-firm was.
Sussman's team points this out in their filing. That Sussman was not actual counsel, nor was he ever billed by either Clinton or her Campaign.
[t]he Special Counsel implies that in Mr. Sussmann’s February 9, 2017 meeting, he provided Agency-2 with EOP data from after Mr. Trump took office, the Special Counsel is well aware that the data provided to Agency-2 pertained only to the period of time before Mr. Trump took office, when Barack Obama was President. Further—and contrary to the Special Counsel’s alleged theory that Mr. Sussmann was acting in concert with the Clinton Campaign—the Motion conveniently overlooks the fact that Mr. Sussmann’s meeting with Agency-2 happened well after the 2016 presidential election, at a time when the Clinton Campaign had effectively ceased to exist. Unsurprisingly, the Motion also omits any mention of the fact that Mr. Sussmann never billed the Clinton Campaign for the work associated with the February 9, 2017 meeting, nor could he have (because there was no Clinton Campaign). And the Special Counsel persists in alleging that Mr. Sussmann billed the Clinton Campaign for his meeting with the FBI in September 2016, when that is false as well.
Which is why the claim that Sussman lied to Baker in 2016, when he didn't take a meeting with the fellow attorney until Feb 9, 2017 (when you can really stretch the truth and claim Sussman was now working for the Clintons), makes no sense.
Regardless, saying someone was someones lawyer, has a very particular meaning within the law. Bottom line: you don't refer to someone as "their lawyer," unless they have an actual attorney client relationship (based on actual representation, or at least belief by the client (if you want to go full law school exam) that this person was representing them.))
Neither applies to Sussman here, as he very clearly was not representing Clinton or her campaign, nor did he ever appear as an attorney for them in any capacity. Nor was he ever billed for any work he did by Clinton or her campaign.
So to say Sussman worked for the Clintons, you'd also have to claim that all 1,200 members of that law firm, as well as anyone who compiled any data that was used by anyone in that law firm, also worked for the Clintons.
And that would be both stupid, and dishonest.
Last edited:
^^^ Cope Post
@sickc0d3r he's full of shit. See the above post by me (2366). He's was a legal advisor to the 16 campaign, as well as billed them for the alpha bank work. Never, ever trust a single the douchballs says.
- Joined
- Oct 30, 2004
- Messages
- 95,963
- Reaction score
- 35,163
DB earned bob's standard concession.https://forums.sherdog.com/threadloom/search?keywords="^^^+Cope+Post"&nodes[0]=54
