Well not that any sane person would have believed this whole media driven disinformation (as CNN and MSNBC like to call it) but I am glad the facts are coming out. I knew Podesta and Palmeri were pure evil but wow. Just wow.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/hillary-cl ... obby-mook/

Here is my favorite line in the article.

"I'm sure you know reporters publish things that aren't true," DeFilippis pushed back.

I am glad there are some people out there that care what the truth is. I mean heck if there wasn't there would be 3 kids from Duke College in jail for something they didn't do. Should be fun to watch this trial play out.

Both campaigns were incredibly dirty and staffed by some with totally questionable ethics. Par for the course in 2016.

Rick Gates, Manafort, Bannon etc should have had to share a cell with Podesta until all cried uncle.

Seems like a very specific claim that's being litigated here, and one that has almost nothing to do with what Trump and company may have actually been up to.

Just wow, what?

This is getting all worked up over a tick on a rhinoceros.

Newark727 wrote:

Seems like a very specific claim that's being litigated here, and one that has almost nothing to do with what Trump and company may have actually been up to.

Very true, I wonder what's Biden DOJ waiting to go after Trump, because as you say he was really into something. Its going to be 2 years and no investigation launched by the Biden DOJ. Whereas Clinton's campaign lawyer is the one in trial for misinformation in 2016. Interesting.

Yet, this information is being reported by the MSM, while I don't remember Fox saying adversarial about Trump's legal problems.

AirWorthy99 wrote:

Newark727 wrote:

Seems like a very specific claim that's being litigated here, and one that has almost nothing to do with what Trump and company may have actually been up to.

Very true, I wonder what's Biden DOJ waiting to go after Trump, because as you say he was really into something. Its going to be 2 years and no investigation launched by the Biden DOJ. Whereas Clinton's campaign lawyer is the one in trial for misinformation in 2016. Interesting.

Incorrect, on trial for lying to the FBI. According to some in MAGA world, that should be a good thing, since the FBI is unpatriotic and corrupt and can’tbe trusted...or whatever. Lost track of all the baloney.

Aaron747 wrote:

Both campaigns were incredibly dirty and staffed by some with totally questionable ethics.

Both campaigns? It seems that you're buying into the whataboutism.

This latest story about the election staff giving the NYT the lead to possible connection between Trump and Alpha bank is a big nothing. There's no breach of law or ethics there, they gave the story so that the reporter could "run it down further" and verify it. So what. That kind of stuff happens all day every day.

The only other "scandal" that I know of is that Donna Brazile funneled Hillary information that a set up question was to be asked in a Q&A.
That also is utterly trivial. The only President or candidate that I think might have turned Brazile down and refused her information would be Jimmy Carter, and even he is not a sure thing.

If you want to see questionable ethics, look at Ronald Reagan's WH or George Bush's lies and selling of a war, then there is the master of loose ethics: Donald Trump.

jeez

Vintage wrote:

Aaron747 wrote:

Both campaigns were incredibly dirty and staffed by some with totally questionable ethics.

Both campaigns? It seems that you're buying into the whataboutism.

This latest story about the election staff giving the NYT the lead to possible connection between Trump and Alpha bank is a big nothing. There's no breach of law or ethics there, they gave the story so that the reporter could "run it down further" and verify it. So what. That kind of stuff happens all day every day.

The only other "scandal" that I know of is that Donna Brazile funneled Hillary information that a set up question was to be asked in a Q&A.
That also is utterly trivial. The only President or candidate that I think might have turned Brazile down and refused her information would be Jimmy Carter, and even he is not a sure thing.

If you want to see questionable ethics, look at Ronald Reagan's WH or George Bush's lies and selling of a war, then there is the master of loose ethics: Donald Trump.

jeez

Not buying into anything, just what’s known. I know what I read in Podesta’s Gmail leak when that dropped, did you have a gander?

Both campaigns also dealt with Cambridge Analytica, who we now know were playing both ends of the stick on FB and elsewhere.

NIKV69 wrote:

Well not that any sane person would have believed this whole media driven disinformation (as CNN and MSNBC like to call it) but I am glad the facts are coming out. I knew Podesta and Palmeri were pure evil but wow. Just wow.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/hillary-cl ... obby-mook/

Here is my favorite line in the article.

"I'm sure you know reporters publish things that aren't true," DeFilippis pushed back.

I am glad there are some people out there that care what the truth is. I mean heck if there wasn't there would be 3 kids from Duke College in jail for something they didn't do. Should be fun to watch this trial play out.

Hillary herself said the information is sketchy, so it needs to be further researched is how a reporter ended up with it. Golly, gosh, gee whizz.... Hillary telling people the information may need to be researched. Who woulda thunk it?

Aaron747 wrote:

Vintage wrote:

Aaron747 wrote:

Both campaigns were incredibly dirty and staffed by some with totally questionable ethics.

Both campaigns? It seems that you're buying into the whataboutism.

This latest story about the election staff giving the NYT the lead to possible connection between Trump and Alpha bank is a big nothing. There's no breach of law or ethics there, they gave the story so that the reporter could "run it down further" and verify it. So what. That kind of stuff happens all day every day.

The only other "scandal" that I know of is that Donna Brazile funneled Hillary information that a set up question was to be asked in a Q&A.
That also is utterly trivial. The only President or candidate that I think might have turned Brazile down and refused her information would be Jimmy Carter, and even he is not a sure thing.

If you want to see questionable ethics, look at Ronald Reagan's WH or George Bush's lies and selling of a war, then there is the master of loose ethics: Donald Trump.

jeez

Not buying into anything, just what’s known. I know what I read in Podesta’s Gmail leak when that dropped, did you have a gander?
Both campaigns also dealt with Cambridge Analytica, who we now know were playing both ends of the stick on FB and elsewhere.

I just refreshed my knowledge of the Gmail hack via Wikipedia (the word "leak" doesn't describe the crime of hacking into Podesta's E-mail account) and again I see nothing of significance; certainly nothing that would cause me to describe Hillary's campaigns as "incredibly dirty" or even "dirty" or even tainted. Just normal American business practice in the real world.

Aaron747 wrote:

AirWorthy99 wrote:

Newark727 wrote:

Seems like a very specific claim that's being litigated here, and one that has almost nothing to do with what Trump and company may have actually been up to.

Very true, I wonder what's Biden DOJ waiting to go after Trump, because as you say he was really into something. Its going to be 2 years and no investigation launched by the Biden DOJ. Whereas Clinton's campaign lawyer is the one in trial for misinformation in 2016. Interesting.

Incorrect, on trial for lying to the FBI. According to some in MAGA world, that should be a good thing, since the FBI is unpatriotic and corrupt and can’tbe trusted...or whatever. Lost track of all the baloney.

Right, disinformation is not a crime 'yet'. However lying to the FBI is, which is giving disinformation to the FBI.

As for corruption, I hope Durham gets the people who spread the false Steele Dossier, which Clinton funded and was used to portray Trump as a puppet of Putin based on lies paid by Clinton https://www.cnn.com/2022/03/30/politics ... index.html. That caused more damage than whatever they are accusing Clinton's lawyer in this trial.

One can only hope.

NIKV69 wrote:

I am glad there are some people out there that care what the truth is. I mean heck if there wasn't there would be 3 kids from Duke College in jail for something they didn't do. Should be fun to watch this trial play out.

Can you tell us what is the truth, then ? Nobody around Trump talked to Russians ?

Sadly, we may never know the truth about the possible involvement of the Russian government supporting the campaign of Donald Trump in 2016 and how much it helped him. Too much hearsay evidence, both Trump and Clinton playing dirty during the campaign, both of them being a choice of the lesser of 2 evils, racism, sexism, anti-immigrant attitudes, serious mistakes in campaigning by HRC (like ignoring Michigan and Pennsylvania, the infamous 'deplorables' comment as to Trump supporters, getting ill at the 9/11 ceremony at the WTC) and so on. I don't know if this 'Durham' will result in any criminal convictions but at the least it should be a warning to anyone campaigning to be very careful with information they may have on an opponent if can't be fully vetted.

AirWorthy99 wrote:

Aaron747 wrote:

AirWorthy99 wrote:

Very true, I wonder what's Biden DOJ waiting to go after Trump, because as you say he was really into something. Its going to be 2 years and no investigation launched by the Biden DOJ. Whereas Clinton's campaign lawyer is the one in trial for misinformation in 2016. Interesting.

Incorrect, on trial for lying to the FBI. According to some in MAGA world, that should be a good thing, since the FBI is unpatriotic and corrupt and can’tbe trusted...or whatever. Lost track of all the baloney.

Right, disinformation is not a crime 'yet'. However lying to the FBI is, which is giving disinformation to the FBI.

As for corruption, I hope Durham gets the people who spread the false Steele Dossier, which Clinton funded and was used to portray Trump as a puppet of Putin based on lies paid by Clinton https://www.cnn.com/2022/03/30/politics ... index.html. That caused more damage than whatever they are accusing Clinton's lawyer in this trial.

One can only hope.

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/nation ... p-n1264371
https://apnews.com/article/donald-trump ... e21fce6ebf

It can't be much of a hoax when it actually happened...

ltbewr wrote:

Sadly, we may never know the truth about the possible involvement of the Russian government supporting the campaign of Donald Trump in 2016 and how much it helped him. Too much hearsay evidence, both Trump and Clinton playing dirty during the campaign, both of them being a choice of the lesser of 2 evils, racism, sexism, anti-immigrant attitudes, serious mistakes in campaigning by HRC (like ignoring Michigan and Pennsylvania, the infamous 'deplorables' comment as to Trump supporters, getting ill at the 9/11 ceremony at the WTC) and so on. I don't know if this 'Durham' will result in any criminal convictions but at the least it should be a warning to anyone campaigning to be very careful with information they may have on an opponent if can't be fully vetted.

Both Russia and China are constantly active, not only spying but attempting to weaken the US through influence campaigns. Anything that divides Americans is great for Russia and China. They loved 2016. And they are still doing great. Of course they will try to seed campaigns with dirt and information. Why wouldn’t they?!

The ultra-left riots in 2020 and stand downs by prosecutors and police were huge wins. Jan 6 was a dream come true, especially the way it was portrayed by the media as a near coup (a comparison to carjackers and looters Is more accurate imo… the dregs of society). When the ultra-uneducated ultra-fringe people get out and riot, it pleases autocrats overseas, and is used as justification for further tyranny.

You may not agree with my examples but at least we can agree it happens.

NIKV69 wrote:

Well not that any sane person would have believed this whole media driven disinformation (as CNN and MSNBC like to call it) but I am glad the facts are coming out. I knew Podesta and Palmeri were pure evil but wow. Just wow.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/hillary-cl ... obby-mook/

Here is my favorite line in the article.

"I'm sure you know reporters publish things that aren't true," DeFilippis pushed back.

I am glad there are some people out there that care what the truth is. I mean heck if there wasn't there would be 3 kids from Duke College in jail for something they didn't do. Should be fun to watch this trial play out.

My father used to obsessively watch CNN when I grew up so it was considered the beacon of truth as far as news networks (It was fairly impartial for a while). Now it physically makes me sick to watch. I loathe Fox but it's entertaining and I feel more tongue in cheek than CNN whose pomposity exudes an air of "We are the only arbiters of truth". After the deliberate coverup of the Hunter Biden scandal and potential shady ties of Biden to Ukraine which the American public had a right to know before a critical election, nothing surprises me from the MSM. Do I think it would've made a difference to Trump who I absolutely did not want back? Probably not, but the information should've been disseminated for voters to make up their own minds. It's still patently obvious the media played a role in clinching the nomination for Biden who was moribund in the primaries and miraculously "trounced" Bernie who would've been the nominee if the corrupt media hadn't colluded to screw him over since I he wanted to take a larger slice of these establishment politicians's pies. You can disagree with his policies as a bit radical (even I do) but it's hard not to commend his consistency and honesty as a politician in a sea of sharks.

phugoid1982 wrote:

NIKV69 wrote:

Well not that any sane person would have believed this whole media driven disinformation (as CNN and MSNBC like to call it) but I am glad the facts are coming out. I knew Podesta and Palmeri were pure evil but wow. Just wow.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/hillary-cl ... obby-mook/

Here is my favorite line in the article.

"I'm sure you know reporters publish things that aren't true," DeFilippis pushed back.

I am glad there are some people out there that care what the truth is. I mean heck if there wasn't there would be 3 kids from Duke College in jail for something they didn't do. Should be fun to watch this trial play out.

My father used to obsessively watch CNN when I grew up so it was considered the beacon of truth as far as news networks (It was fairly impartial for a while). Now it physically makes me sick to watch. I loathe Fox but it's entertaining and I feel more tongue in cheek than CNN whose pomposity exudes an air of "We are the only arbiters of truth". After the deliberate coverup of the Hunter Biden scandal and potential shady ties of Biden to Ukraine which the American public had a right to know before a critical election, nothing surprises me from the MSM. Do I think it would've made a difference to Trump who I absolutely did not want back? Probably not, but the information should've been disseminated for voters to make up their own minds. It's still patently obvious the media played a role in clinching the nomination for Biden who was moribund in the primaries and miraculously "trounced" Bernie who would've been the nominee if the corrupt media hadn't colluded to screw him over since I he wanted to take a larger slice of these establishment politicians's pies. You can disagree with his policies as a bit radical (even I do) but it's hard not to commend his consistency and honesty as a politician in a sea of sharks.

Agreed. I’m not very old yet, but at least I remember what real journalism sounds like and reads like. Peter Jennings, CNN or Tom Brokaw 1990 era. Mike Wallace or Dan Rather, Ed Bradley. Just the facts. They weren’t perfect, but they understood the tradition.

Todays stuff is comparable to TikTok. Except that some of the people on TikTok are actually smart and have a future.

ltbewr wrote:

both Trump and Clinton playing dirty during the campaign,

Can you cite an instance of Hillary "playing dirty"?
I know of nothing such.

Whatever it would be, it would have to be something above the level of giving a NYT reporter a lead on a possible Trump connection to a Russian bank. Something beyond that which occurs in virtually every political campaign.

IMO the "Hillary playing dirty" meme is proof that if a lie is told often enough, it becomes the truth.

LCDFlight wrote:

Agreed. I’m not very old yet, but at least I remember what real journalism sounds like and reads like. Peter Jennings, CNN or Tom Brokaw 1990 era. Mike Wallace or Dan Rather, Ed Bradley. Just the facts. They weren’t perfect, but they understood the tradition.

Todays stuff is comparable to TikTok. Except that some of the people on TikTok are actually smart and have a future.

What's interesting is that this is a generational perspective. For my generation, Brokaw and Rather were the first to bend the rules and be caught in reporting errors. Jennings was the best of that bunch. The earlier generation of Huntley, Brinkley, Cronkite, Murrow were truly serious journalists, with very high standards.

That began to fall apart in the 1990's when TV news became big business. Prior to that, news was a loss leader for the networks. Cable changed all that, and with the money and viewership came influence, and pursuit of ratings. It's been all downhill from there.

There are still a few relatively objective sources. PBS NewsHour is fairly balanced, AP News, Reuters and BBC are not bad. The main cable news players have become partisan and the slant is no longer separable from the news.

phugoid1982 wrote:

NIKV69 wrote:

Well not that any sane person would have believed this whole media driven disinformation (as CNN and MSNBC like to call it) but I am glad the facts are coming out. I knew Podesta and Palmeri were pure evil but wow. Just wow.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/hillary-cl ... obby-mook/

Here is my favorite line in the article.

"I'm sure you know reporters publish things that aren't true," DeFilippis pushed back.

I am glad there are some people out there that care what the truth is. I mean heck if there wasn't there would be 3 kids from Duke College in jail for something they didn't do. Should be fun to watch this trial play out.

My father used to obsessively watch CNN when I grew up so it was considered the beacon of truth as far as news networks (It was fairly impartial for a while). Now it physically makes me sick to watch. I loathe Fox but it's entertaining and I feel more tongue in cheek than CNN whose pomposity exudes an air of "We are the only arbiters of truth". After the deliberate coverup of the Hunter Biden scandal and potential shady ties of Biden to Ukraine which the American public had a right to know before a critical election, nothing surprises me from the MSM. Do I think it would've made a difference to Trump who I absolutely did not want back? Probably not, but the information should've been disseminated for voters to make up their own minds. It's still patently obvious the media played a role in clinching the nomination for Biden who was moribund in the primaries and miraculously "trounced" Bernie who would've been the nominee if the corrupt media hadn't colluded to screw him over since I he wanted to take a larger slice of these establishment politicians's pies. You can disagree with his policies as a bit radical (even I do) but it's hard not to commend his consistency and honesty as a politician in a sea of sharks.

So what you’re saying is that Fox is kind of better since they’re joking around?

No. They're both propaganda arms of the respective mainstream parties. However, a lot of the the stuff that comes out of FOX is so outlandish i'm sure even the hosts don't believe the crap they spew. They're catering to their demographic. The typical 60+ frustrated white male who blames immigrants and brown people, lack of Christian values, LGBTQ etc...for their failures in life. I'll take DW news or BBC for my legit news any day.

phugoid1982 wrote:

No. They're both propaganda arms of the respective mainstream parties. However, a lot of the the stuff that comes out of FOX is so outlandish i'm sure even the hosts don't believe the crap they spew. They're catering to their demographic. The typical 60+ frustrated white male who blames immigrants and brown people, lack of Christian values, LGBTQ etc...for their failures in life. I'll take DW news or BBC for my legit news any day.

Interesting, I know a Republican political consultant who says the same thing. He said they know they are embellishing but it keeps the base energized and voting for their candidates. So they don't necessarily privately believe what they are saying. He said it's just politics, he sees it as being harmless and no worse than the Democrats doing the same. It's basically a big game to them. They watch the reaction to what they say and try to maximize the response.

I don't know what to think of that, whether to be relieved that they aren't crazy or to be appalled that they are knowingly fibbing on national news. Strange times we live in.

It's a game until you have a civil war on your hands.

So the mods are going to continue to leave up a thread that is titled incorrectly and not even supported by the article .

Fake news?

Sussman was a lawyer for the Clinton Campaign
The Campaign made up a story about Alfa Bank.
Sussman went to the FBI General Counsel James Baker to sell the story, to get them involved so they could leak that the FBI was investigating Trump/Russia link.
Sussman deliberately did not disclose that he was there as a lawyer for the campaign (or any other client. Just a "concerned citizen" eh?)
The Clinton campaign wasn't confident about the veracity of the Alfa allegations. (Not surprising, because they MADE THEM UP THEMSELVES. That's Hint #1 that it's BS).
Despite that Hillary said release it. As if she didn't know it was a crock.

Ostrich time for Clinton apologists.

Bricktop wrote:

Fake news?

Sussman was a lawyer for the Clinton Campaign
The Campaign made up a story about Alfa Bank.
Sussman went to the FBI General Counsel James Baker to sell the story, to get them involved so they could leak that the FBI was investigating Trump/Russia link.
Sussman deliberately did not disclose that he was there as a lawyer for the campaign (or any other client. Just a "concerned citizen" eh?)
The Clinton campaign wasn't confident about the veracity of the Alfa allegations. (Not surprising, because they MADE THEM UP THEMSELVES. That's Hint #1 that it's BS).
Despite that Hillary said release it. As if she didn't know it was a crock.

Ostrich time for Clinton apologists.

Really emotional about a bunch of stuff that amounts to a political pissing contest laced with perjury. Everything OK..?

Bricktop wrote:

Fake news?

Sussman was a lawyer for the Clinton Campaign
The Campaign made up a story about Alfa Bank.
Sussman went to the FBI General Counsel James Baker to sell the story, to get them involved so they could leak that the FBI was investigating Trump/Russia link.
Sussman deliberately did not disclose that he was there as a lawyer for the campaign (or any other client. Just a "concerned citizen" eh?)
The Clinton campaign wasn't confident about the veracity of the Alfa allegations. (Not surprising, because they MADE THEM UP THEMSELVES. That's Hint #1 that it's BS).
Despite that Hillary said release it. As if she didn't know it was a crock.

Ostrich time for Clinton apologists.

The article states that they leaked the information to a reporter, and hoped the reporter would gather info. Not the FBI.

So please spare me the theatrics.

Do you know why we know that the server was no threat? Come on please let me know, because I want to make sure you understand what occurred.

Bricktop wrote:

Sussman was a lawyer for the Clinton Campaign
The Campaign made up a story about Alfa Bank.
Sussman went to the FBI General Counsel James Baker to sell the story, to get them involved so they could leak that the FBI was investigating Trump/Russia link.
Sussman deliberately did not disclose that he was there as a lawyer for the campaign (or any other client. Just a "concerned citizen" eh?)
The Clinton campaign wasn't confident about the veracity of the Alfa allegations. (Not surprising, because they MADE THEM UP THEMSELVES. That's Hint #1 that it's BS).
Despite that Hillary said release it. .

All of that is verifiable fact. And no one involved has denied.

Aaron747 wrote:

Bricktop wrote:

Fake news?

Sussman was a lawyer for the Clinton Campaign
The Campaign made up a story about Alfa Bank.
Sussman went to the FBI General Counsel James Baker to sell the story, to get them involved so they could leak that the FBI was investigating Trump/Russia link.
Sussman deliberately did not disclose that he was there as a lawyer for the campaign (or any other client. Just a "concerned citizen" eh?)
The Clinton campaign wasn't confident about the veracity of the Alfa allegations. (Not surprising, because they MADE THEM UP THEMSELVES. That's Hint #1 that it's BS).
Despite that Hillary said release it. As if she didn't know it was a crock.

Ostrich time for Clinton apologists.

Really emotional about a bunch of stuff that amounts to a political pissing contest laced with perjury. Everything OK..?

Everything is fine. Thanks for your concern. Facts do not have emotions, and that is what I posted. Facts.

Now if it helps your own mental state to minimize those facts, then go for it.

casinterest wrote:

Bricktop wrote:

Fake news?

Sussman was a lawyer for the Clinton Campaign
The Campaign made up a story about Alfa Bank.
Sussman went to the FBI General Counsel James Baker to sell the story, to get them involved so they could leak that the FBI was investigating Trump/Russia link.
Sussman deliberately did not disclose that he was there as a lawyer for the campaign (or any other client. Just a "concerned citizen" eh?)
The Clinton campaign wasn't confident about the veracity of the Alfa allegations. (Not surprising, because they MADE THEM UP THEMSELVES. That's Hint #1 that it's BS).
Despite that Hillary said release it. As if she didn't know it was a crock.

Ostrich time for Clinton apologists.

The article states that they leaked the information to a reporter, and hoped the reporter would gather info. Not the FBI.

So please spare me the theatrics.

Do you know why we know that the server was no threat? Come on please let me know, because I want to make sure you understand what occurred.

The theatrics are from those who shriek "Fake News!" every time their worldview is challenged.

I understand perfectly. But to help YOU understand, the article is about MOOK's testimony. His perspective. I'm talking Sussman. The guy on trial. Mook may have thought going to the FBI was a bad strategy, but Sussman didn't, and thus his visit. And the bill he sent to the campaign as a "concerned citizen".

And now please enlighten me as to why the server was no threat. Apart from the fact that the whole story was a load of crap made up by the Clinton campaign. You're not allowed to use that one.

MaverickM11 wrote:

Bricktop wrote:

MaverickM11 wrote:

LOL is that still going on? Sure.

Yes it is. Ask Mickey Sussman who is being measured for his orange jumpsuit as we speak.

And what tune are you whistling past the graveyard? "Nearer My God To Thee" would be an appropriate choice.

The right wing hopium pinned on Durham makes the left's Mueller obsession look quaint. Gonna put a pin in this to revisit when it inevitably pancakes into nothing.

Let's both do that, and see how it plays out. Loser buys dinner?

casinterest wrote:

So the mods are going to continue to leave up a thread that is titled incorrectly and not even supported by the article .

Title has been updated. Please use the reportung function next time, we do not follow each and every thread at every time. Thanks.

casinterest wrote:

I want to make sure you understand what occurred.

Sure the MSM spent 4 years saying Trump's win in the general election was illegitimate and it was complete BS. Now it has come to light that Hillary was aware of more complete BS that was leaked to a reporter hoping it was true when everyone knew it was not but was hoping it would bring down Trump because so many people couldn't function mentally while he was in office.

Bricktop wrote:

casinterest wrote:

Bricktop wrote:

Fake news?

Sussman was a lawyer for the Clinton Campaign
The Campaign made up a story about Alfa Bank.
Sussman went to the FBI General Counsel James Baker to sell the story, to get them involved so they could leak that the FBI was investigating Trump/Russia link.
Sussman deliberately did not disclose that he was there as a lawyer for the campaign (or any other client. Just a "concerned citizen" eh?)
The Clinton campaign wasn't confident about the veracity of the Alfa allegations. (Not surprising, because they MADE THEM UP THEMSELVES. That's Hint #1 that it's BS).
Despite that Hillary said release it. As if she didn't know it was a crock.

Ostrich time for Clinton apologists.

The article states that they leaked the information to a reporter, and hoped the reporter would gather info. Not the FBI.

So please spare me the theatrics.

Do you know why we know that the server was no threat? Come on please let me know, because I want to make sure you understand what occurred.

The theatrics are from those who shriek "Fake News!" every time their worldview is challenged.

I understand perfectly. But to help YOU understand, the article is about MOOK's testimony. His perspective. I'm talking Sussman. The guy on trial. Mook may have thought going to the FBI was a bad strategy, but Sussman didn't, and thus his visit. And the bill he sent to the campaign as a "concerned citizen".

And now please enlighten me as to why the server was no threat. Apart from the fact that the whole story was a load of crap made up by the Clinton campaign. You're not allowed to use that one.

And yet with Sussman going to the FBI or whoever finally did, based on the article or campaign, they found out that the server being pinged was a SPAM device for people that like to be lied to about their candidate.
The FBI investigated and found no wrong doing from that one item. A ping to a server. Which if you don't know what a ping is, it is a UDP message to see if a server is alive,. Nothing big.

But the fact that it was a bank doing it, still hasn't been answered. Why would a russian bank care about a lowly email server for a political hack in the US?

Why did Trump and team meet with the Russians in Trump Tower? to think this server ping is the end all be all of the investigation into Trump's Russia ties is bogus.



https://www.politico.com/magazine/story ... ns-214868/

https://www.justice.gov/archives/sco/fi ... 6/download

I believe all of that was covered under Mueller, and in any case, let's let your attempt at deflection pass by.

Hillary knew the whole Sussman/Alfa thing was garbage. So do you. She won't admit it (nothing is ever her fault), but will you?
Go ahead and shock me.

Bricktop wrote:

I believe all of that was covered under Mueller, and in any case, let's let your attempt at deflection pass by.

Hillary knew the whole Sussman/Alfa thing was garbage. So do you. She won't admit it (nothing is ever her fault), but will you?
Go ahead and shock me.

Garbage what? The FBI saw it as important enough to research it.

I think the reality, as I mentioned, is that both sides try to dig up dirt on the other. The Clinton e-mail server issue was brought to the FBI, found not substantive. The Trump Steele dossier was brought to the FBI, found not substantive. The Trump Russian collusion issue was brought to the FBI, found not substantive. The Russian election interference issue was brought to the FBI, found to be substantive. The Hunter laptop issue was brought to the FBI, found not substantive on an election basis, but possibly substantive on a tax basis for Hunter.

The Sussmann information was part of the Russian collusion claim. He claimed to be acting independently of the Clinton campaign, but was receiving fees from them on other matters. So it's a grey area that DoJ and the courts will have to sort out.

It's all part of mudslinging that is now a regular part of politics in the US. The authorities have to sift out what is true and what is not. They've done that pretty well in the past, and will this time too, I'm sure.

Avatar2go wrote:

I think the reality, as I mentioned, is that both sides try to dig up dirt on the other. The Clinton e-mail server issue was brought to the FBI, found not substantive. The Trump Steele dossier was brought to the FBI, found not substantive. The Trump Russian collusion issue was brought to the FBI, found not substantive. The Russian election interference issue was brought to the FBI, found to be substantive. The Hunter laptop issue was brought to the FBI, found not substantive on an election basis, but possibly substantive on a tax basis for Hunter.

The Sussmann information was part of the Russian collusion claim. He claimed to be acting independently of the Clinton campaign, but was receiving fees from them on other matters. So it's a grey area that DoJ and the courts will have to sort out.

It's all part of mudslinging that is now a regular part of politics in the US. The authorities have to sift out what is true and what is not. They've done that pretty well in the past, and will this time too, I'm sure.

You are missing the point. Its not about digging up dirt. It has always and will always be done no matter who or the party.

Making up dirt, manufacturing dirt and passing it to the FBI so the FBI can say they are being investigated so that articles, news coverage, narratives and as a result interfering on an election based on false made up dirt and the false pretense for an investigation. That's a whole different level. This was done by only one side in 2016. And its pretty clear based on who is on trial which side was it.

You can blame Trump for everything you want. In 2016 and in 2020, his campaign never made up any dirt on Clinton nor Biden and passed it to the FBI so they can say they are investigating. If not, this would have been a major news story and probably some would end up in jail from his campaign.

AirWorthy99 wrote:

Avatar2go wrote:

I think the reality, as I mentioned, is that both sides try to dig up dirt on the other. The Clinton e-mail server issue was brought to the FBI, found not substantive. The Trump Steele dossier was brought to the FBI, found not substantive. The Trump Russian collusion issue was brought to the FBI, found not substantive. The Russian election interference issue was brought to the FBI, found to be substantive. The Hunter laptop issue was brought to the FBI, found not substantive on an election basis, but possibly substantive on a tax basis for Hunter.

The Sussmann information was part of the Russian collusion claim. He claimed to be acting independently of the Clinton campaign, but was receiving fees from them on other matters. So it's a grey area that DoJ and the courts will have to sort out.

It's all part of mudslinging that is now a regular part of politics in the US. The authorities have to sift out what is true and what is not. They've done that pretty well in the past, and will this time too, I'm sure.

You are missing the point. Its not about digging up dirt. It has always and will always be done no matter who or the party.

Making up dirt, manufacturing dirt and passing it to the FBI so the FBI can say they are being investigated so that articles, news coverage, narratives and as a result interfering on an election based on false made up dirt and the false pretense for an investigation. That's a whole different level. This was done by only one side in 2016. And its pretty clear based on who is on trial which side was it.

You can blame Trump for everything you want. In 2016 and in 2020, his campaign never made up any dirt on Clinton nor Biden and passed it to the FBI so they can say they are investigating. If not, this would have been a major news story and probably some would end up in jail from his campaign.

Have to respectfully disagree. The Clinton e-mail thing was sprung just before the election, forcing the FBI to acknowledge the investigation and work overtime to conclude it within a very short time. That was done intentionally and Trump utilized it in his campaign speeches. His team said they loved it. But came to nothing to the end.

The Mueller report absolved Trump of colluding with the Russians on those releases. But he did use them to his advantage, and continued to do so after his election.

My point is, you have people with fanatical views on both sides, who try to bring things forward to discredit the other side and influence the outcome, including inflaming unsupported theories. To say that one side or the other hasn't done this, is just not true.

In 2020, we had the election fraud narrative, being pushed heavily by Trump. I'm not singling him out, just saying that neither side is free of false claims.

We have the justice system to sort these out, but it's important that the results be accepted, rather than either side claiming further conspiracy.

Avatar2go wrote:

In 2020, we had the election fraud narrative, being pushed heavily by Trump. I'm not singling him out, just saying that neither side is free of false claims.

We have the justice system to sort these out, but it's important that the results be accepted, rather than either side claiming further conspiracy.

Why does everyone keep forgetting this election fraud crap started in 2016 with Hillary and Abrams? Jeez man.

AirWorthy99 wrote:

Avatar2go wrote:

I think the reality, as I mentioned, is that both sides try to dig up dirt on the other. The Clinton e-mail server issue was brought to the FBI, found not substantive. The Trump Steele dossier was brought to the FBI, found not substantive. The Trump Russian collusion issue was brought to the FBI, found not substantive. The Russian election interference issue was brought to the FBI, found to be substantive. The Hunter laptop issue was brought to the FBI, found not substantive on an election basis, but possibly substantive on a tax basis for Hunter.

The Sussmann information was part of the Russian collusion claim. He claimed to be acting independently of the Clinton campaign, but was receiving fees from them on other matters. So it's a grey area that DoJ and the courts will have to sort out.

It's all part of mudslinging that is now a regular part of politics in the US. The authorities have to sift out what is true and what is not. They've done that pretty well in the past, and will this time too, I'm sure.

You are missing the point. Its not about digging up dirt. It has always and will always be done no matter who or the party.

Making up dirt, manufacturing dirt and passing it to the FBI so the FBI can say they are being investigated so that articles, news coverage, narratives and as a result interfering on an election based on false made up dirt and the false pretense for an investigation. That's a whole different level. This was done by only one side in 2016. And its pretty clear based on who is on trial which side was it.

You can blame Trump for everything you want. In 2016 and in 2020, his campaign never made up any dirt on Clinton nor Biden and passed it to the FBI so they can say they are investigating. If not, this would have been a major news story and probably some would end up in jail from his campaign.

LOL we can certainly say the Sussman claim was bogus but that was one claim in a sea of percolating info about Trump connections to Russia. Unless you’re just going to pretend the T.O. Moscow project was never attempted, his sons never admitted to Russian bankrolling, and Deutsche Bank never underwrote Trump loans with backing from Russian state banks. Because those are just as factual as the fact Sussman lied to the FBI. This business stew of his was considered untouchable by major US banks since the late 90s, so it is and was totally legit to question which foreign entities provided funds.

casinterest wrote:

Bricktop wrote:

I believe all of that was covered under Mueller, and in any case, let's let your attempt at deflection pass by.

Hillary knew the whole Sussman/Alfa thing was garbage. So do you. She won't admit it (nothing is ever her fault), but will you?
Go ahead and shock me.

Garbage what? The FBI saw it as important enough to research it.

That does not play. Sorry.

Sussman went with a made up story. You keep gliding past that. That the FBI investigated is irrelevant to the fact that it was made up.

If your flimsy reasoning was to hold, I could go to the FBI and say casinterest has been making posts on online boards that lead me to think that he could cause harm to a Supreme Court Justice. My accusation would be false, but the FBI would investigate and give you at least a bad day.

Never underestimate the ability of a failed presidential candidate from 6 years ago to live rent free in the heads of some.

NIKV69 wrote:

Avatar2go wrote:

In 2020, we had the election fraud narrative, being pushed heavily by Trump. I'm not singling him out, just saying that neither side is free of false claims.

We have the justice system to sort these out, but it's important that the results be accepted, rather than either side claiming further conspiracy.

Why does everyone keep forgetting this election fraud crap started in 2016 with Hillary and Abrams? Jeez man.

Trump tweeted several times on Feb. 3, 2016, about Cruz’s win in a caucus system that collects presidential preference votes from Republicans who caucus but no formal, binding vote. In one post-caucuses tweet, Trump wrote, "Based on the fraud committed by Senator Ted Cruz during the Iowa Caucus, either a new election should take place or Cruz results nullified."

https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2020/nov/20/tweets/yes-donald-trump-claimed-fraud-after-2016-iowa-cau/




Day after day — at rallies, in interviews and on Twitter — Trump and several top backers have hammered the message that a victory for Hillary Clinton would be illegitimate. Trump has frequently suggested that widespread voter fraud will swing the election, and he has urged his supporters to closely monitor the voting process.

In a tweet Monday, he declared that there's "large-scale voter fraud happening on and before election day." In fact, numerous studies have shown that in-person voter fraud is vanishingly rare.

Of course there is large scale voter fraud happening on and before election day. Why do Republican leaders deny what is going on? So naive!
— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) October 17, 2016

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2016-election/donald-trump-s-rigged-election-claims-raise-historical-alarms-n667831



These tweets predate Hillary Clinton's concession in 2016 (odd thing to concede an election if you're claiming fraud), so it seems there is definitely some "forgetting" happening here.

NIKV69 wrote:

Why does everyone keep forgetting this election fraud crap started in 2016 with Hillary and Abrams? Jeez man.

It actually starts long before that. It just depends on how far back you want to go. The 2000 election was obviously heavily contested. Many people still believe Kennedy was elected illegally.

In 2016, Clinton's claim was that there was outside influence and interference in the election. That was later confirmed, but it's impossible to know whether it altered the results.

Abrams claimed that Kemp as SoS, had suppressed minority votes by cleaning election rolls. Again there is no way to know if that altered the election, but she worked to restore many of those voters over the next 4 years, by proper voter registration.

Trump has been unique in claiming a nationwide conspiracy to alter the vote, by manipulating ballots via various means. That has proved unfounded in every investigation that was undertaken. Soundly rejected by his own appointees in the DoJ and FBI

So we can argue degrees, but my basic point stands:
there will always be people who try to engage in shenanigans around elections, on either side, but we rely on the justice system to sort it out.

Aaron747 wrote:

AirWorthy99 wrote:

Avatar2go wrote:

I think the reality, as I mentioned, is that both sides try to dig up dirt on the other. The Clinton e-mail server issue was brought to the FBI, found not substantive. The Trump Steele dossier was brought to the FBI, found not substantive. The Trump Russian collusion issue was brought to the FBI, found not substantive. The Russian election interference issue was brought to the FBI, found to be substantive. The Hunter laptop issue was brought to the FBI, found not substantive on an election basis, but possibly substantive on a tax basis for Hunter.

The Sussmann information was part of the Russian collusion claim. He claimed to be acting independently of the Clinton campaign, but was receiving fees from them on other matters. So it's a grey area that DoJ and the courts will have to sort out.

It's all part of mudslinging that is now a regular part of politics in the US. The authorities have to sift out what is true and what is not. They've done that pretty well in the past, and will this time too, I'm sure.

You are missing the point. Its not about digging up dirt. It has always and will always be done no matter who or the party.

Making up dirt, manufacturing dirt and passing it to the FBI so the FBI can say they are being investigated so that articles, news coverage, narratives and as a result interfering on an election based on false made up dirt and the false pretense for an investigation. That's a whole different level. This was done by only one side in 2016. And its pretty clear based on who is on trial which side was it.

You can blame Trump for everything you want. In 2016 and in 2020, his campaign never made up any dirt on Clinton nor Biden and passed it to the FBI so they can say they are investigating. If not, this would have been a major news story and probably some would end up in jail from his campaign.

LOL we can certainly say the Sussman claim was bogus but that was one claim in a sea of percolating info about Trump connections to Russia. Unless you’re just going to pretend the T.O. Moscow project was never attempted, his sons never admitted to Russian bankrolling, and Deutsche Bank never underwrote Trump loans with backing from Russian state banks. Because those are just as factual as the fact Sussman lied to the FBI. This business stew of his was considered untouchable by major US banks since the late 90s, so it is and was totally legit to question which foreign entities provided funds.

There might be a lot of rumors, a lot of innuendo, a lot of 'coincidences' but you can't have the FBI as your campaign tool, that you can use at your convenience in order to distract, lie and hurt your political opponent.

This Sussman issue is not as big deal, as the Steele Dossier thing. That was done after the election, Hillary threw that one to see if it sticks. That one did far more damage. If Durham can't get anything on that, then this investigation got nothing.

Bricktop wrote:

casinterest wrote:

Bricktop wrote:

I believe all of that was covered under Mueller, and in any case, let's let your attempt at deflection pass by.

Hillary knew the whole Sussman/Alfa thing was garbage. So do you. She won't admit it (nothing is ever her fault), but will you?
Go ahead and shock me.

Garbage what? The FBI saw it as important enough to research it.

That does not play. Sorry.

Sussman went with a made up story. You keep gliding past that. That the FBI investigated is irrelevant to the fact that it was made up.

If your flimsy reasoning was to hold, I could go to the FBI and say casinterest has been making posts on online boards that lead me to think that he could cause harm to a Supreme Court Justice. My accusation would be false, but the FBI would investigate and give you at least a bad day.

What was made up about it?


From the articles:

and i will even quote the dishonorable NY Post.

https://nypost.com/2022/05/19/fbi-offic ... sman-lied/

According to his indictment, the cybersecurity lawyer was allegedly acting on behalf of the Clinton campaign and Rodney Joffe, a tech executive and client who told him about computer data that purportedly revealed a secret back channel between a Trump Organization server and Russia’s Alfa Bank.

So what bothers you most, that there was data suggesting a back ally communication, that was actually investigated( to some dubious extent), or that the FBI agent in charge can't remember his own details of how things went down?

"Berkowitz confronted Baker with a transcript of a July 2019 interview during which he told investigators from the Justice Department’s Inspector General’s Office that Sussman got the Alfa Bank data from “some number of people that were his clients.”

Baker said he used that language as a “shorthand way to describe the people with whom he was connected.”

When asked if had lied to the investigators, Baker denied doing so. “I had no intention of deceiving the inspector general in any way, shape or form,” he testified.

Another transcript produced by the defense showed Baker telling Durham in July 2020 that he couldn’t recall taking any action to conceal Sussmann’s identity from other FBI employees.

Berkowitz also asked Baker if it was possible that Sussmann mentioned his “clients” during a 13-minute phone conversation days after the meeting at FBI headquarters.
Baker said he was about 75% sure Sussmann did not mention clients on the call, but couldn’t say definitively one way or the other.

At one point, Berkowitz needled Baker by asking, “It’s hard to remember events of a long time ago, isn’t it?”

“It depends on what you are talking about,” Baker answered."

It seems Baker can't even follow up with his own version o the truth,.

AirWorthy99 wrote:

Aaron747 wrote:

AirWorthy99 wrote:

You are missing the point. Its not about digging up dirt. It has always and will always be done no matter who or the party.

Making up dirt, manufacturing dirt and passing it to the FBI so the FBI can say they are being investigated so that articles, news coverage, narratives and as a result interfering on an election based on false made up dirt and the false pretense for an investigation. That's a whole different level. This was done by only one side in 2016. And its pretty clear based on who is on trial which side was it.

You can blame Trump for everything you want. In 2016 and in 2020, his campaign never made up any dirt on Clinton nor Biden and passed it to the FBI so they can say they are investigating. If not, this would have been a major news story and probably some would end up in jail from his campaign.

LOL we can certainly say the Sussman claim was bogus but that was one claim in a sea of percolating info about Trump connections to Russia. Unless you’re just going to pretend the T.O. Moscow project was never attempted, his sons never admitted to Russian bankrolling, and Deutsche Bank never underwrote Trump loans with backing from Russian state banks. Because those are just as factual as the fact Sussman lied to the FBI. This business stew of his was considered untouchable by major US banks since the late 90s, so it is and was totally legit to question which foreign entities provided funds.

There might be a lot of rumors, a lot of innuendo, a lot of 'coincidences' but you can't have the FBI as your campaign tool, that you can use at your convenience in order to distract, lie and hurt your political opponent.

This Sussman issue is not as big deal, as the Steele Dossier thing. That was done after the election, Hillary threw that one to see if it sticks. That one did far more damage. If Durham can't get anything on that, then this investigation got nothing.

Are you saying government entities don't have a responsibility to ensure foreign financial ties do not affect judgment or any other aspect of a politician's life?

Also companies like Fusion GPS and Cambridge Analytica existed solely to dig up dirt and feed rumor mills. What should be done with such reputation-assassination PR firms? IIRC Glenn Simpson also pointed out in court that Fusion GPS was not directly linked to FBI investigation as they had their own sourcing, including within the Trump campaign. Just the kind of shit to expect when hiring a bunch of hangers-on and opportunists in an inexperienced campaign.

Aaron747 wrote:

Are you saying government entities don't have a responsibility to ensure foreign financial ties do not affect judgment or any other aspect of a politician's life?

.

They do, but not at the request of the political opponent. In order to score political points and drive a narrative. That's why he is in a trial, for lying and not saying the truth that he was working for Hillary. If he had said the truth the FBI wouldn't have done a thing, because the FBI isn't a political tool to play with at your convenience for a political motive.