The case against Mr. Sussmann is iffy. It revolves around a Sept. 19, 2016, meeting Mr. Sussmann had with James Baker, an FBI lawyer, in which Mr. Sussmann relayed concerns about curious Internet data that may have indicated that Mr. Trump, then a candidate for president, was in secret contact with Alfa Bank, a Russian financial institution. Mr. Baker claims that Mr. Sussmann said he was not representing any client during the meeting, when he was in fact working for the Hillary Clinton campaign. Mr. Sussmann denies he said that, and he argues that he was not technically representing the campaign during the meeting, anyway.
The indictment claims that had Mr. Sussmann informed the FBI of his ties to the Clinton campaign, they might have taken a different view of the information he presented. This is not the same as saying that investigators would have taken substantially different actions as a result. Indeed, the indictment admits that federal officials knew about Mr. Sussmannâs associations. Investigators would have examined the strange Internet traffic anyway, and dismissed the alleged Trump-Alfa Bank connection, as they did.
The 27-page indictment charges Sussmann with a single verbal false statement he allegedly made to the FBI general counsel in September 2016. Sussmann met with the FBI attorney to provide details about unusual Internet data potentially suggesting back-channel communications between the Trump organization and a Russian bank with ties to the Kremlin. During that meeting, Sussmann allegedly said he was not there on behalf of any client. In fact, the indictment charges, Sussmann was acting on behalf of two clients: an unnamed executive at a major tech company and the Hillary Clinton campaign. That single alleged lie about why Sussmann was there is the basis for the criminal charge.
This is a remarkably weak case, both factually and legally. The indictment doesnât allege that the computer data itself was false or was doctored to implicate Trump. On the contrary, it says the various researchers recognized some weaknesses in the data and noted their clients were looking for a âtrue storyâ that would bolster a narrative about Trumpâs Russian ties.
...
The false statement statute requires that the lie to the government be material, meaning that it had at least the potential to influence a government decision. The materiality standard sets a very low bar, but this case is definitely in danger of tripping over it. It isnât clear how the alleged lie could have influenced anything the FBI did. The indictment does not claim the FBI would not have investigated had Sussmann identified his clients, only that it might have felt
differently about the origins of the data.
Even if the charge is legally sound, proving it will be a huge challenge. The alleged false statement was not written down or recorded. There were no witnesses other than the FBI attorney. Given the nature of human language and memory, itâs almost impossible to prove beyond a reasonable doubt precisely what was said during a portion of a single conversation five years ago. Bringing such a âhe said/he saidâ charge as a stand-alone case is basically unheard of.
Yep, been called all three here at one time or another and often. And by you and many others.
Those of you who have been railing on here about Trump and his supporters have been so arrogantly condescending and invested in your conclusions regarding Trump and his supporters. And wrong with most of it. It reads like democratic party talking points. You all are saying the same thing almost word for word. Calling him and us psychologically unfit for existence. Saying why in your all's collective opinion we follow him and what he means to us. And see no other possibilities for his support.
That and imo you all keep harping and railing about Trump so you don't have to talk about Biden. Or you all think that Biden is at the top of his game, doing a bang up job and couldn't be doing a better job than he already is, so there is nothing to even mention about about how Biden is doing as POTUS. The silence is deafening.
Carry on, further endear yourselves to each other.
You're just as guilty of sweeping overgeneralizations that you accuse anti-Trumpers of.
"Calling him and us psychologically unfit for existence."
Many former staffers (even at the Cabinet level) and former supporters of the Trump administration have called Trump crazy, mentally ill, dangerous, etc. They've provided strong anecdotal evidence to back up their opinions. So it's quite understandable that most posters here and many Americans think the same thing about Trump.
Kurt, as far as I see it you're the king of self-pity here. Most posters here think Trump is mentally ill and dangerous but that doesn't mean that they think you and other Trump supporters are the same. Yes, 70+ million people voted for Trump. Voting for and supporting Trump does not automatically make some or every Trump voter mentally ill. I DO think you and many other Trump voters willfully ignore Trump's divisiveness, lack of success in accomplishing his policy goals and his deadly incompetence when it came to handling the Covid crisis.
I also wonder whether you would rather have another Trump term than a stable continuation of our constitutional republic. Your continued support for Trump's desperate, reality-free attempts to override the presidential election and his incitement of the January 6 invasion of the Capitol building strongly suggest that you'd rather live under a corrupt king than our current form of democracy.
Provided, of course, that the corrupt king keeps those beaners out.
As for the Biden administration, the jury's still out. It's not all about Biden. The Trump administration was all about Trump.
I believe Rahm Emamuel called immigration the third rail of American politics. No one really wants to solve it because the rewards are too small and the costs too great.
"Intra-group violence"â-what do you mean? Which groups are you talking about?
" Political violence"â-again, what does this mean?
"Intra-group violence" is a new or foreign concept?
Yes kcar, indeed, what does "political violence" mean? What does it mean to you?
I think this is a problem, that i was trying to address.
So 74+M people who voted for him are not reasonable?
Misled, ill formed, picking the least of two evils, maybe even a bit selfish...but not reasonable? 74M?
OK.
Yes, therein lies the mystery as apparently being a dangerous, ignorant, empathy lacking, draft dodging, racist, hush money paying, insurrection brewing, serial lying, incompetent, intellectually challenged, emotionally stunted, self-absorbed, self-serving, divisive, authoritarian-loving, responsibility-ducking, science-denying individual apparently scores big points with a lot of the populace whereas 8-9 years ago just a couple of those things would have been disqualifying factors.
Call me old-fashioned but I think a President should embody the traits that I and others can look up to⦠not be embarrassed by.
i'd say the vast majority of voters on both sides are relatively reasonable
one way to look at the situation: what happens when you give a reasonable person two poor choices? just off the top of my mop, i look at trump or biden and keep thinking this is it? this is the best we can muster? out three hundred million plus people and here are the best we have to offer? or should i direct it towards the actual parties? they're both far short of what we need
reminds me of what larry lessig pointed out regarding "tweedism" ol' boss tweed: i don't care who you vote for as long i get to do the nominatin'
This is the take. How can a country as diverse as ours come down to a choice between two 75 year old white guys?
As a friend of mine said a few years ago, to support Trump you have to be racist, selfish, or stupid. They are not mutually exclusive.
Yep, been called all three here at one time or another and often. And by you and many others.
Those of you who have been railing on here about Trump and his supporters have been so arrogantly condescending and invested in your conclusions regarding Trump and his supporters. And wrong with most of it. It reads like democratic party talking points. You all are saying the same thing almost word for word. Calling him and us psychologically unfit for existence. Saying why in your all's collective opinion we follow him and what he means to us. And see no other possibilities for his support.
That and imo you all keep harping and railing about Trump so you don't have to talk about Biden. Or you all think that Biden is at the top of his game, doing a bang up job and couldn't be doing a better job than he already is, so there is nothing to even mention about about how Biden is doing as POTUS. The silence is deafening.
Carry on, further endear yourselves to each other.
I believe Rahm Emamuel called immigration the third rail of American politics. No one really wants to solve it because the rewards are too small and the costs too great.
"Intra-group violence"â-what do you mean? Which groups are you talking about?
" Political violence"â-again, what does this mean?
Abolish borders, nationalism and exceptionalism, build a society based on people and the planet instead of profit and exploitation. We either make a better world or we perish.
Broad goals, yes. There are people far more qualified than I working on it.
The policy issues that irritate and motivate Trump supporters are real. They should be addressed seriously. And respectfully.
Immigration would be a good place to start. Intra-group violence could be the next. Political violence should be addressed in a more far-reaching and more 'fair', 'objective' way than has been the case so far.
I believe Rahm Emamuel called immigration the third rail of American politics. No one really wants to solve it because the rewards are too small and the costs too great.
"Intra-group violence"—-what do you mean? Which groups are you talking about?
" Political violence"—-again, what does this mean?
The policy issues that irritate and motivate Trump supporters are real. They should be addressed seriously. And respectfully.
Immigration would be a good place to start. Intra-group violence could be the next. Political violence should be addressed in a more far-reaching and more 'fair', 'objective' way than has been the case so far.
I think this is a problem, that i was trying to address. So 74+M people who voted for him are not reasonable? Misled, ill formed, picking the least of two evils, maybe even a bit selfish...but not reasonable? 74M? OK.
i'd say the vast majority of voters on both sides are relatively reasonable
one way to look at the situation: what happens when you give a reasonable person two poor choices? just off the top of my mop, i look at trump or biden and keep thinking this is it? this is the best we can muster? out three hundred million plus people and here are the best we have to offer? or should i direct it towards the actual parties? they're both far short of what we need
reminds me of what larry lessig pointed out regarding "tweedism" ol' boss tweed: i don't care who you vote for as long i get to do the nominatin'
As a friend of mine said a few years ago, to support Trump you have to be racist, selfish, or stupid. They are not mutually exclusive.
All 3? Trifecta. If that is true, or not...that's a problem. P.s, that (blame trump and his supporters) is also another easy answer to a complex problem.
I think this is a problem, that i was trying to address.
So 74+M people who voted for him are not reasonable?
Misled, ill formed, picking the least of two evils, maybe even a bit selfish...but not reasonable? 74M?
OK.
As a friend of mine said a few years ago, to support Trump you have to be racist, selfish, or stupid. They are not mutually exclusive.
Why do reasonable people support him? I don't know that many "reasonable" people do.
I think this is a problem, that i was trying to address. So 74+M people who voted for him are not reasonable? Misled, ill formed, picking the least of two evils, maybe even a bit selfish...but not reasonable? 74M? OK.
