Are morbidly obese people always so prone to announcing obvious facts only long after they could and should have done something about them? Or is that just Barr?
I was attending the retirement of a good agent friend. I was chatting with his squad and their SSA kept giving me the once over (now I had met this guy several times and figured he was trying to place me). Finally his curiosity got the better of him and came over and firmly asked, just who are you? I told him I was one of “Bob’s” CHS’ and thought it would be ok if I came. He gulped, turned red and started to say something when one of the other agents told him I was police chief they worked with frequently. He did an about face and left. My friend whispered to me, funny thing is, I have you on the books as a source, they were giving me a hard time about not having enough so “I recruited you”. We CHS’s are sneaky.
I’m afraid you are on the wrong trail here. Most conservative observers fix on what a lousy job the defense is doing. Andy McCarthy, for instance, lays out how the paper trail and agent testimony “disproves” a materiality defense.
Now, you have been in government. What are the odds that Sussman told Priestap and others exactly what he was doing — after all, the whole purpose was to get an anchor for the press? And what are the odds that the FBI asked Sussman for a CYA message to preserve plausible deniability? Was anybody fooled, or was Justice complicit in electioneering fraud?
You’ve been there. Which story, especially in view of this cast of characters, is plausible?
The FBI employees directly dealing with Sussman directly, were willfully blind on conflict of interest.
I doubt Sussman told anyone in the FBI of his employer directly. That would destroy the plausible deniability by the FBI that was needed in order to justify the investigations and the accompanying smear in the press.
The lower echelons given the job of of investigating this Clinton Dirty Trick, figured out it was a hot potato, and got rid of it was quickly as possible. Lots of CYA.
And with the history of the Clinton's lying and getting away with it, and use of lawyers for cut outs using attorney client privilege, I doubt Sussman thought he was in much danger. And probably never imagined he would actually be in court over this.
Willfully blind, plausible deniability--works for me, except it doesn't sound too terribly plausible. Look at it this way. Baker talks to Sussmann. Then Baker talks to Priestap and Anderson. Then we here that the 7th Fl is "fired up", so add Comey and McCabe. You could maybe add in Strzok and a few others, and we're getting close to ten people alrady. Then they're told it's all BS by Hellman. And we're supposed to really believe that no one said, wait a minute, Sussmann's claim to not be representing any client isn't really credible. After all, it's only a month and a half out from the election, and Sussmann--one of the very top Dem lawyers in the country--is out on the street picking up anonymous trips and playing at being good citizen by turning it over to the FBI. And it just happens to accuse GOP presidential candidate Trump of being an agent of Russia? And all those ~10 smart lawyers and others at FBI don't give this the sniff test?
And so Sussman's lawyers argue the lie wasn't material, because the FBI 'knew' what Sussman was up to.
I would still argue that Durham prevails because it doesn't matter what the FBI 'knew'. Sussman lied and it was material because it directly led to extensive consumption of FBI resources.
His argument makes sense--that the FBI management that made the decisions were actually his co-conspirators in abusing the FBI as an institution. OTOH, the charge isn't that he lied to a person per se, but to a person as a representative of the government. It shouldn't matter that his lie didn't deceive the specific individual if the lie to the institution enabled dishonest government employees to abuse their authority. Predication is at the back of it all. I presume the judge will have to give instructions re Sussmann's "defense".
O/T but of interest. Bluto Barr is full of surprises...
https://conservativebrief.com/sedition-63202/
Are morbidly obese people always so prone to announcing obvious facts only long after they could and should have done something about them? Or is that just Barr?
For him, the bags are always there but the pipes are played only when and how he wants them to be.
I was attending the retirement of a good agent friend. I was chatting with his squad and their SSA kept giving me the once over (now I had met this guy several times and figured he was trying to place me). Finally his curiosity got the better of him and came over and firmly asked, just who are you? I told him I was one of “Bob’s” CHS’ and thought it would be ok if I came. He gulped, turned red and started to say something when one of the other agents told him I was police chief they worked with frequently. He did an about face and left. My friend whispered to me, funny thing is, I have you on the books as a source, they were giving me a hard time about not having enough so “I recruited you”. We CHS’s are sneaky.
I’m afraid you are on the wrong trail here. Most conservative observers fix on what a lousy job the defense is doing. Andy McCarthy, for instance, lays out how the paper trail and agent testimony “disproves” a materiality defense.
Now, you have been in government. What are the odds that Sussman told Priestap and others exactly what he was doing — after all, the whole purpose was to get an anchor for the press? And what are the odds that the FBI asked Sussman for a CYA message to preserve plausible deniability? Was anybody fooled, or was Justice complicit in electioneering fraud?
You’ve been there. Which story, especially in view of this cast of characters, is plausible?
The FBI employees directly dealing with Sussman directly, were willfully blind on conflict of interest.
I doubt Sussman told anyone in the FBI of his employer directly. That would destroy the plausible deniability by the FBI that was needed in order to justify the investigations and the accompanying smear in the press.
The lower echelons given the job of of investigating this Clinton Dirty Trick, figured out it was a hot potato, and got rid of it was quickly as possible. Lots of CYA.
And with the history of the Clinton's lying and getting away with it, and use of lawyers for cut outs using attorney client privilege, I doubt Sussman thought he was in much danger. And probably never imagined he would actually be in court over this.
Willfully blind, plausible deniability--works for me, except it doesn't sound too terribly plausible. Look at it this way. Baker talks to Sussmann. Then Baker talks to Priestap and Anderson. Then we here that the 7th Fl is "fired up", so add Comey and McCabe. You could maybe add in Strzok and a few others, and we're getting close to ten people alrady. Then they're told it's all BS by Hellman. And we're supposed to really believe that no one said, wait a minute, Sussmann's claim to not be representing any client isn't really credible. After all, it's only a month and a half out from the election, and Sussmann--one of the very top Dem lawyers in the country--is out on the street picking up anonymous trips and playing at being good citizen by turning it over to the FBI. And it just happens to accuse GOP presidential candidate Trump of being an agent of Russia? And all those ~10 smart lawyers and others at FBI don't give this the sniff test?
And so Sussman's lawyers argue the lie wasn't material, because the FBI 'knew' what Sussman was up to.
I would still argue that Durham prevails because it doesn't matter what the FBI 'knew'. Sussman lied and it was material because it directly led to extensive consumption of FBI resources.
His argument makes sense--that the FBI management that made the decisions were actually his co-conspirators in abusing the FBI as an institution. OTOH, the charge isn't that he lied to a person per se, but to a person as a representative of the government. It shouldn't matter that his lie didn't deceive the specific individual if the lie to the institution enabled dishonest government employees to abuse their authority. Predication is at the back of it all. I presume the judge will have to give instructions re Sussmann's "defense".
Sounds like it may come down to the jury instructions…
Yes.
Sussman lied to the FBI and it was material. It doesn't matter what else representatives, agents or officers of the FBI did.
Otherwise rogue representatives could abrogate otherwise criminal actions.
Exactly. The Andrew McCarthy argument from yesterday is nonsensical. Sometimes I think lawyers get caught too far in the weeds. Or the swamp.