Tale of two trials: How Sussmann is receiving every consideration denied to Flynn

[Auburnfan91 1,408]

Tale of two trials: How Sussmann is receiving every consideration denied to Flynn

by Jonathan Turley, opinion contributor - 05/18/22 10:45 AM ET
 

The criminal trial of Clinton campaign lawyer Michael Sussmann began this week with a telling warning from prosecutors to the D.C. jury: “Whatever your political views might be, they cannot be brought to your decisions.” The opening statement by Deborah Brittain Shaw reflected the curious profile of the Sussmann case. Prosecutors ordinarily have a massive advantage with juries despite the presumption of innocence. When pleas are counted, federal prosecutors can report as high as 95 percent conviction rates. However, with Sussmann, prosecutors clearly have concerns over whether they, rather than the defendant, will get a fair trial.

Sussman’s trial for allegedly lying to the FBI is being heard in the same District of Columbia federal courthouse where former Trump national security adviser Michael Flynn and others faced the very same charge brought by another special counsel.  

The cases, however, could not be more different. 

Whereas Flynn’s prosecution was a no-holds-barred affair, Sussmann’s prosecution has been undermined by a series of unfavorable rulings by the court. Special prosecutor John Durham still may be able to eke out a conviction, but the difference in the treatment of Trump and Clinton associates is striking. 

Sussmann is charged under 18 U.S.C. 1001 with lying to the FBI during a meeting with then-FBI general counsel James Baker when he came forward with what he claimed was evidence of possible covert communications between the Trump Organization and Alfa, a Russian bank. Sussmann allegedly concealed that he was representing the Clinton campaign, which he billed for his efforts. 

Shaw told the jury that the FBI “should not be used as a political tool for anyone — not Republicans. Not Democrats. Not anyone.” She then added that the jurors themselves should not use this trial for their own political judgments.  

Looking at the jury box, one can understand Shaw’s unease. During jury selection, one juror admitted he was a Clinton donor and could only promise to “strive for impartiality as best I can.” Prosecutors objected to his being seated, but Judge Christopher Cooper overruled them. 

In another exchange, a former bartender and donor to far-left Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) was told by a Sussmann defense lawyer that neither Clinton nor Trump were on trial and then asked if she could be impartial. She responded, “Yes, knowing that” — which might suggest she would not be impartial if the campaigns were part of the trial. 

Other jurors include a woman who said she thought she was a Clinton donor but could not remember; a juror whose husband worked for the Clinton 2008 campaign; and a juror who believes the legal system is racist and police departments should be defunded. 

To be sure, D.C. voters chose Clinton over Trump in 2016 by a breathtaking margin: 90.9 percent to 4.1 percent. While liberal and Democratic jurors still can be fair and impartial, Judge Cooper has seated a couple jurors who seemed to struggle with the concept of impartiality. 

The most notable aspect of the trial is what will be missing: context. Durham contends that Sussmann was no rogue lawyer. After the Mueller investigation, Durham’s team revealed information about how people affiliated with the Clinton campaign allegedly funded, developed and spread the false collusion claim. 

On July 28, 2016, then-CIA Director John Brennan briefed President Obama on Hillary Clinton’s alleged plan to tie Donald Trump to Russia as “a means of distracting the public from her use of a private email server.” Obama reportedly was told how Clinton allegedly approved “a proposal from one of her foreign policy advisers to vilify Donald Trump by stirring up a scandal claiming interference by the Russian security service.” That was three days before the FBI’s collusion investigation was initiated. 

This appears to have been an all-Washington effort assisted by key figures associated with a liberal think tank, Democratic members of Congress and allies in the media. However, it was the role of lawyers like Sussmann that attracted Durham’s interest.  

Durham contends that, in addition to allegedly lying to Baker during their meeting, Sussmann sent a text message to Baker the night before the meeting, reading: “Jim — it’s Michael Sussmann. I have something time-sensitive (and sensitive) I need to discuss. 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.” 

Notably, the campaign’s law firm was accused by some journalists of hiding the campaign’s role in financing the infamous Steele dossier, which provided the basis for the collusion story. (The Federal Election Commission recently fined the campaign for using the firm to hide those payments.) The Durham team argued that Sussmann’s alleged lying to the FBI was not just some passing omission but a knowing pattern of deceit. That is why one of the first witnesses expected to be called by the prosecution was Marc Elias, Sussmann’s former law partner and the Clinton campaign’s general counsel. Elias is not charged with any crime, but at least one reporter has claimed Elias denied the campaign’s connection to the Steele dossier.  

Judge Cooper has stressed that this trial cannot be about the Clinton campaign per se, but the specific lie that was told. He specifically barred Durham from arguing that there was a “joint venture” in deception with the Clinton campaign. The judge sharply limited the evidence that Durham can present which, in the words of Politico, “spares the Clinton campaign and the Democratic National Committee … potential embarrassment.”  

Without the broader context, the prosecution could sound like a play without a plot — just characters and insular acts. The first witnesses included FBI agents who told the jury that the claims passed along by Sussmann “didn’t make sense” and that the collusion theory was rejected within days of looking at the underlying data. However, Cooper warned that he will keep a tight rein on prosecutors delving into how the underlying data was produced or managed through the campaign.

That is not the only blow delivered to the prosecution by the court. The judge refused prosecution access to some evidence and, while allowing access to some emails between the campaign and an opposition-research firm, he barred their introduction at trial due to the late request from the prosecutors.  

The treatment given to Sussmann is in stark contrast to how Trump associates were treated in this same court. In the Flynn trial, Judge Cooper’s colleague, Judge Emmet Sullivan, conducted a series of bizarre hearings, including one in which he used the courtroom flag as a prop to accuse Flynn of being an “unregistered agent of a foreign country while serving as the national security adviser” and to suggest that Flynn could be charged with treason — crimes not brought against him. Sullivan then declared: “I cannot assure you that if you proceed today, you will not receive a sentence of incarceration. I am not hiding my disgust and my disdain.” 

Likewise, another judicial colleague, Judge Amy Berman Jackson, refused to grant Trump associate Roger Stone a new trial despite disturbing reports of juror bias.

While the judge in Flynn’s case was eager to remove obstacles from the prosecution’s path, the judge in Sussmann’s case seems to have created a virtual obstacle course for Durham. Durham may be able to jump the legal hurdles, but he will do so without much of his evidence. To paraphrase Charles Dickens in “A Tale of Two Cities,” for a prosecutor D.C. can be the best of venues or it can be the worst of venues.

Jonathan Turley is the Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at George Washington University. Follow him on Twitter @JonathanTurley.

 

https://thehill.com/opinion/judiciary/3492664-tale-of-two-trials-how-sussmann-is-receiving-every-consideration-denied-to-flynn/

[CoffeeTiger 5,925]

Ah, I see people on the Right are already setting up the stage for their inevitable "It's not fair" "we were cheated!" "The court was bias" "It was a conspiracy!" arguments for when this trial and the Durham probe in general doesn't turn out the way they want it to. 

 

predictable. 

[DKW 86 7,932]

19 hours ago, CoffeeTiger said:

Ah, I see people on the Right are already setting up the stage for their inevitable "It's not fair" "we were cheated!" "The court was bias" "It was a conspiracy!" arguments for when this trial and the Durham probe in general doesn't turn out the way they want it to. 

 

predictable. 

Its almost like when we had two dead in the water impeachments that had ZERO chance of ever happening, and the Mueller Report that landed with a thud, and several investigations that literally proved maybe 5% of what was sold to the American People (Schiff Committee) and then one side of the political aisle had to cover up for their failures....

[CoffeeTiger 5,925]

3 hours ago, DKW 86 said:

Its almost like when we had two dead in the water impeachments that had ZERO chance of ever happening, and the Mueller Report that landed with a thud, and several investigations that literally proved maybe 5% of what was sold to the American People (Schiff Committee) and then one side of the political aisle had to cover up for their failures....

The impeachments were dead in the water because Republicans would not vote to convict no matter Trump did, not because the impeachments themselves were wrong or without merit. 

The Mueller Report didn't land with a 'thud' It detailed numerous attempts and actions by multiple Trump administration officials to collaborate with Russians and it showed the Trump refused cooperation and obstructed the investigation at every turn. It basically said "Yeah, Trumps guilty, but because he's President, we can't actually say he committed a crime" 

 

[jj3jordan 2,172]

11 minutes ago, CoffeeTiger said:

The impeachments were dead in the water because Republicans would not vote to convict no matter Trump did, not because the impeachments themselves were wrong or without merit. 

The Mueller Report didn't land with a 'thud' It detailed numerous attempts and actions by multiple Trump administration officials to collaborate with Russians and it showed the Trump refused cooperation and obstructed the investigation at every turn. It basically said "Yeah, Trumps guilty, but because he's President, we can't actually say he committed a crime" 

 

A very quiet thud. One the democrats wish wasn't heard at all. If only Schiff really had the goods as he claimed. But like typical democrats he is a liar who made stuff up and tried to sell it. Just like the beloved Lt Col Vindman, willing to testify but not actually a witness to ANYTHING except Trump didn't do what he wanted. I guess you forgot about the democrats who would not vote to convict Clinton who clearly lied to a federal grand jury in a felony sexual harassment case.  You would figure the democrats would have been all over that but alas, it was Hillary and Bill. Hillary decreed that the plaintiff/s should be destroyed. And thus it was.  As I recall one of the obstruction charges was going to be that Trump tweeted that the investigation was a phony witch hunt.  What a crime. Oh and as it turned out, it actually was a phony witch hunt.  And the bloodless weaponless non military highly disorganized coup attempt. Seriously coffee, even if Pence had been hung (never would have happened) and Pelosi strung up (did anybody have any rope) , do you REALLY THINK somebody would have said OK DON YOU WIN YOU CAN STAY AND BE PRESIDENT!!???

[icanthearyou 4,468]

2 hours ago, jj3jordan said:

A very quiet thud. One the democrats wish wasn't heard at all. If only Schiff really had the goods as he claimed. But like typical democrats he is a liar who made stuff up and tried to sell it. Just like the beloved Lt Col Vindman, willing to testify but not actually a witness to ANYTHING except Trump didn't do what he wanted. I guess you forgot about the democrats who would not vote to convict Clinton who clearly lied to a federal grand jury in a felony sexual harassment case.  You would figure the democrats would have been all over that but alas, it was Hillary and Bill. Hillary decreed that the plaintiff/s should be destroyed. And thus it was.  As I recall one of the obstruction charges was going to be that Trump tweeted that the investigation was a phony witch hunt.  What a crime. Oh and as it turned out, it actually was a phony witch hunt.  And the bloodless weaponless non military highly disorganized coup attempt. Seriously coffee, even if Pence had been hung (never would have happened) and Pelosi strung up (did anybody have any rope) , do you REALLY THINK somebody would have said OK DON YOU WIN YOU CAN STAY AND BE PRESIDENT!!???

You egregiously betray the truth.  You betray all principles and values for sake of political affiliation.

[jj3jordan 2,172]

2 minutes ago, icanthearyou said:

You egregiously betray the truth.  You betray all principles and values for sake of political affiliation.

Got it.

We disagree.

Good talk.

[AU9377 6,088]

On 5/20/2022 at 3:55 PM, Auburnfan91 said:

Tale of two trials: How Sussmann is receiving every consideration denied to Flynn

by Jonathan Turley, opinion contributor - 05/18/22 10:45 AM ET
 

The criminal trial of Clinton campaign lawyer Michael Sussmann began this week with a telling warning from prosecutors to the D.C. jury: “Whatever your political views might be, they cannot be brought to your decisions.” The opening statement by Deborah Brittain Shaw reflected the curious profile of the Sussmann case. Prosecutors ordinarily have a massive advantage with juries despite the presumption of innocence. When pleas are counted, federal prosecutors can report as high as 95 percent conviction rates. However, with Sussmann, prosecutors clearly have concerns over whether they, rather than the defendant, will get a fair trial.

Sussman’s trial for allegedly lying to the FBI is being heard in the same District of Columbia federal courthouse where former Trump national security adviser Michael Flynn and others faced the very same charge brought by another special counsel.  

The cases, however, could not be more different. 

Whereas Flynn’s prosecution was a no-holds-barred affair, Sussmann’s prosecution has been undermined by a series of unfavorable rulings by the court. Special prosecutor John Durham still may be able to eke out a conviction, but the difference in the treatment of Trump and Clinton associates is striking. 

Sussmann is charged under 18 U.S.C. 1001 with lying to the FBI during a meeting with then-FBI general counsel James Baker when he came forward with what he claimed was evidence of possible covert communications between the Trump Organization and Alfa, a Russian bank. Sussmann allegedly concealed that he was representing the Clinton campaign, which he billed for his efforts. 

Shaw told the jury that the FBI “should not be used as a political tool for anyone — not Republicans. Not Democrats. Not anyone.” She then added that the jurors themselves should not use this trial for their own political judgments.  

Looking at the jury box, one can understand Shaw’s unease. During jury selection, one juror admitted he was a Clinton donor and could only promise to “strive for impartiality as best I can.” Prosecutors objected to his being seated, but Judge Christopher Cooper overruled them. 

In another exchange, a former bartender and donor to far-left Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) was told by a Sussmann defense lawyer that neither Clinton nor Trump were on trial and then asked if she could be impartial. She responded, “Yes, knowing that” — which might suggest she would not be impartial if the campaigns were part of the trial. 

Other jurors include a woman who said she thought she was a Clinton donor but could not remember; a juror whose husband worked for the Clinton 2008 campaign; and a juror who believes the legal system is racist and police departments should be defunded. 

To be sure, D.C. voters chose Clinton over Trump in 2016 by a breathtaking margin: 90.9 percent to 4.1 percent. While liberal and Democratic jurors still can be fair and impartial, Judge Cooper has seated a couple jurors who seemed to struggle with the concept of impartiality. 

The most notable aspect of the trial is what will be missing: context. Durham contends that Sussmann was no rogue lawyer. After the Mueller investigation, Durham’s team revealed information about how people affiliated with the Clinton campaign allegedly funded, developed and spread the false collusion claim. 

On July 28, 2016, then-CIA Director John Brennan briefed President Obama on Hillary Clinton’s alleged plan to tie Donald Trump to Russia as “a means of distracting the public from her use of a private email server.” Obama reportedly was told how Clinton allegedly approved “a proposal from one of her foreign policy advisers to vilify Donald Trump by stirring up a scandal claiming interference by the Russian security service.” That was three days before the FBI’s collusion investigation was initiated. 

This appears to have been an all-Washington effort assisted by key figures associated with a liberal think tank, Democratic members of Congress and allies in the media. However, it was the role of lawyers like Sussmann that attracted Durham’s interest.  

Durham contends that, in addition to allegedly lying to Baker during their meeting, Sussmann sent a text message to Baker the night before the meeting, reading: “Jim — it’s Michael Sussmann. I have something time-sensitive (and sensitive) I need to discuss. 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.” 

Notably, the campaign’s law firm was accused by some journalists of hiding the campaign’s role in financing the infamous Steele dossier, which provided the basis for the collusion story. (The Federal Election Commission recently fined the campaign for using the firm to hide those payments.) The Durham team argued that Sussmann’s alleged lying to the FBI was not just some passing omission but a knowing pattern of deceit. That is why one of the first witnesses expected to be called by the prosecution was Marc Elias, Sussmann’s former law partner and the Clinton campaign’s general counsel. Elias is not charged with any crime, but at least one reporter has claimed Elias denied the campaign’s connection to the Steele dossier.  

Judge Cooper has stressed that this trial cannot be about the Clinton campaign per se, but the specific lie that was told. He specifically barred Durham from arguing that there was a “joint venture” in deception with the Clinton campaign. The judge sharply limited the evidence that Durham can present which, in the words of Politico, “spares the Clinton campaign and the Democratic National Committee … potential embarrassment.”  

Without the broader context, the prosecution could sound like a play without a plot — just characters and insular acts. The first witnesses included FBI agents who told the jury that the claims passed along by Sussmann “didn’t make sense” and that the collusion theory was rejected within days of looking at the underlying data. However, Cooper warned that he will keep a tight rein on prosecutors delving into how the underlying data was produced or managed through the campaign.

That is not the only blow delivered to the prosecution by the court. The judge refused prosecution access to some evidence and, while allowing access to some emails between the campaign and an opposition-research firm, he barred their introduction at trial due to the late request from the prosecutors.  

The treatment given to Sussmann is in stark contrast to how Trump associates were treated in this same court. In the Flynn trial, Judge Cooper’s colleague, Judge Emmet Sullivan, conducted a series of bizarre hearings, including one in which he used the courtroom flag as a prop to accuse Flynn of being an “unregistered agent of a foreign country while serving as the national security adviser” and to suggest that Flynn could be charged with treason — crimes not brought against him. Sullivan then declared: “I cannot assure you that if you proceed today, you will not receive a sentence of incarceration. I am not hiding my disgust and my disdain.” 

Likewise, another judicial colleague, Judge Amy Berman Jackson, refused to grant Trump associate Roger Stone a new trial despite disturbing reports of juror bias.

While the judge in Flynn’s case was eager to remove obstacles from the prosecution’s path, the judge in Sussmann’s case seems to have created a virtual obstacle course for Durham. Durham may be able to jump the legal hurdles, but he will do so without much of his evidence. To paraphrase Charles Dickens in “A Tale of Two Cities,” for a prosecutor D.C. can be the best of venues or it can be the worst of venues.

Jonathan Turley is the Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at George Washington University. Follow him on Twitter @JonathanTurley.

 

https://thehill.com/opinion/judiciary/3492664-tale-of-two-trials-how-sussmann-is-receiving-every-consideration-denied-to-flynn/

There is a substantial subject matter disparity for one.  And then there is this.....

https://www.politico.com/news/2020/11/30/trump-flynn-pardon-reprieve-441527

[aubiefifty 18,398]

On 5/25/2022 at 9:51 AM, jj3jordan said:

A very quiet thud. One the democrats wish wasn't heard at all. If only Schiff really had the goods as he claimed. But like typical democrats he is a liar who made stuff up and tried to sell it. Just like the beloved Lt Col Vindman, willing to testify but not actually a witness to ANYTHING except Trump didn't do what he wanted. I guess you forgot about the democrats who would not vote to convict Clinton who clearly lied to a federal grand jury in a felony sexual harassment case.  You would figure the democrats would have been all over that but alas, it was Hillary and Bill. Hillary decreed that the plaintiff/s should be destroyed. And thus it was.  As I recall one of the obstruction charges was going to be that Trump tweeted that the investigation was a phony witch hunt.  What a crime. Oh and as it turned out, it actually was a phony witch hunt.  And the bloodless weaponless non military highly disorganized coup attempt. Seriously coffee, even if Pence had been hung (never would have happened) and Pelosi strung up (did anybody have any rope) , do you REALLY THINK somebody would have said OK DON YOU WIN YOU CAN STAY AND BE PRESIDENT!!???

they had hand ties. if they thought enough to bring those i am sure they could find some rope. they attacked cops with intent to hurt and or kill and were even shouting that crap right in cops faces. the fact is you have no idea if they would have hung pence or not you are just making an assumption.

[aubiefifty 18,398]

also for those who might not understand military do not have the same rights in a court of law. and it is way stricter in a military court.

[DKW 86 7,932]

On 5/25/2022 at 9:51 AM, jj3jordan said:

A very quiet thud. One the democrats wish wasn't heard at all. If only Schiff really had the goods as he claimed. But like typical democrats he is a liar who made stuff up and tried to sell it. Just like the beloved Lt Col Vindman, willing to testify but not actually a witness to ANYTHING except Trump didn't do what he wanted. I guess you forgot about the democrats who would not vote to convict Clinton who clearly lied to a federal grand jury in a felony sexual harassment case.  You would figure the democrats would have been all over that but alas, it was Hillary and Bill. Hillary decreed that the plaintiff/s should be destroyed. And thus it was.  As I recall one of the obstruction charges was going to be that Trump tweeted that the investigation was a phony witch hunt.  What a crime. Oh and as it turned out, it actually was a phony witch hunt.  And the bloodless weaponless non military highly disorganized coup attempt. Seriously coffee, even if Pence had been hung (never would have happened) and Pelosi strung up (did anybody have any rope) , do you REALLY THINK somebody would have said OK DON YOU WIN YOU CAN STAY AND BE PRESIDENT!!???

 

On 5/25/2022 at 12:47 PM, icanthearyou said:

You egregiously betray the truth.  You betray all principles and values for sake of political affiliation.

Facts:
Schiff had nothing, nothing at all.
I do not support anything that happened 6-JAN-2021 but no one was going to get hanged etc. That was not going to happen and trump was NEVER was going to be kept in office. If you really think that, YAASF. The Army, etc was NEVER going to let that happen. NEVER.

[icanthearyou 4,468]

3 hours ago, DKW 86 said:

 

Facts:
Schiff had nothing, nothing at all.
I do not support anything that happened 6-JAN-2021 but no one was going to get hanged etc. That was not going to happen and trump was NEVER was going to be kept in office. If you really think that, YAASF. The Army, etc was NEVER going to let that happen. NEVER.

Thank you but, this is disorganized and incoherent.  The real problem is, you cannot see the dangers of having to invoke the forceful removal of a president, what that would do to the country.

[Auburnfan91 1,408]

16 hours ago, AU9377 said:

There is a substantial subject matter disparity for one.  And then there is this.....

https://www.politico.com/news/2020/11/30/trump-flynn-pardon-reprieve-441527

The judge in the Flynn case was anti-Trump and a pissant who wouldn't drop the case, even after the DOJ had filed motion to drop all charges.

The judge in the Sussman case is a Dem and his wife donated to Hillary's campaign in 2016(which Sussman worked for).

D.C. is a cesspool of Dem politics. From the judges to the jury. No conservatives will ever get fair trials in D.C.

When the GOP retake control of Congress, they need to pass a bill to move trials out of D.C.

[AU9377 6,088]

12 hours ago, DKW 86 said:

 

Facts:
Schiff had nothing, nothing at all.
I do not support anything that happened 6-JAN-2021 but no one was going to get hanged etc. That was not going to happen and trump was NEVER was going to be kept in office. If you really think that, YAASF. The Army, etc was NEVER going to let that happen. NEVER.

If you are speaking of the first impeachment trial, that was a much better case than the potential trial that Nixon was facing as a result of Watergate.  There were a total of 3 U.S. Ambassadors that testified that the President conditioned an official White House visit and the delivery of already appropriated funds and military aid to a foreign country on that country opening and publicly announcing an investigation of his political rival to aid in his re-election.  In addition to those ambassadors, senior members of the NSA appointed by the sitting President also testified to the public and private conversations in which they were informed of the President's demands. 

The sitting U.S. President placed his personal political interests above the interests of the country he was elected to lead.  He clearly used the power of his office as leverage to solicit a foreign power to instigate an investigation that the foreign power did not believe was warranted.  There has never been a time in the history of this country that doing that would have been viewed as acceptable.

[DKW 86 7,932]

12 hours ago, Auburnfan91 said:

 

So, the fix is in on Sussmann? I dont know this is true yet, BUT I wont be surprised.

Edited May 29, 2022 by DKW 86

[DKW 86 7,932]

18 hours ago, icanthearyou said:

Thank you but, this is disorganized and incoherent.  The real problem is, you cannot see the dangers of having to invoke the forceful removal of a president, what that would do to the country.

Wrong again, I totally see all that and how you read that into my words, the world will never know. 

But the FACT that trump had ZERO chance of being in power after noon on 20-JAN-21 makes many in America just sound like gutless nutjobs. 

It was NEVER going to happen. I did not say that trump didnt think about it, but Milley and the rest of the military were having none of it.

Mark Milley feared Trump coup after 2020 election loss to Biden (cnbc.com)

“They may try, but they’re not going to f------ succeed,” Milley said of a possible government takeover in conversation with his closest deputies, according to the book.

“You can’t do this without the military. You can’t do this without the CIA and the FBI. We’re the guys with the guns,” he said.

The general, having listened to Trump spread an array of baseless conspiracy theories and false claims of fraud throughout the final weeks of his term, had drawn parallels with the rise of nazism in 20th century Germany, the book said.

“This is a Reichstag moment,” Milley told aides in early January, according to the book. “The gospel of the Fuhrer.”

The journalists say the book is based on hundreds of hours of interviews with more than 140 sources, most of whom agreed to speak candidly on the condition of anonymity. The authors say they also interviewed Trump on the record for 2½ hours.

Leonnig and Rucker describe Milley as being shaken after a Nov. 10 phone call with an old friend, who warned him, “What they’re trying to do here is overturn the government.”

“This is all real, man. You are one of the few guys who are standing between us and some really bad stuff,” the friend told Milley, who later shared the exchange with his aides, the book says.

Milley then reached out to former Gen. H.R. McMaster, Trump’s national security advisor from 2017 to 2018. “What the f--- am I dealing with?” Milley asked, according to the book.

“You’re dealing with some of the weirdest s--- ever,” McMaster reportedly replied.

Trump refused to concede the 2020 race to now-President Joe Biden. He falsely tried to claim victory on Nov. 4, even as vote tallies were still pouring in. In the weeks after the election, Trump and his allies filed dozens of lawsuits to try to reverse the outcome of the race.

While Trump and his surrogates vocally asserted that widespread fraud had rigged the election, few of the lawsuits attempted to make that argument to an actual judge. None of the lawsuits succeeded in reversing Biden’s win in key states.

Trump’s defiance, combined with the late-hour installation of loyalists at top roles in the government, had top Pentagon officials concerned that the president could be persuaded to take “rash military action,” the book says. The Pentagon brass contemplated actions “such as launching a missile strike, withdrawing U.S. forces precipitously from Afghanistan, or even deploying troops in some way related to the election dispute,” according to the book.

Ahead of Jan. 6, when a joint session of Congress was scheduled to confirm Biden’s victory, Milley reportedly expressed concern about how Trump was promoting a campaign rally-style event nearby.

“Milley told his staff that he believed Trump was stoking unrest, possibly in hopes of an excuse to invoke the Insurrection Act and call out the military,” the book says.

On Jan. 6, a mob of Trump’s supporters, many of whom had gathered for the president’s fiery speech outside the White House, invaded the Capitol, vandalizing the halls of government and forcing a joint session of Congress into hiding.

After the deadly invasion, Milley stressed that “come hell or high water, there will be a peaceful transfer of power on January twentieth,” one senior official said in the book. “We’ve got an aircraft, our landing gear is stuck, we’ve got one engine, and we’re out of fuel. We’ve got to land this bad boy.”

Milley, leading a Jan. 14 military drill in advance of Biden’s inauguration, reportedly said, “Here’s the deal, guys: These guys are Nazis, they’re Boogaloo Boys, they’re Proud Boys. These are the same people we fought in World War II.”

“Everyone in this room, whether you’re a cop, whether you’re a soldier, we’re going to stop these guys to make sure we have a peaceful transfer of power. We’re going to put a ring of steel around this city and the Nazis aren’t getting in,” Milley said, according to the book.

 

 

Edited May 29, 2022 by DKW 86

[DKW 86 7,932]

9 hours ago, AU9377 said:

If you are speaking of the first impeachment trial, that was a much better case than the potential trial that Nixon was facing as a result of Watergate.  There were a total of 3 U.S. Ambassadors that testified that the President conditioned an official White House visit and the delivery of already appropriated funds and military aid to a foreign country on that country opening and publicly announcing an investigation of his political rival to aid in his re-election.  In addition to those ambassadors, senior members of the NSA appointed by the sitting President also testified to the public and private conversations in which they were informed of the President's demands. 

The sitting U.S. President placed his personal political interests above the interests of the country he was elected to lead.  He clearly used the power of his office as leverage to solicit a foreign power to instigate an investigation that the foreign power did not believe was warranted.  There has never been a time in the history of this country that doing that would have been viewed as acceptable.

I am speaking of the first, you are confused with the second. 

Wall Street Journal: 'No one should ever believe another word' from Schiff | Washington Examiner

The editorial, which was published on Tuesday, reacted to the House Intelligence Committee releasing dozens of witness interview transcripts and related material regarding its investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 election.

 

"Schiff spread falsehoods shamelessly about Russia and Donald Trump for three years even as his own committee gathered contrary evidence," it wrote. The editorial board also argued the California Democrat had previously held up the release of the transcripts because they didn't align with what he was saying publicly.

The piece included direct quotes from Schiff's television appearances in which he touted his committee's findings of "more than circumstantial evidence" regarding the Trump campaign's alleged partnership with Russia, which he said on MSNBC in March 2017.

“The Russians offered help. The campaign accepted help. The Russians gave help, and the president made full use of that help," the Intel chairman said on CNN later that year.

The editorial board noted that the transcripts showed that several top intelligence, law enforcement, and national security officials from the Obama administration all denied seeing evidence of collusion even as Schiff said such evidence did exist.

The editorial board also compared how Schiff and President Trump are treated by the media regarding their willingness to spread "falsehoods."

"President Trump often spreads falsehoods and invents facts, but at least he’s paid a price for it in media criticism and public mistrust," the piece concludes. "An industry of media fact checkers is dedicated to parsing his every word.

As for Mr. Schiff, no one should ever believe another word he says."

Edited May 29, 2022 by DKW 86

[TexasTiger 14,474]

On 5/20/2022 at 2:55 PM, Auburnfan91 said:

Tale of two trials: How Sussmann is receiving every consideration denied to Flynn

by Jonathan Turley, opinion contributor - 05/18/22 10:45 AM ET
 

The criminal trial of Clinton campaign lawyer Michael Sussmann began this week with a telling warning from prosecutors to the D.C. jury: “Whatever your political views might be, they cannot be brought to your decisions.” The opening statement by Deborah Brittain Shaw reflected the curious profile of the Sussmann case. Prosecutors ordinarily have a massive advantage with juries despite the presumption of innocence. When pleas are counted, federal prosecutors can report as high as 95 percent conviction rates. However, with Sussmann, prosecutors clearly have concerns over whether they, rather than the defendant, will get a fair trial.

Sussman’s trial for allegedly lying to the FBI is being heard in the same District of Columbia federal courthouse where former Trump national security adviser Michael Flynn and others faced the very same charge brought by another special counsel.  

The cases, however, could not be more different. 

Whereas Flynn’s prosecution was a no-holds-barred affair, Sussmann’s prosecution has been undermined by a series of unfavorable rulings by the court. Special prosecutor John Durham still may be able to eke out a conviction, but the difference in the treatment of Trump and Clinton associates is striking. 

Sussmann is charged under 18 U.S.C. 1001 with lying to the FBI during a meeting with then-FBI general counsel James Baker when he came forward with what he claimed was evidence of possible covert communications between the Trump Organization and Alfa, a Russian bank. Sussmann allegedly concealed that he was representing the Clinton campaign, which he billed for his efforts. 

Shaw told the jury that the FBI “should not be used as a political tool for anyone — not Republicans. Not Democrats. Not anyone.” She then added that the jurors themselves should not use this trial for their own political judgments.  

Looking at the jury box, one can understand Shaw’s unease. During jury selection, one juror admitted he was a Clinton donor and could only promise to “strive for impartiality as best I can.” Prosecutors objected to his being seated, but Judge Christopher Cooper overruled them. 

In another exchange, a former bartender and donor to far-left Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) was told by a Sussmann defense lawyer that neither Clinton nor Trump were on trial and then asked if she could be impartial. She responded, “Yes, knowing that” — which might suggest she would not be impartial if the campaigns were part of the trial. 

Other jurors include a woman who said she thought she was a Clinton donor but could not remember; a juror whose husband worked for the Clinton 2008 campaign; and a juror who believes the legal system is racist and police departments should be defunded. 

To be sure, D.C. voters chose Clinton over Trump in 2016 by a breathtaking margin: 90.9 percent to 4.1 percent. While liberal and Democratic jurors still can be fair and impartial, Judge Cooper has seated a couple jurors who seemed to struggle with the concept of impartiality. 

The most notable aspect of the trial is what will be missing: context. Durham contends that Sussmann was no rogue lawyer. After the Mueller investigation, Durham’s team revealed information about how people affiliated with the Clinton campaign allegedly funded, developed and spread the false collusion claim. 

On July 28, 2016, then-CIA Director John Brennan briefed President Obama on Hillary Clinton’s alleged plan to tie Donald Trump to Russia as “a means of distracting the public from her use of a private email server.” Obama reportedly was told how Clinton allegedly approved “a proposal from one of her foreign policy advisers to vilify Donald Trump by stirring up a scandal claiming interference by the Russian security service.” That was three days before the FBI’s collusion investigation was initiated. 

This appears to have been an all-Washington effort assisted by key figures associated with a liberal think tank, Democratic members of Congress and allies in the media. However, it was the role of lawyers like Sussmann that attracted Durham’s interest.  

Durham contends that, in addition to allegedly lying to Baker during their meeting, Sussmann sent a text message to Baker the night before the meeting, reading: “Jim — it’s Michael Sussmann. I have something time-sensitive (and sensitive) I need to discuss. 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.” 

Notably, the campaign’s law firm was accused by some journalists of hiding the campaign’s role in financing the infamous Steele dossier, which provided the basis for the collusion story. (The Federal Election Commission recently fined the campaign for using the firm to hide those payments.) The Durham team argued that Sussmann’s alleged lying to the FBI was not just some passing omission but a knowing pattern of deceit. That is why one of the first witnesses expected to be called by the prosecution was Marc Elias, Sussmann’s former law partner and the Clinton campaign’s general counsel. Elias is not charged with any crime, but at least one reporter has claimed Elias denied the campaign’s connection to the Steele dossier.  

Judge Cooper has stressed that this trial cannot be about the Clinton campaign per se, but the specific lie that was told. He specifically barred Durham from arguing that there was a “joint venture” in deception with the Clinton campaign. The judge sharply limited the evidence that Durham can present which, in the words of Politico, “spares the Clinton campaign and the Democratic National Committee … potential embarrassment.”  

Without the broader context, the prosecution could sound like a play without a plot — just characters and insular acts. The first witnesses included FBI agents who told the jury that the claims passed along by Sussmann “didn’t make sense” and that the collusion theory was rejected within days of looking at the underlying data. However, Cooper warned that he will keep a tight rein on prosecutors delving into how the underlying data was produced or managed through the campaign.

That is not the only blow delivered to the prosecution by the court. The judge refused prosecution access to some evidence and, while allowing access to some emails between the campaign and an opposition-research firm, he barred their introduction at trial due to the late request from the prosecutors.  

The treatment given to Sussmann is in stark contrast to how Trump associates were treated in this same court. In the Flynn trial, Judge Cooper’s colleague, Judge Emmet Sullivan, conducted a series of bizarre hearings, including one in which he used the courtroom flag as a prop to accuse Flynn of being an “unregistered agent of a foreign country while serving as the national security adviser” and to suggest that Flynn could be charged with treason — crimes not brought against him. Sullivan then declared: “I cannot assure you that if you proceed today, you will not receive a sentence of incarceration. I am not hiding my disgust and my disdain.” 

Likewise, another judicial colleague, Judge Amy Berman Jackson, refused to grant Trump associate Roger Stone a new trial despite disturbing reports of juror bias.

While the judge in Flynn’s case was eager to remove obstacles from the prosecution’s path, the judge in Sussmann’s case seems to have created a virtual obstacle course for Durham. Durham may be able to jump the legal hurdles, but he will do so without much of his evidence. To paraphrase Charles Dickens in “A Tale of Two Cities,” for a prosecutor D.C. can be the best of venues or it can be the worst of venues.

Jonathan Turley is the Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at George Washington University. Follow him on Twitter @JonathanTurley.

 

https://thehill.com/opinion/judiciary/3492664-tale-of-two-trials-how-sussmann-is-receiving-every-consideration-denied-to-flynn/

No serious person would compare these cases. Flynn pled guilty. Then Trump’s “Justice Department” tried to drop charges after the fact as a payoff for Flynn’s loyalty. It was unprecedented in many ways and the Judge was rightly suspicious.

[creed 1,809]

Note to self....

Republican view. "There is no real Democratic truth even if it's true"

Democrat view. "There is no real Republican truth even if it's true"

So...Every truth must be viewed though a political filter.

Do I have this right?

Edited May 29, 2022 by creed

[DKW 86 7,932]

35 minutes ago, creed said:

Note to self....

Republican view. "There is no real Democratic truth even it it's true"

Democrat view. "There is no real Republican truth even it it's true"

So...Every truth must be viewed though a political filter.

Do I have this right?

[Auburnfan91 1,408]

3 hours ago, TexasTiger said:

No serious person would compare these cases. Flynn pled guilty. Then Trump’s “Justice Department” tried to drop charges after the fact as a payoff for Flynn’s loyalty. It was unprecedented in many ways and the Judge was rightly suspicious.

Flynn was entrapped by Obama's "Justice Department". The main reason he pled guilty initially was because they threatened to go after Flynn's son if he didn't cooperate. There was never any collusion. Flynn was doing part his job during the transition by talking to foreign officials about the incoming administration. Yet they charged him with lying about whether he discussed foreign policy with a Russian official. It's a farce. He should have never been charged. It was a political abuse of power.

[Auburnfan91 1,408]

6 hours ago, DKW 86 said:

So, the fix is in on Sussmann? I dont know this is true yet, BUT I wont be surprised.

 

 

[TexasTiger 14,474]

2 hours ago, Auburnfan91 said:

Flynn was entrapped by Obama's "Justice Department". The main reason he pled guilty initially was because they threatened to go after Flynn's son if he didn't cooperate. There was never any collusion. Flynn was doing part his job during the transition by talking to foreign officials about the incoming administration. Yet they charged him with lying about whether he discussed foreign policy with a Russian official. It's a farce. He should have never been charged. It was a political abuse of power.

He pled because he knew he could be convicted of far more, along with his son. As the Trump administration proceeded, the entire party cowered to him and by Flynn’s sentencing time he knew Trump could get away with what wouldn’t have been possible before. He’s guilty as hell of lying about more than what you pointed out:

”

Flynn told the FBI that he did not ask Kislyak to refrain from escalating the situation, which was false. Flynn also said he did not recall Kislyak calling back two days later to tell him that Russia had abided by Flynn’s request.

Flynn also made false statements to the FBI about his lobbying work for Turkey and about another contact with the Russian ambassador over Dec. 22 and Dec. 23, 2016, pertaining to a U.N. Security Council Resolution on Israeli settlements, according to his guilty plea.

 

He’s also crazy as hell. The perfect MAGA hero.

[icanthearyou 4,468]

2 hours ago, Auburnfan91 said:

 

 

So you are suggesting that no one who is a democrat should be allowed in the jury pool?  Republicans?

[AU9377 6,088]

The man is being prosecuted for lying to an FBI agent.  A conviction does nothing to prove anything illegal took place in the Clinton campaign.

How many millions does Durham get to investigate air?