Michael Sussmann accused of lying to the FBI

In accusing Clinton campaign lawyer Michael Sussmann of lying to the FBI, Special Counsel John Durham offers new evidence of the fabrications behind the Trump-Russia conspiracy theory.

https://www.strategic-culture.org/news/2021/09/21/with-clinton-lawyer-charged-the-russiagate-scam-is-now-under-indictment/

@metal-brain said
In accusing Clinton campaign lawyer Michael Sussmann of lying to the FBI, Special Counsel John Durham offers new evidence of the fabrications behind the Trump-Russia conspiracy theory.

https://www.strategic-culture.org/news/2021/09/21/with-clinton-lawyer-charged-the-russiagate-scam-is-now-under-indictment/

Durham is just another Trump mouthpiece.

He should at least try not to make it so obvious.

Now we can expect at any time to see someone start a thread "Biden lies" with the intent to cancel out Trump's "best qualities". 😛

@metal-brain said
In accusing Clinton campaign lawyer Michael Sussmann of lying to the FBI, Special Counsel John Durham offers new evidence of the fabrications behind the Trump-Russia conspiracy theory.

https://www.strategic-culture.org/news/2021/09/21/with-clinton-lawyer-charged-the-russiagate-scam-is-now-under-indictment/

Oooh. Accusations? Let's talk fabrications. Lying under oath. Not accusations. Convictions.

George papadopoulos. George nader. rick gates . Michael flynn. Michael cohen. Paul manafort. Roger stone. Steve bannon.

All of these people are convicted criminals who worked for trump during the 2016 campaign. Some of them lied or refused to speak about trump's russia ties. There are others I couldn't remember them all.

@metal-brain said
In accusing Clinton campaign lawyer Michael Sussmann of lying to the FBI, Special Counsel John Durham offers new evidence of the fabrications behind the Trump-Russia conspiracy theory.

https://www.strategic-culture.org/news/2021/09/21/with-clinton-lawyer-charged-the-russiagate-scam-is-now-under-indictment/

Your posting this so long after it was reported, makes me wonder if you watch the real news? You haven't known about this?

@wildgrass said
Oooh. Accusations? Let's talk fabrications. Lying under oath. Not accusations. Convictions.

George papadopoulos. George nader. rick gates . Michael flynn. Michael cohen. Paul manafort. Roger stone. Steve bannon.

All of these people are convicted criminals who worked for trump during the 2016 campaign. Some of them lied or refused to speak about trump's russia ties. There are others I couldn't remember them all.

Let's talk about George Papadopoulos. What did he do wrong?

Biden Admin Reinstates Andrew McCabe's Full Pension After 2018 Firing For Lying Under Oath

https://www.zerohedge.com/political/biden-admin-reinstates-andrew-mccabes-full-pension-after-2018-firing-lying-under-oath

@metal-brain said
Let's talk about George Papadopoulos. What did he do wrong?

Papadopoulos pleaded guilty to a felony charge of making false statements to FBI agents about the timing and the possible significance of his contacts in 2016 relating to U.S.–Russia relations and the Donald Trump presidential campaign.

@wildgrass said
Papadopoulos pleaded guilty to a felony charge of making false statements to FBI agents about the timing and the possible significance of his contacts in 2016 relating to U.S.–Russia relations and the Donald Trump presidential campaign.

False statements about what? What contacts? What does it have to do with Trump?

All he did was repeat a rumor he heard. That is how Russiagate got started. It was started by a mere unconfirmed rumor, not evidence. If lack of evidence is enough to ridicule a conspiracy theory then Russiagate is a ridiculous conspiracy theory that even a subsequent exhaustive investigation was unable to turn up any evidence.

Add to that all the lying and fabricated evidence to continue the investigation and you have a witch hunt. Not the first one Mueller went on either.

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2017/05/21/when_comey_and_mueller_bungled_the_anthrax_case_133953.html#!

https://thefederalist.com/2018/02/08/robert-mueller-botching-investigations-since-anthrax-attacks/

@metal-brain said
False statements about what? What contacts? What does it have to do with Trump?

All he did was repeat a rumor he heard. That is how Russiagate got started. It was started by a mere unconfirmed rumor, not evidence. If lack of evidence is enough to ridicule a conspiracy theory then Russiagate is a ridiculous conspiracy theory that even a subsequent exhaustive investigati ...[text shortened]...
https://thefederalist.com/2018/02/08/robert-mueller-botching-investigations-since-anthrax-attacks/

Tell us all about lying and manufactured evidence. You're the expert.

@suzianne said
Tell us all about lying and manufactured evidence. You're the expert.

The FBI's Kevin Clinesmith plead guilty to altering an email from the CIA to the GCO, in which Trump campaign adviser Carter Page was described as a source for the agency, to say he was not a source – which cleared the way for the FBI to request a Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) warrant against Page as a “Russian agent”.

https://www.rt.com/usa/498070-clinesmith-fbi-guilty-russiagate/

But wait, there is more. The CIA fabricated evidence too.

https://www.thelibertybeacon.com/cia-fabricated-russiagate-evidence-says-former-nsa-tech-chief-video/

And now Sussmann has been charged with lying to the FBI.

https://www.strategic-culture.org/news/2021/09/21/with-clinton-lawyer-charged-the-russiagate-scam-is-now-under-indictment/

Happy?

@metal-brain said
The FBI's Kevin Clinesmith plead guilty to altering an email from the CIA to the GCO, in which Trump campaign adviser Carter Page was described as a source for the agency, to say he was not a source – which cleared the way for the FBI to request a Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) warrant against Page as a “Russian agent”.

https://www.rt.com/usa/498070-cline ...[text shortened]... g/news/2021/09/21/with-clinton-lawyer-charged-the-russiagate-scam-is-now-under-indictment/

Happy?

Maybe I would be if you had cited actual sources instead of propaganda sources.

@suzianne said
Maybe I would be if you had cited actual sources instead of propaganda sources.

The FBI's Kevin Clinesmith plead guilty to altering an email from the CIA to the GCO, in which Trump campaign adviser Carter Page was described as a source for the agency, to say he was not a source – which cleared the way for the FBI to request a Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) warrant against Page as a “Russian agent”.

Do you dispute that fact? What source would you believe? More importantly, why is a fact not believable because of the source that gives you that fact? All you have to do is prove it wrong if it is not really a fact.

You are just being lazy and making up lame excuses for it. More likely, you know I am capable of proving my claims and you are desperately trying to avoid the uncomfortable truth.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-clinesmith-idUSKBN29Y1CB

There you go. Is Reuters a propaganda source too?
Your attack the source tactics are a huge failure. You know I can prove what I say.

@metal-brain said
The FBI's Kevin Clinesmith plead guilty to altering an email from the CIA to the GCO, in which Trump campaign adviser Carter Page was described as a source for the agency, to say he was not a source – which cleared the way for the FBI to request a Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) warrant against Page as a “Russian agent”.

Do you dispute that fact? What sou ...[text shortened]... da source too?
Your attack the source tactics are a huge failure. You know I can prove what I say.

This is classic misdirection by you.

You take one Fact A, and then try to connect it to Action B, Action C and Action D, when there is no such connection.

Then you claim and fight that "Hey, Fact A is totally legit!"

No one is arguing that it is not. What they argue about is your falsified connection to everything else in your house of cards.

@suzianne said
This is classic misdirection by you.

You take one Fact A, and then try to connect it to Action B, Action C and Action D, when there is no such connection.

Then you claim and fight that "Hey, Fact A is totally legit!"

No one is arguing that it is not. What they argue about is your falsified connection to everything else in your house of cards.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-clinesmith-idUSKBN29Y1CB

There you go. Is Reuters a propaganda source too? LOL!
😆