Hillary Clinton personally approved leaking to the media information alleging a connection between Donald Trump and a Russian bank in 2016, which the campaign itself had not fully confirmed, according to testimony Friday by Clinton’s campaign manager.
Robby Mook, Clinton’s campaign chief, said in federal court that as the campaign against Trump heated up in the late summer and early fall of 2016, Marc Elias, who was then a lawyer with the Perkins Coie law firm and served as the campaign’s top legal adviser, told Mook that “people with expertise” in cyberactivity had briefed the campaign on data alleging links between the Trump Organization and Alfa Bank, a Russian financial institution with ties to the Kremlin.
Mook’s testimony for the first time puts Clinton in the middle of a leak to the news media that ultimately blew up in the campaign’s face. The FBI quickly determined that the purported connection between the Russian bank and the Trump Organization was implausible, and Michael Sussmann, Elias’s then law partner who brought the claims to the FBI, has since been indicted by Justice Department special counsel John Durham on charges he lied to the bureau’s general counsel to hide his connection to the Clinton campaign.
The account from Mook came on the fourth day of the trial of Sussmann, a cyber and national security law expert who worked at Perkins Coie in 2016. The closely watched case is widely seen as a major test for Durham, the longtime U.S. attorney in Connecticut who had been initially appointed by Trump’s attorney general, William Barr, to investigate alleged wrongdoing by the FBI and other federal agencies in the course of their investigation into alleged Trump-Russia ties.
This is my *SHOCKED* face.
Someonebis about to trip over a gun and and up with two bullets in the back of the head in an apparent suicide. Good knowing ya Mook
Thats what I get for walking and typing on my phone.
But you get the point, don’t be surprised if Mook suddenly feels suicidal. One doesn’t just burn a Clinton like that without sudden onset 3rd party induced depression.
Fun, yes, but immaterial to the case. Sorry to burst your happy bubbles.
As the article notes Mook was brought in as a defense witness. And on that point he smacked a homer – by claiming he had no idea who/about Sussmann.
That is, until he foul-balled himself in the foot….
Robby Mook, Clinton’s campaign chief, said in federal court that….. Marc Elias, who was then a lawyer with the Perkins Coie law firm and served as the campaign’s top legal adviser, told Mook that “people with expertise” in cyberactivity had briefed the campaign on data alleging links between the Trump Organization and Alfa Bank
See the telling inconsistency in that paragraph?
Mook, campaign chief, was left out of the briefing…. of the campaign.
If that is true then his lack of knowledge of Sussmann is a moot point. He was never in the loop, so to speak. What it does reveal is Hildabeast’s cabal of lawyers, of which Mook is not a member, were sneaking around and working closely in the background.
The next big questions Durham should ask is, who was in that briefing and who conducted it? Those questions, I suspect, will be posed to Podesta and Elias at some point. Because how many in any campaign are above the “campaign chief” besides the Campaign Chairman and Chief Lawyer?
At least one more: The candidate.
But back to the issue….
Damning billing records aside, if Sussmann wasn’t working for Hildabeast, how did he obtain the fraudulent data he handed to the CIA and FBI?
Now we know why Perkins, Coie ejected Elias from the firm 6 months ago. Would love to see Durham put Elias in the crosshairs, but that’s so NEXT century…..
“I think my sense was that the FBI was not — for a variety of reasons — going to do anything that was going to … stop bad things from happening, which would be one reason to go to the FBI.” – Elias testimony, 5/18/22
Elias has already sat in the witness chair, where he claimed not to have sent Sussmann to the FBI. The leftist media screamed in unison that this was a “huge blow” to the prosecution. Quite the opposite. Elias’s statement above proves the campaign discussed doing just that.
~ wink wink~
Any witness can be recalled.
The defense has already admitted Sussmann WAS working for the campaign. After billing records where exposed they had to. Yet in their opening statement they made the absurd claim that, yes, Sussmann was working for Clinton…. except when he wasn’t.
The timeline: 1) the campaign spies on Trump and creates the fraudulent data, 2) they try selling it to the leftist media, 3) the leftist media fails to respond fast enough, 4) “concerned citizen” Sussmann then tries selling it to his CIA and FBI insider contacts, fails, then goes directly to Baker.
2, 3, and 4 were done AFTER some who helped compile the fraud data knew it was trash, told the campaign so, and that Sussmann’s approach to investigative authorities was done solely so that the leftist media could call up the FBI to confirm an investigation was in process.
Frankly, I think Durham should just go to the buck-toothed horse’s mouth. Call Hildabeast to the stand.
But it may not matter. This is a DC jury. Truth and consequences have no meaning.
Yeah, but don’t look for a conviction. The judge is a friend of Sussman, a jurors kid plays soccer with Sussman kid and several democrat donations by jurors.
The trial is pretty much rigged.
~sigh~ This is what you get when you rely on leftist MSM like YahoosNews.…..
Above, based on the Yahoo article, I wrote;
Mook, campaign chief, was left out of the briefing…. of the campaign.
If that is true then his lack of knowledge of Sussmann is a moot point. He was never in the loop, so to speak.
Well guess what…
Q: Okay. In connection with the general focus on Mr. Trump and Russia, did there come a time when you learned of potential links between the Trump organization, Mr. Trump’s business, and a Russian bank called Alfa-bank?
A: I did. Yes, I was briefed on that.
Q: Approximately when were you first briefed on that, if you remember?
A: I honestly can’t recall.
Q: Who participated in the briefing, if you remember?
A: Myself, Marc Elias, Jen Palmieri, Jake Sullivan, John Podesta. There might have been others, but those are the ones I definitely recall being there.
That is an excerpt of Mook’s actual testimony found via Techno Frog’s substack.
Forgive me for failing my own golden rule: documented evidence over filtered content.
Guys, you are wasting your time. This has all been de-bunked…
In the Democrat dictionary denied and debunked have the same meaning.
Tuerqas: Off-Topic here, updating the ‘when is the fetus a human’? question you mentioned a couple of weeks ago. It’s been ‘splained here https://www.thecatholicthing.org/2022/05/18/aquinas-on-when-human-life-begins/ and that’s now the position I hold.
A few segues hit me here:
What is the position on ‘pulling the plug’ by Catholics? Using the link, I assume that a Catholic would never pull the plug on a living body even if machines alone are keeping it alive? It is a human body with human DNA, ergo it must be kept alive as a mother must keep their baby alive.
What is the position on test tube babies? Is a scientist required to keep any fertilized egg alive as it now has the entire ‘human DNA’ mapping? Are they, in fact, the ‘mother’?
Same question on cloning. Once separated and growing it is a human body with human DNA. And how can one use science and biology as proof of conception while rejecting cloning or ‘conception’ outside the mother’s body?
Those ideas above and calling God a pro-abortionist because he created ectopic pregnancies are reasons I have not fully embraced conception as the beginning of God approved life. I repeat, I do not know! I am not an authority. Those are just the primary reasons I have reservations and do not agree that conception is the point where others should take responsibility OVER the mother for a new life. After all, if test tube creations have the same rights at the same point, and why should they not, a man really can be a ‘mother’ in everything but body carriage of the fetus. Something science already says is unnecessary.
If there are laws for abortions or against abortions, I will not fight for either side to change them. The Bible says follow the law of the land unless it is against God’s direct teachings and in this country, majority rules. I also repeat, there is no teaching in the Bible on pre-borns that I know of. And to date, everything from you has been prominent Catholic people’s opinions, never Bible verses.
Aquinas used ‘faulty biology’ in his opinions, He was one of the foremost religious thinkers in history, so if there were actual verses, rather than vague interpretations, it would have been settled religion (for Catholics at least) centuries ago.
I think we all know science will keep changing the goal posts as new knowledge is discovered on life creation. How then can we make laws for all without accounting for it? And religion should not be the reason for laws either, as everyone does not follow the same faith.
1) The Catholic position on life-sustenance is that one can NEVER withhold sustenance (nutrition/hydration). However, maintaining life thru ‘extraordinary means’ such as endless machine-breathing is not morally required.
2) The Catholic position on ‘test-tube’ is “Should never create them. Period.” Same with cloning. Period.
As you recall from Genesis, the human race is flawed following the sin of Adam and Eve. Those flaws are both physical and spiritual. One of them is ‘ectopic’ pregnancy (cancer, pneumonia, trisomy-18, etc., etc., etc., are more of the same.) Thus, God did NOT “create” ectopic pregnancies. Small minds invent silly memes, T.
I also repeat, there is no teaching in the Bible on pre-borns that I know of. Oh no?
“Before I formed you in the womb I knew you.” Jer 1:5 Think about the implications there and you know that there IS teaching in the Bible on pre-borns.
And–though not “biblical”–in 50 AD, the Didache states: “The second commandment of the teaching: You shall not murder. You shall not commit adultery. You shall not seduce boys. You shall not commit fornication. You shall not steal. You shall not practice magic. You shall not use potions. You shall not procure [an] abortion, nor destroy a newborn child” (Didache 2:1–2
You’ve been around long enough to know that science is NOT opposed to orthodox religious belief–or as it is more commonly stated, “faith and reason” are utterly compatible, never at war with each other. If there SEEMS to be a difference, it’s because of a misunderstanding of ‘science’ or–sometimes–a flawed understanding of a religious teaching. Aquinas (and Aristotle) were hampered by a very poor understanding of physiology, as the linked essay shows. What we know now proves that Aquinas was correct in theory but wrong on the biology.
…..everyone does not follow the same religion….
Correct. But which part of “religious law” shall we NOT follow? There is a natural law to which virtually every major religion adheres–it’s the one the Founders mentioned in the Declaration (in part.) Use that as a starting point. It IS instructive that the Wisconsin law prohibiting abortion has been on the books for almost 180 years, no?
Conservative Treehouse had a nice article yesterday with a look back at the illegalities of DoJ/FBI/Mueller’s use of the Clinton dirt to persecute Trump and Trump’s minions. Much of the who and what are a rehash, but the why sure poses some interesting questions and something of a guide for watching future events.
If select individuals atop DoJ/FBI/Mueller are Durham’s endgame, then the Hillary crew is small stuff. Can DoJ/FBI/Mueller successfully stonewall Durham to the point where Clinton minions are the only ones to take a fall? As much as I’d love to see some form of justice come to HRC, what are the odds she’s willing to be the scapegoat here for illegalities performed on her behalf? Self-preservation is a strong motivator. I have no feel for just how much juice the Clintons might still have, but it looks like we’re about to find out.
The real topping on this deep state shit cake would be Obama, as we all know it went through him. Shillary and Billie Boi didn’t run this around him, no way… correlate in events like the Billy Bob tarmac meeting with AG Lynch… and then the sudden onsite of suicide by the reporter who broke the tarmac story… the shenanigans by the VP and his shitstain son Hunter… and all the dominos are lined up. Is there someone with the cajons to send them tumbling? I sure wish there was, but I’m enough of a realist to know there isn’t.
>and then the sudden onsite of suicide by the reporter who broke the tarmac story
Hey, has the cause of death of Christopher Sign ever been released from the coroner?
Arkancide is hard to catch if you keep your eyes, ears, and mouth shut. Frequent hand washing and address changes are also recommended. So is avoiding park benches and dark streets.
That’s true Merlin. I saw that Mark Middleton died unexpectedly a couple weeks ago… no details on that death either.
>1) The Catholic position on life-sustenance is that one can NEVER withhold sustenance (nutrition/hydration). However, maintaining life thru ‘extraordinary means’ such as endless machine-breathing is not morally required.
The list of Catholic approved human DNA life negation grows and the line they draw on where human life begins and ends grows…
>2) The Catholic position on ‘test-tube’ is “Should never create them. Period.” Same with cloning. Period.
Remember? Humans are flawed. Catholics hold the same positions on rape, adultery, fornication, etc. But pregnancies from these sins require the birth of the child, so that was not the question. If a scientist goes against your rules and then confesses his sin after conception, is he responsible to bring the child to term or face the same penalties that a rape victim is? We all know the rapist gets away with it if he has money as often as not so the victim faces the penalty, Is the scientist the rapist or the victim?
>Thus, God did NOT “create” ectopic pregnancies.
Cute how you waited until I went from God ‘approves’ of abortion (said 3 times with no comment from you) to when I said ‘create’ to finally comment on the point. If you want to whine against the Bible where God is said to have created everything (except the imperfections?), go ahead and split that hair. He created Satan too and came up with the imperfections human sins would cause according to the Bible I read, thus I disagree with your assertion. He created all or he didn’t. If you actually believe God is against all abortion take a stand and say it. My point still stands. If you and (we think) God approves of ectopic abortions and you admit you don’t know His mind, then where do YOU or the Catholic church get off drawing the lines for non-Catholics or secular legalities on abortion?
>“Before I formed you in the womb I knew you.” Jer 1:5 Think about the implications there and you know that there IS teaching in the Bible on pre-borns.
Nope, I read a proud parent’s words. To read that God disapproves of all abortions from that single line is ridiculously far-fetched in my opinion. Now if a rapist in the Bible said that line and then all the townsfolk stopped wanting to stone him and buy him a beer instead because the girl quickened, you might get an interpretation closer to yours from others. But I would still disagree because rape is rape and should not be celebrated because one person in the OT said they knew their child before birth.
>And–though not “biblical”–in 50 AD, the Didache states:…
In the words of the Amber Heard trial: “Objection. Hearsay”. Witness is trying to call human Catholic opinion, the words of God.
>“The second commandment of the teaching: You shall not murder. You shall not commit adultery. You shall not seduce boys. You shall not commit fornication.
Tell that to your Priests small mind. I would much rather hear about a Catholic man who created life in a test tube than about another Priest who abused children…
He created Satan too and came up with the imperfections human sins would cause according to the Bible I read
Really? He created Lucifer (light-bearer) an angel. Lucifer–who had free will–decided he would be like unto God; God did not decide that for him. You really want to confuse agencies here, for some reason.
I cannot discern your message in #2. There is no reason to change the facts here: if test-tube and/or artificial-insem babies exist, they cannot be aborted under moral law.
Never said “God approves of ectopic abortions.” Look it up. The operation is performed strictly to save the life of the mother; the side-effect is the death of the baby. That’s called “double effect” in moral law. God did not “approve” killing the baby; He approves of saving the life of the mom.
You’re throwing a lot of attitude here, much like a Lefty poster. Too bad.
>Really? He created Lucifer (light-bearer) an angel. Lucifer–who had free will–decided he would be like unto God; God did not decide that for him.
Umm, yeah. Where did you get the idea they weren’t? God created light…You think Satan did? You think God got the idea of light from Satan? You think God is not omnipotent or omniscient? You think God did not know that Satan would become what he has become even before he created him? Well you don’t even follow scripture enough to know that God created Satan so likely have never considered it.
Angels were created as all things are. On this Scripture is clear. Psalm 148 lists various created things, and everything, including angels, is commanded to praise the Lord: “Praise him, all his angels; praise him, all his heavenly hosts. . . . Let them praise the name of the Lord, for at his command they were created” (verses 2 and 5).
>There is no reason to change the facts here: if test-tube and/or artificial-insem babies exist, they cannot be aborted under moral law.
That was my question, thank you for answering. If Catholics raided an illegal test tube lab where there were thousands of artificially fertilized eggs, they would extract all of the test tubes with viable embryos, pay to bring them to birth and them raise them as Catholics. I am not sure I believe that would really happen, but that is what Catholics SHOULD do according to what you believe and I wasn’t asking more than that. I know Christian sects that would destroy the test tubes as abominations.
>That’s called “double effect” in moral law. God did not “approve” killing the baby; He approves of saving the life of the mom.
Except by the definition of ‘double effect’ you are approving a procedure that does both. Double effect does not excuse you from the negative effect, it just recognizes that doing one thing will also an have an effect on another. I think we agree, though, so this is just an argument about wording.
>You’re throwing a lot of attitude here, much like a Lefty poster. Too bad.
I never start it ‘small mind’, so does that make you the lefty?
Your car cannot exceed 60MPH because one of the front wheels falls off at that speed. You give the key to your son so he can go to a doctor’s appointment, warning him repeatedly and explicitly about the danger.
He has free will and exceeds 60 MPH, and dies in the accident.
So did you “approve” of his death?
You let him drive the car, after all. Just like God allows you to exercise your free will, knowing the rules He set forth. You screw up? It’s on you, not God.
I am not sure, is this answering that Satan was created by God, some other example of double effect or answering my response about attitude?
As a new topic, God created every different scenario our free will provides including possible bad choices, flaws and sins AND knew what choices we would make. I am not suggesting God is responsible for our choices, never was. But if He is omniscient, and here is where your new example does not compare to ectopic pregnancies imo. He knew that ectopic pregnancies would be visited randomly upon some women without any relation to choice or free will. I said God created every flaw and does not visit them partially based on whether you are a fervent believer and make all the correct choices or not, nothing to do with free will except Eve’s. Any woman with the working anatomy can have an ectopic pregnancy. My ex-wife was a devout Christian who had 3 ectopic pregnancies ruining both her fallopian tubes. There was no bad choice on her part, God created the ectopic pregnancy because Eve took a bite of the apple and gave no one an option that prevents them. God created ectopic pregnancies as one of the punishments for all of us because Eve sinned.
Are you saying God is incorporated, so does not bear the responsibility for that creation He made or are you saying humans created ectopic pregnancies against God’s wishes or without His knowledge? He still chose to flaw us all and gave all the possible flaws to humans KNOWING that Eve would eat the apple. He could have chosen not to create a flaw that hurt only the innocent, but He didn’t. I believe that they are part of the array of flaws for a purpose, and while we may not understand it now, we will know in time. Therefore, it is not ours to judge who has or does not have an abortion. You can counsel, cajole, bring in specialists, but the ultimate choice is the for the bearer of the burden, not you or the Government.
The court would not judge one responsible for the death of their parent, because none of the children felt they could provide the necessary support to keep them alive. How is that different? Why does a son or daughter not have the legal responsibility to care for their parent in dotage?
Responding to YOUR comment: calling God a pro-abortionist because he created ectopic pregnancies
God did not “create” ectopics. He ALLOWS them. Big difference; words matter.
it is not ours to judge who has or does not have an abortion. You can counsel, cajole, bring in specialists, but the ultimate choice is the for the bearer of the burden, not you or the Government.
Well, obviously. But your concept of “common good” is defective if you hold that “common good” is not utterly dependent on moral rectitude. The Government must legislate What Is Moral, and we expect that people will not always act accordingly. Their ACTIONS can be judged at the time; but the final judgment of their soul is made by God.
My sympathy on the ectopics!! I hope she’s doing as well as can be expected.
>Arkancide is hard to catch if you keep your eyes, ears, and mouth shut. Frequent hand washing and address changes are also recommended. So is avoiding park benches and dark streets.
Too bad Ashley Haynes didn’t read your comment Merlin!
>God did not “create” ectopics. He ALLOWS them. Big difference; words matter.
They do, and we disagree on the words. If there were a rare disease where a fertilized egg (or person with rights as you call it) somehow got re-routed to the stomach and was terminated by stomach acid, I would call it an act of God because we humans did not invent it. Similarly, ectopic pregnancies were not invented by humans so I disagree with your wording. God created the ectopic pregnancy, AND He allows them. if not God, who did create ectopic pregnancies?
>The Government must legislate What Is Moral
I’ll agree, but there are a few problems for you with that.
Example 1) There are plenty of morals that are trumped by rights. It is okay to use deadly force to protect your home. You can get off of a murder charge for protecting a few thousand dollars of goods with a good castle defense.
Example 2) Like our current topic of abortion, different people have different morals. Some of them are clear to most everyone, but I know plenty of people who believe that owning/firing a gun is immoral as its only purpose is to kill. Will you agree to be happy with the definition of morals to be decided by today’s Government? There is a separation of church and state, so the church cannot currently dictate what morals are. For instance, homosexuality is ‘moral’ in the US today, you are good with that, right?
This is just my honest assessment of your position: I think you would only be satisfied with your own position if only you/the Catholic church were in charge of deciding what the morals to be legislated were and how the laws would read.
It was a long time ago with an ex-wife. It broke her. Me too for a while, but I could not move on while she would not. I couldn’t see my own nieces and nephews.
>> “Before I formed you in the womb I knew you.” Jer 1:5 Think about the implications there
The implication seems to be that life begins BEFORE conception. Is that your stance?
The quote isn’t ‘Before I conceived you I knew you’. Babies are not conceived in the womb. If they were, there would be no ectopic pregnancies. Words still matter.
T, I’m done with this. You’ve gone bonkers.
>The quote isn’t ‘Before I conceived you I knew you’.
You seem to be saying that our all-powerful & all-seeing God has no knowledge whatsoever of who we are prior to us being conceived. If not, then please clarify…
Dad29, i.e you have been totally shut out; from Satan not being created by God to today’s Government legislating morals you would approve of…cool, I get it. Thanks
Penguin
>The implication seems to be that life begins BEFORE conception. Is that your stance?
I am saying your comment is stupid. If you believe the quote is from God, which is clearly the case from the words, and you believe that God is omnipotent then you could say that He knows which lives will grow into humans and be born (and which will never be born) and that He knows all our choices before we make them. Even from God’s perspective it still doesn’t say that ‘life’ begins before conception, that is stupid whether you believe in an omniscient God or not.