Discussion about this post

User's avatar
MidnightRider's avatar

Great article Brian, but I have one question. You raised the point previously that Sussmann is using a Clinton connected and probably Clinton loyalist lawyer. Given this, wouldn't Sussmann be scared to enter into any plea deal to potentially turn states on the Clintons, given this info goes straight back to Hillary?

If I were in his shoes I would know that I am stuck using Clinton lawyers so that Hillary can keep an eye on me. If I use my own lawyers I will be dealt with by Clinton and if I turn states, I will also be dealt with by the Clintons. So I am better off taking a jail sentence, protecting Hillary and therefore staying alive.

I just don't see Sussmann turning on Clinton, especially as he is using her lawyers I believe. So he may well change his plea, but I don't see him throwing Hillary under the bus to get a lighter sentence given the risk is that he will be off'd.

What's your view on this?

Expand full comment
GregoryPatrick's avatar

Durham's conflict of interest briefing was designed to prevent appeal on those grounds, implying he fully anticipates a trial. You could argue that was simply subterfuge and Sussmann is already cooperating but we may never know.

As far as 'It’d been assumed up until Durham revealed it that nobody at Fusion was directly involved in the direct crafting of the Alfa Bank hoax.', Bongino, Breitbart and Solomon have reported extensively about Simpson's 2007 WSJ Op-Ed detailing the other 90% of the plan.

Thanks for doing the heavy lifting. You're making this 🍿💥🍿💥

https://www.breitbart.com/the-media/2017/12/21/report-russia-dossier-based-10-year-old-wall-street-journal-articles/

Expand full comment
3 more comments...

No posts