You agree with this conclusion? Try your trick with crime rates, look at raw numbers...You will conclude that crime in the Black community is negligible
BREAKING: Durham to Seek Indictment Against Clinton-Connected Lawyer in ‘Russiagate’ Probe https://trendingpolitics.com/breaki...clinton-connected-lawyer-in-russiagate-probe/ Former U.S. Attorney John Durham, who was appointed as a special counsel during the Trump administration to examine the origins of the so-called “Russiagate” scandal, will reportedly seek to indict an attorney connected to a firm that worked with the 2016 campaign of Hillary Clinton, according to The New York Times. “NEW: Prosecutor John Durham has told a cyber lawyer — who works for the firm that repped Clinton campaign — that he wants to indict him on suspicion of lying about who he repped when he told F.B.I. in ’16 about potential ties b/w Trump and Russia,” Times correspondent Michael S. Schmidt tweeted Monday evening. The lawyer, Michael Sussmann, is a partner at Perkins Coie, which has represented the Clinton campaign and the Democratic National Committee and which reportedly hired Fusion GPS, the firm responsible for compiling the Steele dossier.
All those colored people in Idaho, not. The Whiteys still can't comprehend why their own party is trying to kill them off. Do the Whiteys really think they're needed anymore?
AH-OH Attorney for Clinton campaign indicted in U.S. Trump-Russia probe https://currently.att.yahoo.com/att/cm/u-grand-jury-indicts-lawyer-203850504.html WASHINGTON (Reuters) - An attorney who represented Hillary Clinton's 2016 presidential campaign was indicted on Thursday for lying to the FBI, as part of U.S. Special Counsel John Durham's probe into origins of the FBI's investigation of ties between Russia and former President Donald Trump's campaign. Michael Sussmann, a partner with Perkins Coie who also represented the Democratic National Committee in connection with Russia's hack of the organization, is accused of making false statements during a Sept. 19, 2016 meeting with former FBI General Counsel James Baker. This marks the second criminal case Durham has filed since former Attorney General William Barr tapped him in 2019 to investigate U.S. officials who probed the Trump-Russia contacts. Trump, a Republican, portrayed the 2016 FBI investigation as part of a witch hunt. President Joe Biden's administration has allowed Durham to continue his work as special counsel. The indictment accuses Sussmann of falsely telling Baker he did not represent any client when he met him to give the FBI white papers and other data files containing evidence of questionable cyber links between the Trump Organization and a Russian-based bank.
Attorney for Clinton campaign indicted in U.S. Trump-Russia probe https://www.reuters.com/world/us/us...-who-represented-clinton-campaign-2021-09-16/ WASHINGTON, Sept 16 (Reuters) - An attorney who represented Hillary Clinton's 2016 presidential campaign was indicted on Thursday for lying to the FBI, as part of U.S. Special Counsel John Durham's probe into origins of the FBI's investigation of ties between Russia and former President Donald Trump's campaign. Michael Sussmann, a partner with Perkins Coie who also represented the Democratic National Committee in connection with Russia's hack of the organization, is accused of making false statements during a Sept. 19, 2016 meeting with former FBI General Counsel James Baker. This marks the second criminal case Durham has filed since former Attorney General William Barr tapped him in 2019 to investigate U.S. officials who probed the Trump-Russia contacts. Trump, a Republican, portrayed the 2016 FBI investigation as part of a witch hunt. President Joe Biden's administration has allowed Durham to continue his work as special counsel. The indictment accuses Sussmann of falsely telling Baker he did not represent any client when he met him to give the FBI white papers and other data files containing evidence of questionable cyber links between the Trump Organization and a Russian-based bank. The indictment alleges that Sussmann turned over this information not as a "good citizen" but as an attorney representing a U.S. technology executive, an internet company and Clinton's presidential campaign. An attorney for Sussmann could not be immediately reached for comment. Sussmann, who had been on leave from Perkins Coie, resigned from the firm on Thursday "in order to focus on his legal defense," a spokesperson for the firm said in a statement. Sussmann is expected to deny lying, and will maintain that he did disclose he was meeting with the FBI on behalf of a cyber expert client, according to a person familiar with the matter. The conversation between Sussmann and Baker was not recorded and Baker did not take notes, the person added, which could make it harder for the government to convince a jury that Sussmann lied. The indictment says the technology executive client who helped assemble the data Sussmann presented to the FBI had "exploited his access to non-public data at multiple Internet companies to conduct opposition research concerning Trump." The FBI investigated, but ultimately concluded there was insufficient evidence of a "secret communications channel" between the Trump organization and the bank. The bank was not named in the indictment, but the person familiar with the matter confirmed to Reuters it was Alfa Bank. The New York Times later reported on the FBI's investigation into the Alfa Bank-Trump connection in October 2016 - a probe that the indictment says was sparked following Sussmann's September 2016 meeting with Baker. The indictment alleges that some other materials Sussmann handed over to the FBI included a paper prepared by an investigative firm. The indictment does not identify the firm, but a second source familiar with the events told Reuters it is Fusion GPS, the Washington, D.C.-based firm that hired former British intelligence officer Christopher Steele to conduct opposition research on Trump on behalf of the Clinton campaign. Steele went on to produce a controversial 35-page "dossier" purporting to outline Trump links and dealings with Russia and Russians. A spokesman for Fusion GPS declined to comment, as did Steele. Neither have been accused of wrongdoing.
Trump complained that 'none of the sane lawyers' would take his election cases -- so he settled for Rudy Giuliani: Woodward New details continue to be reported from the forthcoming Trump book Peril by The Washington Post's Bob Woodward and Robert Costa. On Thursday, Business Insider reported on a conversation between Donald Trump and Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) following a press conference alleging election fraud held by former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani and conspiracy theorist Sidney Powell, where what appeared to be black hair dye dripped down Giuliani's face. "They were just beyond bizarre," Graham reportedly said. "And I think it took a lot of the air out of the balloon that the challenges are so unfocused, haphazard and conspirational." Trump admitted Giuliani was not acting competently, but said he couldn't find a better lawyer. "He's crazy. He says crazy sh*t. I get it. But none of the sane lawyers can represent me because they've been pressured. The actual lawyers have been told they cannot represent my campaign," Trump argued.
Then-CIA Director Gina Haspel said Trump's post-election behavior was 'insanity' and he was 'acting out like a 6-year-old with a tantrum,' book says Then-CIA Director Gina Haspel told the US's top general that former President Donald Trump was "acting out like a six-year-old with a tantrum" in the wake of the 2020 election, according to a new book. In addition to refusing to concede the 2020 election to President-elect Joe Biden and pushing groundless claims of election fraud, Trump fired (or tried to fire) a number of top officials — most prominently, Secretary of Defense Mark Esper on November 9. "Yesterday was appalling," Haspel said in a November 10 conversation with Gen. Mark Milley, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, according to Bob Woodward and Robert Costa's forthcoming book "Peril." "We are on the way to a right-wing coup. The whole thing is insanity. He is acting out like a six-year-old with a tantrum," Haspel, a 35-year veteran of the agency, said, with the authors writing that she, too, was afraid of being canned. https://www.businessinsider.com/haspel-said-trump-was-like-six-year-old-tantrum-book-2021-9?IR=T
Trump's lawyers had a 'law school 101 discussion' about explaining to him how the Supreme Court works, book says https://www.businessinsider.com/trump-lawyers-had-to-explain-how-supreme-court-works-book-2021-9 Trump's lawyers had to tell him being mad over the election wasn't enough cause to sue, a book says. "Why don't we just get up to the Supreme Court directly?" he asked, according to the book. That prompted a "tense, basic, law school 101 discussion" about how to explain the court to Trump. As President Donald Trump realized last year that he was on the brink of losing reelection, his lawyers had to explain to him that being angry about the results was not enough of a reason to file lawsuits, a new book says. The conversation took place on November 6, according to the book, three days after Election Day and the day before major news outlets and television networks projected Joe Biden as the winner. At one point, the discussion took a more elementary turn as the president's lawyers tried to figure out the best way to explain to him the basics of how the Supreme Court works. That's according to "Peril," by The Washington Post's Bob Woodward and Robert Costa, an early copy of which Insider obtained. Trump's lawyers started by telling him it wouldn't be easy to bring cases alleging voter fraud because they'd need to demonstrate standing — a legal principle stipulating that a party must prove the laws or actions it's challenging have caused it harm or injury — to get before a judge. They specified that being upset about the election results did not constitute legal standing, the book says. Trump then took a different route. "Well, why don't we just get up to the Supreme Court directly?" he asked, according to the book. "Like, why can't we just go there right away?" The president's advisors told him that there was a specific legal process to follow to get before the Supreme Court. Trump instructed them to go figure that process out, the book says. What followed was what Woodward and Costa describe as a "tense, basic, law school 101 discussion" between the lawyers "about what they should tell Trump." "They knew they could never go straight to the Supreme Court," the book says. "Trump would have to file in district courts, then get a federal appeals court to hear the case, then file for the Supreme Court. It would take time." Trump said frequently and publicly on the campaign trail that he was banking on the Supreme Court to hand him the election if he lost the Electoral College to Biden. After Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg died in September last year, leaving a vacancy on the high court, Time reported that Trump allies were weighing which prospective Supreme Court picks would help him win the election. On September 23, Trump made the groundless claim that Democrats were trying to rig the election against him and said he wanted a conservative majority on the Supreme Court that would agree with him. "I think this will end up in the Supreme Court," he said. "And I think it's very important that we have nine justices." He eventually nominated, and the Republican-controlled Senate confirmed, Judge Amy Coney Barrett to the court, cementing a 6-3 conservative majority. In the following months, Trump publicly urged the court to rule in favor of a longshot lawsuit filed by the state of Texas asking the justices to throw out the election results in four battleground states that Biden won: Michigan, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, and Georgia. But in December, the Supreme Court threw out the case, with all three of Trump's nominees — Barrett, Brett Kavanaugh, and Neil Gorsuch — voting to dismiss it over a lack of standing. The decision, which came in the form of an unsigned order, infuriated Trump, who tweeted the next day: "The Supreme Court really let us down. No Wisdom, No Courage!" Two days later, the Electoral College met and certified Biden as the winner of the 2020 election.