If you’re like many Americans wondering what in the world has been going on with the Durham investigation, you’re not alone.
Prosecutor John Durham had been hired to investigate the origins of the Russia-Trump inquiry, or, in other words, to determine why the media promoted complete falsehoods regarding Trump’s alleged connections to Russia for multiple years, only to end up with nothing
Last December, Attorney General William Barr elevated Durham to the position of Special Counsel, though relatively little had been heard about Durham’s moves since this time period.
The key word is “had,” however, as Durham has come out with guns blazing, implicating none other than Ms. Hillary Clinton in his ongoing investigation into which characters fed false information about Trump to the FBI.
One such character, as it turns out, is Michael A. Sussman, who conveniently happens to work for Hillary Clinton.
Even more conveniently, he worked as Ms. Clinton’s campaign lawyer, though it appears that he went a bit too far above and beyond in his efforts to secure a victory for Ms. Clinton that never occurred.
Considering he is now facing an indictment for doing so.
This indictment, which the fictional news media will undoubtedly attempt to mitigate and sweep under the rug to the best of its abilities, provides rather damning insight into the actions that Sussman took on behalf of his virulently anti-Trump employers.
Specifically, Sussman passed along “evidence” to the FBI that supposedly revealed Trump to be some sort of criminal mastermind with an active backchannel to Russia, per the text from the indictment itself.
“The FBI had, in fact, initiated an investigation of these allegations in response to a meeting that Michael A. Sussman … requested and held with the FBI General Counsel on or about September 19, 2016 at FBI Headquarters in the District of Columbia. Sussman provided to the FBI General Counsel three ‘white papers’ along with data files allegedly containing evidence supporting the existence of this purported secret communications channel.” [Source: Scribd]
In other words, Sussman not only gave the FBI “evidence” of Trump’s non-existent collusion, but he also engineered the investigation in the first place, at least in part. After all, the FBI “initiated” its investigation after a meeting with Sussman, Sussman did not merely provide “evidence” to an ongoing investigation.
While it has long been rumored that Hillary Clinton will do just about anything to win, planting potentially false or misleading evidence with the FBI against an opponent really takes the cake.
Especially when the resulting “investigation” results in three years of wasted resources and continued efforts to undermine Trump.
The indictment also indicates that Sussman openly lied about his intentions for dropping off such “evidence” to the FBI; instead, Sussman presented himself as a concerned citizen, rather than a cog in the Clinton machine.
“Sussmann lied about the capacity in which he was providing the allegations to the FBI. Specifically, Sussmann stated falsely that he was not doing his work on the aforementioned allegations ‘for any client,’ which led the FBI General Counsel to understand that Sussman was acting as a good citizen merely passing along information, not as a paid advocate or political operative.” [Source: Scribd]
“A good citizen,” all right. One that was willing to throw the nation into total chaos, all so that Ms. Clinton could ascend her throne (fortunately, Trump blocked that ambition).
In addition, the indictment also called out the worthlessness of Sussman’s “evidence.”
“The FBI’s investigation of these allegations nevertheless concluded that there was insufficient evidence to support the allegations of a secret communications channel with Russian Bank-1.” [Source: Scribd]
If anyone has had a “secret communications channel,” it would be Biden and Co. Though in the case of Hunter, not so secret, as he keeps losing laptops.
Like a classic liberal, Sussman is maintaining complete innocence through his lawyers in spite of the indictment’s damning commentary.
“Mr. Sussmann has committed no crime … Any prosecution here would be a baseless, unprecedented, and unwarranted deviation from the apolitical and principled way in which the Department of Justice is supposed to do its work. We are confident that if Mr. Sussmann is charged, he will prevail and vindicate his good name.” [Source: Fox News]
More like the lawyers are confident of imminent vindication if fictional news media and social media platforms “do their job” by suffocating this story … just as they spent the past several years openly promoting Sussman’s lies.
It will be interesting to see where the indictment leads … especially with Clinton involved.
Author: Jane Jones