Jump to content
Pulse  Clinic

All USA Political Discussions (Compiled)


oralb
 Share

Recommended Posts

On 5/22/2022 at 5:09 PM, singalion said:

 

Why should I prove this if even the FBI under Trump has no issue with Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC)'s labeling of the Family Research Council labeling as a hate group???

 

No need for any proof.

 

It is evidenced also as the Family Research Council and Alliance Defending Freedom never challenged the labeling as a hate group by Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) in any court. The latter actually amounts to an admission by the Family Research Council and Alliance Defending Freedom. 

 

Any aggravated party had challenged the labeling in court. 

 

 


There is no evidence or proof that Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) was justified in labelling other organisations hate groups because they are not law enforcement agencies. 

SPLC was condemned by the organisation whose employees were shot by terrorist which relied on information on website of SPLC. However since SPLC did not seek compensation for such condemnation, it is clear SPLC was not justified in labelling or identifying other organisations as hate groups. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 5/22/2022 at 5:21 PM, singalion said:

 

And what is the link to SPLC? 

 

If you browse the hate filled talks of Trump on the internet and storm the Democratic National Congess Convention for a shooting of as many of Democratic attendants but only manage to shoot the security officer into his arm, do you think anyone will point fingers to Trump and say Trump set a licence to kill?

 

The whole finger pointing by Perkins President from the Family Research Council is unjustified and actually absurd. 

 

Please apply your most valued common sense 7heaven just once!

 

 


The link is clear. The terrorist confessed that he used information on Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) website to select his target. 

 

Let’s listen to the confession. 
 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 5/22/2022 at 5:45 PM, singalion said:

 

Is 7heaven saying, you can't rely on Fox News???

 

BW readers can you imagine, 7heaven's lies and truth distortions are now debunked by Fox News???

 

Unbelievable , but it is true!

 

Look here:

 

FBI's history with Southern Poverty Law Center uncovered Jul. 28, 2018 - 5:55 - The FBI has a long history of collaborating with the Southern Poverty Law Center.

Published July 28, 2018 4:42pm EDT https://video.foxnews.com/v/5814883980001#sp=show-clips

 

=> The FBI works with Southern Poverty Law Center to identify and act against hate crime and uses Southern Poverty Law Center's hate group list  

 

And this also under the Trump presidency. 

 

=> 7heaven totally embarrassed himself in BW once again!!@

 

 

7heaven's lies exposed by Fox News. ha ha

 

That's a heavy blow into 7heaven... 7heaven's lies on BW now debunked by his own Fox News...

 

 


Lol. 
 

Singalion is exposing how he does not possess critical thinking skills. As usual, he will selectively use opinions of media employees to substantiate his points. 
 

And also as usual, he will falsely attribute things to other which they did not remotely say just so as to have his mini-victory of “hey, I caught you lying!”. Lol. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 5/22/2022 at 6:30 PM, 7heaven said:

There is no evidence or proof that Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) was justified in labelling other organisations hate groups because they are not law enforcement agencies. 

 

No? 

 

and all the gay hate actions from Family Research and Alliance defending Freedom?

 

 

Is Alliance Defending Freedom a hate group? Just look at their work.

If there's a way of discriminating, they support it.

ZACK FORD

 

 

The large body of evidence rests in favor of the SPLC though, and a survey of their current and recent cases clearly demonstrates how they are advancing an agenda of stigma and discrimination against LGBTQ people.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Guest
On 5/23/2022 at 12:27 AM, singalion said:

 

No? 

 

and all the gay hate actions from Family Research and Alliance defending Freedom?

 

 

Is Alliance Defending Freedom a hate group? Just look at their work.

If there's a way of discriminating, they support it.

ZACK FORD

 

 

The large body of evidence rests in favor of the SPLC though, and a survey of their current and recent cases clearly demonstrates how they are advancing an agenda of stigma and discrimination against LGBTQ people.

 

 

 

And for that, you support an organization which provided information to a MASS SHOOTER as to where he should attempt his MASS SHOOTING? 

 

Please do not pretend to be some kind of an angel fighting for the non-discrimination of LGBTQ people over here, when in fact you are nothing more than the lying demon trying to use the LGBTQ community to mask your devilish intentions to create more killings and more mass shootings. 

 

Oh please! Have you been pampered so much by the Singapore government that you really think you are some kind of a foreign "talent" (chuckles!), to the extent that you think the entire internet cannot see through all your pretenses?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 5/23/2022 at 12:27 AM, singalion said:

 

No? 

 

and all the gay hate actions from Family Research and Alliance defending Freedom?

 

 

Is Alliance Defending Freedom a hate group? Just look at their work.

If there's a way of discriminating, they support it.

ZACK FORD

 

 

The large body of evidence rests in favor of the SPLC though, and a survey of their current and recent cases clearly demonstrates how they are advancing an agenda of stigma and discrimination against LGBTQ people.


Who is Zack Ford? Is he an FBI agent? Is he nominated by any presidents with authority to determine which organisations are hate groups? Nope, he is merely an employee of a private organisation expressing his opinion.  
 

Did Zack Ford condemn Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) for providing information used by the terrorist? If not, why wouldn’t he? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 5/23/2022 at 1:24 AM, 7heaven said:


Who is Zack Ford? Is he an FBI agent? Is he nominated by any presidents with authority to determine which organisations are hate groups? Nope, he is merely an employee of a private organisation expressing his opinion.  
 

Did Zack Ford condemn Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) for providing information used by the terrorist? If not, why wouldn’t he? 

 

Why do you ask me? 

 

I m not Zack Ford. 

Ask him!

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Guest
On 5/23/2022 at 9:09 AM, singalion said:

 

Why do you ask me? 

 

I m not Zack Ford. 

Ask him!

 

 

 

You don't even know the background of the person, and you simply supported his post because it works in the favor of your narratives? Seriously? Is that why you are supportive of an organization which provided information to a MASS SHOOTER as to where he should attempt his MASS SHOOTING? Just because it is supportive of your all-important narrative, which you desperately need to win?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 5/23/2022 at 9:09 AM, singalion said:

 

Why do you ask me? 

 

I m not Zack Ford. 

Ask him!

 

 


Why did you then use Zack Ford opinion article as your evidence to prove that Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) labelling of another organisation as hate group is justified? 
 

This is good example why we should be very wary about your “substantiation” and “evidence” because they are merely opinions of employees or activist groups with unknown ulterior motives that fit your narratives.

 

On 5/23/2022 at 12:27 AM, singalion said:

 

No? 

 

and all the gay hate actions from Family Research and Alliance defending Freedom?

 

 

Is Alliance Defending Freedom a hate group? Just look at their work.

If there's a way of discriminating, they support it.

ZACK FORD

 

 

The large body of evidence rests in favor of the SPLC though, and a survey of their current and recent cases clearly demonstrates how they are advancing an agenda of stigma and discrimination against LGBTQ people.

 

Edited by 7heaven
Mislabel
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 5/23/2022 at 10:02 AM, 7heaven said:

This is good example why we should be very wary about your “substantiation” and “evidence” because they are merely opinions of employees or activist groups with unknown ulterior motives that fit your narratives.

 

 

On 5/22/2022 at 6:30 PM, 7heaven said:

There is no evidence or proof that Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) was justified in labelling other organisations hate groups

Anti-LGBTQ 'hate group,' Alliance Defending Freedom

Nov. 15, 2018

Since its founding nearly 25 years ago, ADF has been linked to efforts seeking to criminalize homosexuality, restrict transgender people’s access to sex-segregated facilities and permit businesses to deny service to LGBTQ people.

ADF’s past works and links to news articles about its efforts to “make LGBT people second-class citizens.”

Their efforts to criminalize same-sex sexual activity, however, go back much further than 2013. In the landmark Supreme Court case Lawrence v. Texas, which struck down the remaining anti-sodomy laws in the U.S., ADF (then known as the Alliance Defense Fund) submitted a friend of the court brief in support of keeping the laws on the books.

“There is no fundamental right ‘deeply rooted in this Nation’s history and traditions’ to engage in same-sex sodomy,” the brief concluded.

ADF also contributed to friend of the court briefs against expanding gay rights in other landmark Supreme Court cases, including same-sex marriage cases Obergefell v. Hodges and United States v. Windsor.

A Hate Group Is Reportedly Behind 2021’s Dangerous Wave of Anti-Trans Bills

Alliance Defending Freedom, America’s largest anti-LGBTQ+ group, has fought to sterilize trans people and criminalize gay sex.
February 19, 2021

 

Alliance Defending Freedom

May 19, 2020

The Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF) is one of the most influential right-wing groups in the United States. ADF legally launders discrimination behind the rhetoric of “religious freedom” to restrict the rights of marginalized people — causing it to be classified as a hate group.

Founded by some 30 leaders of the Christian Right, the Alliance Defending Freedom is a legal advocacy and training group that has supported the recriminalization of homosexuality in the U.S. and criminalization abroad; has defended state-sanctioned sterilization of trans people abroad; has linked homosexuality to pedophilia and claims that a “homosexual agenda” will destroy Christianity and society. ADF also works to develop “religious liberty” legislation and case law that will allow the denial of goods and services to LGBT people on the basis of religion.

ADF frequently references a conspiratorial “homosexual agenda,” which is designed to undermine “religious liberty” in American society.

An ADF attorney claimed a hate crime against a gay man was a hoax meant to advance “the homosexual agenda.” “An attorney for anti-LGBT extremist group the Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF) peddled the myth that the story of Matthew Shepard’s brutal anti-gay murder was fabricated in order to advance the ‘homosexual agenda.’”

In 2003, ADF Founder and then-President Alan Sears cowrote a book titled “The Homosexual Agenda: Exposing The Principal Threat To Religious Liberty Today.” “Societal gains by LGBT people have long been in the group’s sights, however. Alan Sears, ADF’s longtime president, CEO and general counsel, cowrote a book in 2003 called ‘The Homosexual Agenda: Exposing the Principal Threat to Religious Liberty Today,’ in which he argued that the repeal of anti-sodomy laws would lead to a roll back of ‘laws against pedophilia, sex between close relatives, polygamy, bestiality and all other distortions and violations of God’s plan.’” The book claimed that LGBTQ activists attempt to “indoctrinate children” and link homosexuality to pedophilia.

ADF has repeatedly argued in court that sexual orientation should not be considered a protected class because of the right-wing belief that sexuality is a choice.

ADF unsuccessfully argued for European laws which would require sterilization of trans citizens in order for their gender identity to be legally recognized.

ADF publicly opposed a law which would have made LGBTQ persons a protected class for hate crimes.

 

 

 

On 5/22/2022 at 6:30 PM, 7heaven said:

There is no evidence or proof that Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) was justified in labelling other organisations hate groups

 

 

How terrible that Southern Poverty Law Center has mislabeled the Alliance Defending Freedom as a hate group... when the LGBTQ+ friendliness of Alliance Defending Freedom is so obvious...

Rarely I have seen an organisation such as Alliance Defending Freedom that is so gay friendly.

I assume Alliance Defending Freedom will soon receive the Gold Band for gay friendliness...

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 5/23/2022 at 10:02 AM, 7heaven said:

Why did you then use Zack Ford opinion article as your evidence to prove that Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) labelling of another organisation as hate group is justified? 
 

 

Why not?

 

Should I better use Fox News to debunk your lies, 7heaven?

 

 

On 5/21/2022 at 1:53 AM, 7heaven said:

There is no evidence showing that FBI worked with Southern Poverty Law Center even during Trump administration.

your claim about FBI working with SPLC is refuted. 

 

On 5/21/2022 at 2:14 PM, singalion said:

Jul. 28, 2018 - 5:55 - The FBI has a long history of collaborating with the Southern Poverty Law Center.

Published July 28, 2018 4:42pm EDT

https://video.foxnews.com/v/5814883980001#sp=show-clips

 

 

150080df7940335ed7586d97eed54ae3

Jul. 28, 2018 - 5:55 - The FBI has a long history of collaborating with the Southern Poverty Law Center.

 

Published July 28, 2018 4:42pm EDT

 

https://video.foxnews.com/v/5814883980001#sp=show-clips

 

 

 

 

Edited by singalion
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

The so-called Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF) is one of the USA’s most dangerous organisations working to prevent equality for LGBT people.

An enthusiastic leader in defending the unconscionable “right” to discriminate against LGBT people, they are also a world-wide exporter of their own brand of hate.  ADF bills itself as an “alliance-building legal organization that advocates for the right of people to freely live out their faith”—unless of course that faith contradicts with their own anti-LGBT version.

 

This paper presents 10 of the ways the ADF is supposedly working to protect their “freedom” to discriminate:

  1. Working to promote its non-inclusive agenda, ADF is the nation’s largest anti-LGBT legal advocacy group in the nation, raising over $178 million over the past 5 years, with an annual budget of over $45 million and rapidly expanding.
  2. ADF practically invented marriage discrimination. They literally wrote the original language for discriminatory same-sex marriage bans in Idaho (2005), Colorado (2006), and South Carolina (2006).
  3. Sticking their head in the sand, ADF stubbornly refuses to stop defending same-sex marriage bans, even when leaders in those states abandon them and stand on the right side of history.
  4. ADF wants the “freedom” to discriminate. They’ve sued cities and states for passing LGBT-inclusive anti-discrimination laws and ordinances—because it isn’t just about marriage, it’s about protecting the “freedom” to discriminate against LGBT people.
  5. ADF stands up for bigotry. They enthusiastically defended the “rights” of businesses to discriminate against LGBT people. They even developed Arizona’s incredibly controversial bill, SB 1062, which would have legalized bigotry against LGBT people in restaurants, shops, and businesses all across the state.
  6. ADF protects bullying. When school districts try to prevent harmful bullying of LGBT teens, ADF has stood up for the bullies by attacking the school districts for teaching tolerance. They’ll also fight for a student’s “right” to wear an anti-LGBT slogan on a t-shirt.
  7. Forget about dignity and respect.  ADF thinks they know best. They’ve fought to overrule principals and stop schools from treating transgender students with the dignity and respect they deserve, arguing: “Are parents supposed to be OK with allowing such boys to use the girls’ restroom and locker room facilities?”
  8. ADF is committed to keeping families together, unless of course someone is LGBT. ADF fights to split families apart by defending disgraceful decisions of biological parents to deny visitation rights to LGBT people who’ve raised children as their own.
  9. ADF loves science, especially the pseudo type. ADF defends the tremendously harmful and debunked pseudoscience known as reparative or “conversion” therapy. Telling LGBT kids they can change who they are if they just try hard enough, they’ve fought against efforts—including in New Jersey—to ban this destructed and discredited practice.
  10. ADF is an exporter of hate. They have an entire international program dedicated to promoting their hateful anti-LGBT laws and rhetoric abroad. They’ve advocated against the rights of LGBT people in international human rights cases, and have partnerships with attorneys in 31 countries around the world.

 

 

On 5/22/2022 at 6:30 PM, 7heaven said:

There is no evidence or proof that Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) was justified in labelling other organisations hate groups

 

This is really bad how Southern Poverty Law Center has managed to mislabel The Alliance Defending Freedom as a hate group, when the evidence is so obvious...  and not only SPLC but other organisations in the US commit same error in mislabeling Alliance Defending Freedom as a hate group. If you look at their gay friendly policies...and they do nothing other than spreading the gospel of love...

 

 

Edited by singalion
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 5/23/2022 at 2:06 PM, singalion said:

 

Anti-LGBTQ 'hate group,' Alliance Defending Freedom

Nov. 15, 2018

Since its founding nearly 25 years ago, ADF has been linked to efforts seeking to criminalize homosexuality, restrict transgender people’s access to sex-segregated facilities and permit businesses to deny service to LGBTQ people.

ADF’s past works and links to news articles about its efforts to “make LGBT people second-class citizens.”

Their efforts to criminalize same-sex sexual activity, however, go back much further than 2013. In the landmark Supreme Court case Lawrence v. Texas, which struck down the remaining anti-sodomy laws in the U.S., ADF (then known as the Alliance Defense Fund) submitted a friend of the court brief in support of keeping the laws on the books.

“There is no fundamental right ‘deeply rooted in this Nation’s history and traditions’ to engage in same-sex sodomy,” the brief concluded.

ADF also contributed to friend of the court briefs against expanding gay rights in other landmark Supreme Court cases, including same-sex marriage cases Obergefell v. Hodges and United States v. Windsor.

A Hate Group Is Reportedly Behind 2021’s Dangerous Wave of Anti-Trans Bills

Alliance Defending Freedom, America’s largest anti-LGBTQ+ group, has fought to sterilize trans people and criminalize gay sex.
February 19, 2021

 

Alliance Defending Freedom

May 19, 2020

The Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF) is one of the most influential right-wing groups in the United States. ADF legally launders discrimination behind the rhetoric of “religious freedom” to restrict the rights of marginalized people — causing it to be classified as a hate group.

Founded by some 30 leaders of the Christian Right, the Alliance Defending Freedom is a legal advocacy and training group that has supported the recriminalization of homosexuality in the U.S. and criminalization abroad; has defended state-sanctioned sterilization of trans people abroad; has linked homosexuality to pedophilia and claims that a “homosexual agenda” will destroy Christianity and society. ADF also works to develop “religious liberty” legislation and case law that will allow the denial of goods and services to LGBT people on the basis of religion.

ADF frequently references a conspiratorial “homosexual agenda,” which is designed to undermine “religious liberty” in American society.

An ADF attorney claimed a hate crime against a gay man was a hoax meant to advance “the homosexual agenda.” “An attorney for anti-LGBT extremist group the Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF) peddled the myth that the story of Matthew Shepard’s brutal anti-gay murder was fabricated in order to advance the ‘homosexual agenda.’”

In 2003, ADF Founder and then-President Alan Sears cowrote a book titled “The Homosexual Agenda: Exposing The Principal Threat To Religious Liberty Today.” “Societal gains by LGBT people have long been in the group’s sights, however. Alan Sears, ADF’s longtime president, CEO and general counsel, cowrote a book in 2003 called ‘The Homosexual Agenda: Exposing the Principal Threat to Religious Liberty Today,’ in which he argued that the repeal of anti-sodomy laws would lead to a roll back of ‘laws against pedophilia, sex between close relatives, polygamy, bestiality and all other distortions and violations of God’s plan.’” The book claimed that LGBTQ activists attempt to “indoctrinate children” and link homosexuality to pedophilia.

ADF has repeatedly argued in court that sexual orientation should not be considered a protected class because of the right-wing belief that sexuality is a choice.

ADF unsuccessfully argued for European laws which would require sterilization of trans citizens in order for their gender identity to be legally recognized.

ADF publicly opposed a law which would have made LGBTQ persons a protected class for hate crimes.

 

 

 

 

 

How terrible that Southern Poverty Law Center has mislabeled the Alliance Defending Freedom as a hate group... when the LGBTQ+ friendliness of Alliance Defending Freedom is so obvious...

Rarely I have seen an organisation such as Alliance Defending Freedom that is so gay friendly.

I assume Alliance Defending Freedom will soon receive the Gold Band for gay friendliness...

 

 

 


Now you have omitted the names of the writer of the articles you quoted in your post. You have also as usual omitted the link to these articles. 
 

One will not be surprised that these articles are merely opinions of employees of media organisations or activist groups to mis-characterise and attack other organisations that have opposite ideologies on certain topics. However, these employees do NOT have any authority given by law enforcement agencies to decide which organisations are considered hate groups. 
 

Therefore, how much value should be placed on these mere opinions of employees of media organisations etc to justify Southern Poverty Law Center has not mislabeled other organisations. 

 

I assume these employees providing these opinions will soon receive the  Pulitzer Prize for Fiction...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 5/23/2022 at 2:19 PM, singalion said:

 

Why not?

 

Should I better use Fox News to debunk your lies, 7heaven?

 

 

 

 

150080df7940335ed7586d97eed54ae3

Jul. 28, 2018 - 5:55 - The FBI has a long history of collaborating with the Southern Poverty Law Center.

 

Published July 28, 2018 4:42pm EDT

 

https://video.foxnews.com/v/5814883980001#sp=show-clips

 

 

 

 


We should not distract from the fact that Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) has put up information on its website which were subsequently used by a terrorist to commit shooting. 
 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 5/23/2022 at 2:33 PM, singalion said:

 

 

The so-called Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF) is one of the USA’s most dangerous organisations working to prevent equality for LGBT people.

An enthusiastic leader in defending the unconscionable “right” to discriminate against LGBT people, they are also a world-wide exporter of their own brand of hate.  ADF bills itself as an “alliance-building legal organization that advocates for the right of people to freely live out their faith”—unless of course that faith contradicts with their own anti-LGBT version.

 

This paper presents 10 of the ways the ADF is supposedly working to protect their “freedom” to discriminate:

  1. Working to promote its non-inclusive agenda, ADF is the nation’s largest anti-LGBT legal advocacy group in the nation, raising over $178 million over the past 5 years, with an annual budget of over $45 million and rapidly expanding.
  2. ADF practically invented marriage discrimination. They literally wrote the original language for discriminatory same-sex marriage bans in Idaho (2005), Colorado (2006), and South Carolina (2006).
  3. Sticking their head in the sand, ADF stubbornly refuses to stop defending same-sex marriage bans, even when leaders in those states abandon them and stand on the right side of history.
  4. ADF wants the “freedom” to discriminate. They’ve sued cities and states for passing LGBT-inclusive anti-discrimination laws and ordinances—because it isn’t just about marriage, it’s about protecting the “freedom” to discriminate against LGBT people.
  5. ADF stands up for bigotry. They enthusiastically defended the “rights” of businesses to discriminate against LGBT people. They even developed Arizona’s incredibly controversial bill, SB 1062, which would have legalized bigotry against LGBT people in restaurants, shops, and businesses all across the state.
  6. ADF protects bullying. When school districts try to prevent harmful bullying of LGBT teens, ADF has stood up for the bullies by attacking the school districts for teaching tolerance. They’ll also fight for a student’s “right” to wear an anti-LGBT slogan on a t-shirt.
  7. Forget about dignity and respect.  ADF thinks they know best. They’ve fought to overrule principals and stop schools from treating transgender students with the dignity and respect they deserve, arguing: “Are parents supposed to be OK with allowing such boys to use the girls’ restroom and locker room facilities?”
  8. ADF is committed to keeping families together, unless of course someone is LGBT. ADF fights to split families apart by defending disgraceful decisions of biological parents to deny visitation rights to LGBT people who’ve raised children as their own.
  9. ADF loves science, especially the pseudo type. ADF defends the tremendously harmful and debunked pseudoscience known as reparative or “conversion” therapy. Telling LGBT kids they can change who they are if they just try hard enough, they’ve fought against efforts—including in New Jersey—to ban this destructed and discredited practice.
  10. ADF is an exporter of hate. They have an entire international program dedicated to promoting their hateful anti-LGBT laws and rhetoric abroad. They’ve advocated against the rights of LGBT people in international human rights cases, and have partnerships with attorneys in 31 countries around the world.

 

 

 

This is really bad how Southern Poverty Law Center has managed to mislabel The Alliance Defending Freedom as a hate group, when the evidence is so obvious...  and not only SPLC but other organisations in the US commit same error in mislabeling Alliance Defending Freedom as a hate group. If you look at their gay friendly policies...and they do nothing other than spreading the gospel of love...

 

 


As is usual, you had conveniently omitted to provide the link to the article you posted here. Why are you hiding the source of this article? Is it merely an opinion piece by some employees of a private organisation with no authority to decide which organisations are hate groups. 

This is really good how we can all rely on unelected officials, private organisations opinions to decide which organisations are considered hate groups or not. There is no need for law enforcement agencies and judges because such unelected officials can quickly put up on their websites which groups are considered hate groups. Such means is congruent and aligned to Democrats rhetorics of Defund the Police as there is no need for law enforcement agencies…

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Guest
On 5/23/2022 at 2:33 PM, singalion said:

 

 

The so-called Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF) is one of the USA’s most dangerous organisations working to prevent equality for LGBT people.

An enthusiastic leader in defending the unconscionable “right” to discriminate against LGBT people, they are also a world-wide exporter of their own brand of hate.  ADF bills itself as an “alliance-building legal organization that advocates for the right of people to freely live out their faith”—unless of course that faith contradicts with their own anti-LGBT version.

 

This paper presents 10 of the ways the ADF is supposedly working to protect their “freedom” to discriminate:

  1. Working to promote its non-inclusive agenda, ADF is the nation’s largest anti-LGBT legal advocacy group in the nation, raising over $178 million over the past 5 years, with an annual budget of over $45 million and rapidly expanding.
  2. ADF practically invented marriage discrimination. They literally wrote the original language for discriminatory same-sex marriage bans in Idaho (2005), Colorado (2006), and South Carolina (2006).
  3. Sticking their head in the sand, ADF stubbornly refuses to stop defending same-sex marriage bans, even when leaders in those states abandon them and stand on the right side of history.
  4. ADF wants the “freedom” to discriminate. They’ve sued cities and states for passing LGBT-inclusive anti-discrimination laws and ordinances—because it isn’t just about marriage, it’s about protecting the “freedom” to discriminate against LGBT people.
  5. ADF stands up for bigotry. They enthusiastically defended the “rights” of businesses to discriminate against LGBT people. They even developed Arizona’s incredibly controversial bill, SB 1062, which would have legalized bigotry against LGBT people in restaurants, shops, and businesses all across the state.
  6. ADF protects bullying. When school districts try to prevent harmful bullying of LGBT teens, ADF has stood up for the bullies by attacking the school districts for teaching tolerance. They’ll also fight for a student’s “right” to wear an anti-LGBT slogan on a t-shirt.
  7. Forget about dignity and respect.  ADF thinks they know best. They’ve fought to overrule principals and stop schools from treating transgender students with the dignity and respect they deserve, arguing: “Are parents supposed to be OK with allowing such boys to use the girls’ restroom and locker room facilities?”
  8. ADF is committed to keeping families together, unless of course someone is LGBT. ADF fights to split families apart by defending disgraceful decisions of biological parents to deny visitation rights to LGBT people who’ve raised children as their own.
  9. ADF loves science, especially the pseudo type. ADF defends the tremendously harmful and debunked pseudoscience known as reparative or “conversion” therapy. Telling LGBT kids they can change who they are if they just try hard enough, they’ve fought against efforts—including in New Jersey—to ban this destructed and discredited practice.
  10. ADF is an exporter of hate. They have an entire international program dedicated to promoting their hateful anti-LGBT laws and rhetoric abroad. They’ve advocated against the rights of LGBT people in international human rights cases, and have partnerships with attorneys in 31 countries around the world.

 

 

 

This is really bad how Southern Poverty Law Center has managed to mislabel The Alliance Defending Freedom as a hate group, when the evidence is so obvious...  and not only SPLC but other organisations in the US commit same error in mislabeling Alliance Defending Freedom as a hate group. If you look at their gay friendly policies...and they do nothing other than spreading the gospel of love...

 

 

 

If ADF is so bad, then Southern Poverty Law Center, with all their dozens and dozens of lawyers, should have just gone ahead and sue the organization!

 

How can any type of legitimate organizations stoop so low to provide information to a MASS SHOOTER on where he should attempt his MASS SHOOTING?

 

How can any type of legitimate organizations stoop so low to use the LGBTQ movement to incite hatred in a MASS SHOOTER to attempt a type of MASS SHOOTING?

 

How can any BW members even come onto this forum to support organizations such as Southern Poverty Law Center, under some false pretense that he is fighting for the benefits of the LGBTQ community, when his only intention was to win his personal narratives?

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 5/23/2022 at 4:19 PM, 7heaven said:


Now you have omitted the names of the writer of the articles you quoted in your post. You have also as usual omitted the link to these articles. 
 

One will not be surprised that these articles are merely opinions of employees of media organisations or activist groups to mis-characterise and attack other organisations that have opposite ideologies on certain topics. However, these employees do NOT have any authority given by law enforcement agencies to decide which organisations are considered hate groups. 
 

Therefore, how much value should be placed on these mere opinions of employees of media organisations etc to justify Southern Poverty Law Center has not mislabeled other organisations. 

 

I assume these employees providing these opinions will soon receive the  Pulitzer Prize for Fiction...

 

 

7heaven, where is your evidence that Alliance Defending Freedom and Family Research Council are not hate groups???

 

Please give us evidence that Alliance Defending Freedom and Family Research Council are not anti gay and not hate groups!

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 5/23/2022 at 4:23 PM, 7heaven said:


We should not distract from the fact that Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) has put up information on its website which were subsequently used by a terrorist to commit shooting. 
 

 

Can you tell BW readers who invented this linking of Corkins to the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) when Corkins on his own browsed the internet???

 

7heaven, was this already your 1000th repeat of exactly the same phrase at BW?

 

Are you eventually suffering again from an impulse led by insanity?

 

Must BW Readers conclude again on your mental state following your posting of exactly same content this excessively? 

 

 

Edited by singalion
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Guest
On 5/23/2022 at 2:19 PM, singalion said:

 

 

 

 

Jul. 28, 2018 - 5:55 - The FBI has a long history of collaborating with the Southern Poverty Law Center.

 

Published July 28, 2018 4:42pm EDT

 

https://video.foxnews.com/v/5814883980001#sp=show-clips

 

 

 

 

 

 

Another own goal by singalion!

 

"In 2009, an FBI memo described the SPLC as a 'credible' organization. The DOJ tells 'Tucker' the FBI will reevaluate its relationships with similar groups to ensure it doesn't partner with groups that discriminate. #Tucker"

 

Guess who was the Vice President in 2009 when the FBI described SPLC - the organization which provided information to a MASS SHOOTER on where he should attempt his MASS SHOOTING  - as a 'credible' organization?

Answer: JOE BIDEN!

 

Guess who was the President in 2018 when the DOJ told 'Tucker' the FBI will reevaluate its relationships with similar groups to ensure it doesn't partner with groups that discriminate

Answer: DONALD TRUMP!

 

Thank goodness Donald Trump put a stop to the "collaboration" - if any even existed in the first place - with SPLC!

 

And perhaps that explains why the number of mass shootings became record high ever since Biden became the POTUS!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 5/23/2022 at 4:23 PM, 7heaven said:


We should not distract from the fact that Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) has put up information on its website which were subsequently used by a terrorist to commit shooting. 
 

 

 

This link to Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) by Family Research Council is absurd. 

 

Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) bears no liability for the actions of Corkins. 

 

The US has widely condemned the Family Research Council for having used the Corkins attack on Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC). 

 

Substantiation has been posted before by me here at earlier pages. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why would Fox ask in 2018 the Department of Justice on the collaboration of the FBI with the Southern Poverty Law Center in identifying hate groups , when there wouldn't be such collaboration in 2018 under Trump???

 

Jul. 28, 2018 - 5:55 - The FBI has a long history of collaborating with the Southern Poverty Law Center.

 

Published July 28, 2018 4:42pm EDT

 

https://video.foxnews.com/v/5814883980001#sp=show-clips

 

Some people really know best in shooting own goals!!!

Surely, not me!

 

Edited by singalion
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 5/23/2022 at 7:41 PM, singalion said:

 

 

7heaven, where is your evidence that Alliance Defending Freedom and Family Research Council are not hate groups???

 

Please give us evidence that Alliance Defending Freedom and Family Research Council are not anti gay and not hate groups!

 


Singalion, where is your evidence that these 2 organisations are determined by any authoritative agencies to be hate groups? 
 

Please give us evidence that these 2 organisations to prove they are hate groups! 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 5/23/2022 at 7:49 PM, singalion said:

 

Can you tell BW readers who invented this linking of Corkins to the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) when Corkins on his own browsed the internet???

 

7heaven, was this already your 1000th repeat of exactly the same phrase at BW?

 

Are you eventually suffering again from an impulse led by insanity?

 

Must BW Readers conclude again on your mental state following your posting of exactly same content this excessively? 

 

 


There is no invention. The shooter confessed to law enforcement that he had used information on Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) to select his target. The reason why this point was repeated is because you kept distracting and diverting attention to criticise the organisation which the shooter targeted.  Very ironic that the victim organisation is not only not supported but vilified by you and those media employees you cited. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 5/23/2022 at 7:52 PM, singalion said:

 

 

This link to Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) by Family Research Council is absurd. 

 

Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) bears no liability for the actions of Corkins. 

 

The US has widely condemned the Family Research Council for having used the Corkins attack on Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC). 

 

Substantiation has been posted before by me here at earlier pages. 

 


Your substantiation is nothing but mere opinions of employees of media companies and activist groups. They are not elected by people and do not have any authority whatsoever, much less represent “The US”. They represent their own bias ulterior motives. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 5/23/2022 at 10:06 PM, 7heaven said:


Your substantiation is nothing but mere opinions of employees of media companies and activist groups. They are not elected by people and do not have any authority whatsoever, much less represent “The US”. They represent their own bias ulterior motives. 

 

Sure, always the same rebuttal lately:

 

"opinions of employees of media companies"

 

7heaven: Are Family Research Council and Alliance Defending Freedom gay hate groups or not?

 

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 5/23/2022 at 10:13 PM, singalion said:

 

Sure, always the same rebuttal lately:

 

"opinions of employees of media companies"

 

7heaven: Are Family Research Council and Alliance Defending Freedom gay hate groups or not?

 

 

 

 

 


Sure, always the same sources of substantiations which are merely opinions of non-elected people from private organisations or activists groups. 
 

Singalion: Is Southern Poverty Law Center authorised by any law enforcement agencies to label other organisations hate groups?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 5/23/2022 at 11:49 PM, 7heaven said:

Singalion: Is Southern Poverty Law Center authorised by any law enforcement agencies to label other organisations hate groups?

 

Yes! 

Because there is no law in the US that disallows the Southern Poverty Law Center to identify hate groups. 

 

Various US Federal Government agencies and the FBI have referred to Southern Poverty Law Center's hate group assessment in their investigations and cooperate with the Southern Poverty Law Center in other areas. In these means the highest US enforcement authority has endorsed the  hate group list of the Southern Poverty Law Center. 

 

Substantiation of above has been posted in various earlier posts. 

 

 

Edited by singalion
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 5/24/2022 at 9:09 AM, singalion said:

 

Yes! 

Because there is no law in the US that disallows the Southern Poverty Law Center to identify hate groups. 

 

Various US Federal Government agencies and the FBI have referred to Southern Poverty Law Center's hate group assessment in their investigations and cooperate with the Southern Poverty Law Center in other areas. In these means the highest US enforcement authority has endorsed the  hate group list of the Southern Poverty Law Center. 

 

Substantiation of above has been posted in various earlier posts. 

 

 


No law enforcement agencies have endorsed Southern Poverty Law Center. It is just your mere misinterpretation and imagined extrapolation. Lol. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 5/24/2022 at 9:14 AM, singalion said:

 

 

7heaven: Are Family Research Council and Alliance Defending Freedom gay hate groups or not?

 

What is your answer?

 

 


Nope, there are no laws to identify them as hate groups. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 5/24/2022 at 11:26 AM, 7heaven said:


No law enforcement agencies have endorsed Southern Poverty Law Center. It is just your mere misinterpretation and imagined extrapolation. Lol. 

 

And the continued cooperation between the FBI, the US military and other Federal Government agencies with the Southern Poverty Law Center means nothing?

 

The FBI has even stated on their website and in media that they work on hate crime with the SPLC hate group map and hate group identification.

 

I just wonder how you cannot call such working jointly against hate groups as endorsement of SPLC's work?

 

This leads BW readers and myself to draw the conclusion that you are in denial of facts and wish to mislabel anything else as "misinterpretation" .

 

When will you accept given facts 7heaven???

 

I gave the information on the media reports of FBI here already earlier.

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 5/24/2022 at 1:27 AM, 7heaven said:

Agree that in America, there are a lot of people who are victims of misinformation and information suppression. 
On the misinformation front, for years Democrats pandered the story about Trump collusion with Russia to win the 2016 election. However, now we know that this is false and Clinton’s campaign lawyer Michael Sussman is currently standing trial for lying to FBI by providing information which indirectly started the Trump-Russia collusion story. 

We wonder how many lies have not been exposed yet. 
 

In the US now, the current president Biden is failing on multiple fronts especially the Russia-Ukraine conflict. He had ample warning and intel in Oct 2021 that Russia is amassing troops around Ukraine but did not proactively dissuade Russia. If we look back in time, Biden was the Vice-President when Russia annexed Crimea in 2014, and now history is repeating itself with Russia attempting to take over Ukraine under Biden. 

 

 

I moved this discussion which refers to the US over to the appropriate thread.

 

Here you can watch the video on Sussmann.

 

 

 

 

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/show/new-details-on-2016-russia-probe-prompt-flawed-allegations-of-espionage

 

 

It is nothing more than just fabrication by some Republicans to distract from Trump's Russia connections. The latter has been proven by the Mueller Report.

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Sussmann charge is a big distraction and used to smear onto Hillary Clinton implicating her.

 

 

Fact is that computer forensics have found links to computer contacts between the Trump Organization and Alfa Bank, which has Kremlin ties and is one of the most powerful financial institutions in Russia.

 

Quote:

Computer scientists have uncovered a covert server linking the Trump Organization to a Russian-based bank.

 

The below article accurately lists all the unproven lies spread by the right wind media and Republicans.

New details on 2016 Russia probe prompt flawed allegations of espionage

Feb 16, 2022 6:35

 

 

 

A filing last week from the special counsel investigating the origins of the Russia probe has ignited a misleading media firestorm on the right that Hillary Clinton's campaign was guilty of illegally spying on Donald Trump. In a column this week, Pulitzer-Prize winning journalist Charlie Savage of The New York Times wrote about the distortion. He joins William Brangham to discuss.

Read the Full Transcript

  • Judy Woodruff:

    A filing last week from the special counsel investigating the origins of the Russia probe has ignited a misleading media firestorm on the right.

    William Brangham breaks down the new information, and how it's been distorted.

  • William Brangham:

    To listen to conservative media over the past five days, you would think there was now smoking gun evidence that Hillary Clinton's campaign was guilty of illegally spying on Donald Trump.

  • Sean Hannity, FOX News:

    That the Clinton campaign paid a tech firm to infiltrate the servers at Trump Tower and then later infiltrate the servers at the Trump White House.

  • Tucker Carlson, FOX News:

    Has anything like this ever happened in American history? Not that we know of.

  • William Brangham:

    This all stems from a court filing from special counsel John Durham, who was appointed by former Attorney General William Barr to investigate any potential wrongdoing during the 2016 Russia probe.

    The filing relates to a low-level case that Durham has brought against Michael Sussmann, a cybersecurity lawyer who'd represented the Democratic Party and the Clinton campaign. Durham alleges Sussmann lied to the FBI about who his client was during a meeting where Sussmann shared information about possible links between Russia and the Trump campaign.

    But in a few extra sentences, Durham's filing mentions a second instance where Sussmann tried to raise concerns of a Trump-Russia connection, this time apparently to the CIA. That information came from one of Sussmann's clients, technology executive Rodney Joffe.

    Durham's filing noted that Joffe's company, Neustar, had an arrangement to provide security-related work on computer servers, including the White House's. But, according to the filing, Joffe used that access to mine Internet data to establish an inference and narrative tying then-candidate Trump to Russia.

    Joffe has not been charged with any crime.

    All of this has now been spun by conservative media and former President Trump himself to say Sussmann and Joffe were Clinton operatives who were paid to illegally hack into and spy on the Trump campaign and Trump White House.

    Former President Trump wrote: "In a stronger period of time in our country, this crime would have been punishable by death."

    In a column this week, Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist Charlie Savage of The New York Times wrote that the entire narrative appeared to be mostly wrong or old news, and its conclusions "based on a misleading presentation of the facts or outright misinformation."

    Charlie Savage joins me now.

    I wonder if you could help us understand just initially how we got to this point, how Durham's investigation has morphed into this sort of explosive story in conservative media.

  • Charlie Savage, The New York Times:

    So, back in the Trump administration, right after Robert Mueller, the Russian special counsel, finished his report, Donald Trump shifted — tried to shift the narrative to or escalated his attempt to shift the narrative to the idea that he was actually a victim of a deep state conspiracy.

    And his attorney general, Bill Barr, as you mentioned, appointed John Durham, then a U.S. attorney, to be what became another special counsel, a special counsel to investigate the investigation.

    And the whole idea and expectation then was he was going to prove Trump's narrative that there were high-level officials who — in the FBI and the CIA who had essentially framed him for collusion.

    But we're almost three years in now, and he has yet to bring any charges against the high-level officials. He has developed two cases against outsiders, and one of them is this Sussmann case. Both of these are merely false statement cases. They're not charging a conspiracy.

    But Mr. Durham has used court filings and indictments and so forth, related to these cases to put out large amounts of information that are not directly related to the charges. And this information is imbued with insinuations that there is some kind of vast anti-Trump conspiracy.

    He just hasn't been able to prove it yet or charge it. It all goes back to Hillary Clinton, is the implication.

  • Jesse Waters, FOX News:

    Hillary Clinton hired people who hacked into Trump's home and office computers.

  • William Brangham:

    Despite right-wing media claiming an illegal infiltration of computer servers, remember, Durham's filing notes that Joffe's firm, Neustar, had an arrangement with the government to help maintain and monitor servers.

    In 2015, after a Russian malware attack and the 2016 Russian hack of the DNC, Joffe and other researchers used Neustar's data and other data to monitor cyber threats. It was that monitoring, looking for suspicious Russian activity, that included the White House, the Clinton campaign, and the Trump campaign.

  • Fmr. Rep. Sean Duffy (R-WI):

    She was spying on Donald Trump, the president, and I think the only conclusion can be this was an effort to overthrow the president of the United States of America.

  • Charlie Savage:

    The most important and easiest-to-understand fact of all of this is that the whole narrative is that they were spying on the Trump White House, they were spying on the Trump White House.

    And this data all came from 2016. This was Obama White House data. That fact alone makes the whole thing ridiculous. But there is no accusation in the filing that the Clinton campaign paid this technology company that was — had a role in helping to run the White House server. In fact, the money flow, if anywhere, went the other direction.

  • William Brangham:

    The way that this is being portrayed in conservative media, that this is blockbuster brand-new information that Durham has finally, after years of investigation, revealed, is that true? Is this new information?

  • Charlie Savage:

    Well, this was one of the problems that we at The New York Times, for example, had on Friday night, when this filing came out, is that we had reported the essence of this back in October.

    But it was being presented as new in the right-wing media ecosystem. And then combined with that was their leaping to the conclusion, which Mr. Durham did not say, but maybe insinuated, that this was Trump White House data.

  • William Brangham:

    Given the way that this thing has sort of morphed into a completely sort of mutant story, do you think that mainstream press ought to be covering this?

    I mean, do you feel like that we are doing something beneficial here by trying to explain this, or are we only adding fuel to the fire?

  • Charlie Savage:

    There's been this repeated cycle of huge alarmism stoked within right-wing pro-Trump outlets that I don't really consider doing the same kind of journalism that I'm doing sending out the message with the blaring outrage, grievance-stroking headlines that now it's been proven they were spying on President Trump.

    And every time you look at it, it — there's less there than meets the eye. But if you don't cover it, then that allows the sort of Trump world and his allies to say, aha, you know, the media, they're in on it. They're covering it up. It's a conspiracy. They just won't tell the truth.

  • William Brangham:

    All right, Charlie Savage of The New York Times, thank you so much for helping us try to wade through all of this. I appreciate your time.

  • Charlie Savage:

    My pleasure.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

 

Trump-era special counsel John Durham appeared in person in court as the first trial from his 3-year investigation kicked off

May 18, 2022,
 

Donald Trump spent his final months in the White House seeking vindication, predicting that a special counsel would prove ahead of the 2020 election that the Russia investigation was rooted in a "deep state" conspiracy.

 

But no such word ever came from John Durham, the special counsel examining the origins of the Trump-Russia inquiry. In March 2021, two months after leaving office, Trump was apparently still smarting over the silence when he released a statement asking, "Where's Durham? Is he a living, breathing human being? Will there ever be a Durham report?"

 

More than a year after Trump's sarcastic statement, Durham has provided proof of life, emerging this week to sit in on the first trial stemming from his special counsel office's three-year investigation.

 

A jury in Washington, DC, heard opening arguments Tuesday in the trial of Michael Sussmann, a onetime lawyer for the Hillary Clinton campaign, who stands charged with lying to the FBI during a 2016 meeting about possible links between Trump and Russia. The opening arguments painted dueling portraits of Sussmann, a former federal prosecutor and onetime partner at the law firm Perkins Coie with contacts at the highest levels of the law enforcement and intelligence communities.

 

In a 20-minute opening argument, a prosecutor from Durham's office said Sussmann falsely told the FBI's general counsel at the time, James Baker, that he was not acting on behalf of any client when he presented odd internet data showing communications between servers connected to the Trump Organization and Alfa Bank, a Kremlin-linked financial institution. The prosecutor, Brittain Shaw, said Sussmann was actually working on behalf of the Clinton campaign but concealed that client relationship to give his tip more credibility, in hopes of kicking off an investigation that would "inject the FBI into a presidential election."

 

Sussmann lied, she said, to "direct the power and resources of the FBI to his own ends, to serve the agendas of his clients."

 

A defense lawyer for Sussman, Michael Bosworth, told jurors flatly that Durham's theory for the case "doesn't make sense." 

 

At the time of the 2016 meeting, he said, the Clinton campaign wanted media coverage of the internet research showing a possible communications backchannel between the Trump Organization and the Russian bank. But the FBI looked into the supposed link and determined it was unsubstantiated.

 

Sussmann, he said, met with Baker so the FBI would not be caught flat-footed by a story the New York Times was preparing to publish. 

 

"He went to the FBI to help the FBI," Bosworth said.

 

"This meeting was the opposite of what they wanted," he added, referring to the Clinton campaign. 

 

The trial is expected to feature testimony from FBI agents, Baker and prominent Democratic figures, including former Clinton campaign manager Robby Mook and the campaign's general counsel, Marc Elias, a former Perkins Coie partner and leading voting rights advocate.

 

For Durham's office, the trial comes with high stakes. An acquittal would fuel questions about the cost and purpose of the inquiry, which commenced in the spring of 2019. (In October 2020, then-Attorney General William Barr conferred special counsel status on Durham, a move that has preserved the investigation into the Biden administration.)

 

A guilty verdict would almost surely galvanize Trump and his supporters, who have long looked to Durham to uncover evidence of bias and a "deep-state" plot against the former president. 

 

But, in the Sussmann case, Durham's office has presented the FBI as the victim — "used and manipulated," as Shaw put it Tuesday, to deliver an "October surprise" that would harm Trump.

 

"We are here because the FBI is our institution. It should not be used as a political tool for anyone — not Republicans, not Democrats, not anyone," she said.

 

An earlier prosecution resulted in Kevin Clinesmith, a former FBI lawyer, pleading guilty in 2020 to altering an email that federal authorities relied on to renew court-authorized surveillance of former Trump advisor Carter Paige. Clinesmith was sentenced in January 2021 to 12 months of probation.

 

In another case, Durham's office charged Russia analyst Igor Danchenko with lying to the FBI. Danchenko was a source for the so-called Steele dossier — a since-discredited compilation of opposition research about purported links between Trump and Russia — and he is set to stand trial later this year.

 

In Sussmann's case, Durham is expected to call Baker, the former FBI general counsel, as a star witness. But in the opening argument, Bosworth highlighted past testimony from Baker in which he could not recall portions of the 2016 meeting with Sussmann.

 

"You will see Mr. Baker's memory is [as] clear as mud," Bosworth said.

 

Sussmann has not just denied lying to the FBI. His defense team has raised a legal argument that, even if he did lie, the false statement made no difference because the FBI was well aware that he represented the Clinton campaign, the Democratic National Committee, and Rodney Joffe, a tech executive involved in the internet research.

 

Ahead of the trial, Sussmann's defense team and legal experts noted the extensive detail of court filings from the Durham team. Conservative news outlets have picked up on the filings as evidence of nefarious conduct by the Clinton campaign, but the narratives have often been inaccurate.

 

In the detail of the charging papers against Sussmann, some legal experts saw a so-called "speaking indictment" intended to tell a broader story rather than lay out a single false statement offense.

 

Bosworth, in his final words to jurors Tuesday, described the prosecution as an "injustice."

 

"As jurors, you have the extra responsibility to do justice in this case. And as jurors, you have the extra responsibility to prevent injustice. This case is an injustice," he said. "And I expect when all of the evidence is in, you will agree."

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Michael Sussmann’s trial begins Monday: What to know

The trial will refocus attention on controversies from the 2016 election.

May 16, 2022
 

What is this trial about?

Return to menu

Michael Sussmann, a former Justice Department prosecutor who went on to work at a law firm that has long represented Democrats, is charged with one count of lying to the FBI. His trial begins with jury selection on Monday in federal court in Washington, D.C., and will focus in part on controversies from the 2016 presidential election.

 

At a meeting with the FBI in September 2016, Sussmann, a partner at Perkins Coie, presented computer data suggesting possible computer communications between Donald Trump’s company and a Russian bank. He is accused of lying to the FBI when he claimed in the meeting that he was not bringing them this information on behalf of any client. Prosecutors say Sussmann was acting on behalf of the Hillary Clinton campaign, and on behalf of a tech executive who gathered the data, Rodney Joffe.

 

 

Who brought this case?

Return to menu

The Sussmann case marks the first trial to arise out of the work of Special Counsel John Durham. He was appointed in 2019 by Attorney General William P. Barr to examine how the FBI and other agencies investigated the Trump campaign amid Russian interference in the presidential election.

 
 

Durham’s appointment, and the cases he has filed, are controversial. Republicans have long wanted to “investigate the investigators” — hoping to show that the FBI unfairly targeted Trump. Democrats have accused Durham of seeking to punish those who investigated Trump. How you see the Sussmann case probably depends largely on what you think about the 2016 election and the FBI’s role in it.

 

What is at stake?

Return to menu

In a word, reputations. A conviction could spell the end of Sussmann’s legal career and cast a cloud over the long-defunct Clinton campaign, but it is unlikely to result in serious jail time or other consequences. An acquittal would be damaging for Durham’s credibility and probably would intensify calls from liberals for Attorney General Merrick Garland to shut down Durham’s long-running probe.

 

 

What does the jury have to decide?

Return to menu

Pretrial evidence suggests there won’t be much debate over whether Sussmann told the FBI that he was not acting on behalf of a client. Instead, the real issue is what lawyers call “materiality” — whether Sussmann’s claim was relevant to how the FBI investigated the computer data. Durham argues that if the FBI had known Sussmann was working for political figures with an agenda, the bureau would have proceeded differently. Sussmann’s legal team says the FBI knew full well that Sussmann was a lawyer for Democrats, because the bureau had dealt with him many times before.

 

 

Who are the witnesses?

Return to menu

The key witness in the case is James Baker, the FBI’s former top lawyer, who met with Sussmann in September 2016 and received the information. The trial will also feature more than a half-dozen current or former law enforcement officials. They will revisit the days toward the end of the 2016 campaign when tensions were running extremely high inside the FBI as agents pursued cases involving both presidential candidates — Trump and Clinton.

 

What else is at stake?

Return to menu

Durham’s theory of the case is that Sussmann was engaged in a kind of joint venture — with the Clinton campaign, opposition researchers and computer experts — to generate news stories that would damage Trump’s chances of winning the presidency. The same group also wanted to get the FBI to investigate the allegations of coordination between the Trump campaign and the Russians, and perhaps spur news stories about such an investigation.

 

It’s clear from court filings that Durham’s team takes a dim view of this alleged joint effort. However, while a number of current and former federal law enforcement officials say that such opposition research may appear unseemly, they also say it will be a heavy lift for prosecutors to convince a jury in the nation’s capital that such behavior amounts to a crime.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Good overview of the Sussmann trial:

 

 

Sussmann prosecutors also take aim at Clinton, FBI and the news media

Testimony shows how the FBI worried about being “played” in the wake of the 2016 probe of Hillary Clinton’s emails.

May 21, 2022
MBG2OCGVNMI6ZPQXFBQWJF2MKQ.jpg&w=916
Special counsel John Durham was appointed by Trump administration Attorney General William P. Barr to probe whether the federal agents who investigated the 2016 Trump campaign committed wrongdoing. (Manuel Balce Ceneta/AP)

The trial of well-connected lawyer Michael Sussmann centers on whether he lied to the FBI while sharing potentially damaging allegations about Donald Trump at a key moment in the 2016 presidential campaign.

 

But the first week of testimony showed the prosecution’s hopes for a conviction rest largely on a much broader set of assertions: that the FBI, the Hillary Clinton campaign and the press collided in ultimately harmful ways, leading to the public airing of unsubstantiated allegations shortly before Election Day.

Sussmann’s trial is the first courtroom test of the investigative work done by special counsel John Durham, appointed by Trump administration Attorney General William P. Barr to probe whether the federal agents who investigated the 2016 Trump campaign committed wrongdoing. Somewhat surprisingly, in this prosecution and another scheduled for trial this fall, Durham’s team contends not that FBI officials committed crimes but were the victims of others’ lies.

Sussmann, a cybersecurity lawyer who has represented Democrats and technology firms, has denied breaking the law. His defense team argues that what prosecutors suggest was a duplicitous conspiracy to smear Trump was in truth people acting independently, and with good intentions, to raise alarms about what they saw as suspect behavior.

 

Suspicions were already running high in political and government circles in September 2016 when Sussmann arranged a meeting with the FBI’s top lawyer, James Baker, to share important computer data and analysis suggesting a secret communications back channel between the Trump Organization and Russia-based Alfa-Bank.

 

QPA2DHHL5EI6XCKQ245T5E77P4.jpg&w=916

Michael Sussman and FBI lawyer James Baker met at the J. Edgar Hoover FBI Building in 2016. (Jonathan Newton/The Washington Post)

 

When the two men sat down in a conference room on the 7th floor of the J. Edgar Hoover building, the FBI was wary of being played by political operatives. Two months earlier, then-FBI Director James B. Comey had ended the investigation into Clinton’s use of private email for sensitive government issues, holding a highly unusual news conference to publicly criticize her conduct.

Still furious over that issue, the Clinton campaign had refused to meet with FBI agents to discuss security amid an ongoing Russian hacking and leaking campaign. And both the Clinton campaign and the FBI suspected people in the Trump campaign might be conspiring with Russia to interfere with the election.

In testimony that stretched over three days last week, Baker insisted Sussmann told him he had brought the computer data not on behalf of any client or company. Baker said if he had known, as the prosecution charges, that Sussmann was acting on behalf of the Clinton campaign and a technology executive, he would have handled the information differently — and might not have even agreed to the meeting.

 

Baker is the sole direct witness to the conversation, and Sussmann’s lawyers have repeatedly challenged his credibility on this point, noting that in one earlier interview, Baker said Sussmann was representing cybersecurity clients; in another, he seemed to say he didn’t remember that part of the talk. Prosecutors introduced billing records from Sussmann’s law firm listing the time he spent on the issue as work on behalf of the Clinton campaign.

Baker told the jury that while his earlier statements may be inconsistent, he is “100 percent confident” of his memory that Sussmann claimed to be acting on his own.

He testified Sussmann also told him a major newspaper — he later learned it was the New York Times — was preparing to write about the allegations. That worried Baker: He knew a news story would likely cause any suspicious communications to stop, and so he wanted the FBI to be able to investigate before an article appeared. Prosecutors say it was Sussmann himself who had provided the information to the Times.

“It would have concerned me, whether there was an effort to play the FBI and drag us into the ongoing political campaign and make us a pawn in the campaign in some fashion,” Baker said. “It would have alarmed me, this nexus with the press and whether there was some effort to engineer a situation where the FBI would be investigating this material and that the press — even though it couldn’t determine the reliability of that material and couldn’t report on it — could report the FBI was investigating it.”

Ultimately, the FBI investigated the computer data and decided it was nothing suspicious.

5R5SZEWWFUI6ZPQXFBQWJF2MKQ.jpg&w=916

 

Attorney Michael Sussmann departs federal court in Washington after opening arguments in his trial on May 17. (Julia Nikhinson/Reuters)

 

Baker’s account underpins the core assertion of the prosecution case — that Sussmann lied about the client he was representing to try to spark both an FBI investigation and a news story about an issue that would hurt Trump’s election chances.

Left unsaid was another reason Baker might have reacted differently if he had known Sussmann was acting on Clinton’s behalf: Of all of Comey’s senior advisers who worked on the Clinton email case, Baker was arguably the most critical of how she and her staff had communicated on sensitive topics, according to those who worked with him at the time, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss internal deliberations.

 

If Baker had known Sussmann’s information came from a Clinton campaign opposition-research effort, he might have had a much more negative reaction. It’s unclear whether Sussmann was aware at the time of Baker’s views about the Clinton email case.

The Sussmann trial is being closely watched by lawyers, government officials, and political operatives for potential fallout. On the witness stand, Baker bemoaned the “maelstrom” of false accusations against him from Trump and other supporters since his meeting with Sussmann.

 

Baker told the jury that a few days after the Sussmann meeting he spoke to the Times reporter working on the story, Eric Lichtblau, and asked that the story not publish until the FBI could investigate further.

Baker said it is unusual but not unheard of for a government agency to make such a request.

The newspaper told Baker that they needed more time to investigate — which, he testified, bought the FBI more time to do the same.

 

Lichtblau, a prizewinning reporter who has since left the paper, is expected to be called as a defense witness as early as this coming week. There are unresolved questions about what he would talk about if he testifies. Lichtblau has agreed to discuss his conversations with Sussmann and Joffe, but lawyers for the reporter say he should not have to answer questions on other topics. U.S. District Judge Christopher Cooper signaled last week that he may hold a hearing on the subject before Lichtblau takes the stand.

The prosecution contends that what Sussmann and the Clinton campaign were really after was a kind of “October surprise” — a damaging revelation against Trump shortly before voting began. At times, the prosecution team has suggested that reporters can be patsies in that strategy.

“I’m sure you know that reporters often publish things that aren’t true?” Assistant Special Counsel Andrew DeFilippis asked former Clinton campaign manager Robby Mook.

 

Mook appeared taken aback, and disputed the idea that the Clinton campaign thought the Alfa-Bank allegation was any kind of “silver bullet” against Trump. Mook said he was not told about anyone taking the Alfa-Bank allegations to the FBI, nor did he authorize anyone to do so.

The campaign did decide — and Clinton herself agreed — to give the allegations to a reporter, he said. Slate published a story about the allegations on Oct. 31, 2016.

 

Mook told jurors the Clinton campaign simply “did not trust” the FBI. “Two or three of the most damaging days of the campaign were caused by James Comey, not Donald Trump,” he said, referring to how the FBI had handled the email case.

Mook added that Alfa-Bank was just one of many stories at the time about possible connections between Russia and Trump.

If news stories about Alfa-Bank weren’t that important to Mook, they seemed important to everyone else.

In February 2017 — after Trump took office — Sussmann was still trying to persuade the U.S. government to pursue the Alfa-Bank issue, and still trying to invoke the Times to make that happen, according to another witness.

Mark Chadason, a former CIA officer, said he met with Sussmann and helped set up a meeting between the lawyer and agency officials to discuss the Alfa-Bank claims and a related allegation.

In an email at the time, Chadason wrote that Sussmann said his client wanted the information to go to a senior CIA official, adding that “if there is no interest, he would most likely go to New York Times.”

 

 

 

Edited by singalion
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 5/24/2022 at 11:27 AM, 7heaven said:


Nope, there are no laws to identify them as hate groups. 

 

Which means you support the actions of the Alliance Defending Freedom and Family Research Council?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 5/24/2022 at 12:36 PM, singalion said:

 

And the continued cooperation between the FBI, the US military and other Federal Government agencies with the Southern Poverty Law Center means nothing?

 

The FBI has even stated on their website and in media that they work on hate crime with the SPLC hate group map and hate group identification.

 

I just wonder how you cannot call such working jointly against hate groups as endorsement of SPLC's work?

 

This leads BW readers and myself to draw the conclusion that you are in denial of facts and wish to mislabel anything else as "misinterpretation" .

 

When will you accept given facts 7heaven???

 

I gave the information on the media reports of FBI here already earlier.

 

 

 


Please show evidence that FBI has put up on its website “that they work on hate crime with the SPLC hate group map and hate group identification.

 

I just wonder how you can misinterpret such flimsy non-official working relationship as endorsement of SPLC's work?

 

This leads readers and myself to draw the conclusion that you are like to imagine things to fit your own narrative. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 5/24/2022 at 12:42 PM, singalion said:

 

 

I moved this discussion which refers to the US over to the appropriate thread.

 

Here you can watch the video on Sussmann.

 

 

 

 

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/show/new-details-on-2016-russia-probe-prompt-flawed-allegations-of-espionage

 

 

It is nothing more than just fabrication by some Republicans to distract from Trump's Russia connections. The latter has been proven by the Mueller Report.

 

 

 


 

The Russian-Trump collusion has already been proven to be a hoax in Mueller Report. It is apparently linked to Hillary Campaign lawyer who is now on trial for lying to FBI that kick started the collision theory. We wonder who else in Hillary team is involved. Hopefully the trial will shine more light. 


———

‘Steele dossier’ firm pushed journalist to spread incorrect Trump-Russia theory: witness

By Ben Feuerherd and Bruce Golding

May 18, 2022 | 8:32pm

Michael-Sussmann-3.jpg?quality=75&strip=
Former Hillary Clinton campaign lawyer Michael Sussmann is accused of lying to the FBI during the 2016 presidential election.AP Photo/Manuel Balce Ceneta

WASHINGTON, DC — Members of the research firm that commissioned the infamous “Steele dossier” met with a journalist to spread an incorrect theory linking Donald Trump and Russia after learning about it from former Hillary Clinton campaign lawyer Michael Sussmann, a meeting participant testified Wednesday.

 

The testimony from Laura Seago, a former analyst at the Fusion GPS research firm, came after the judge in the case ruled that special counsel John Durham’s team could present some evidence of Sussmann’s meetings with the company and its associate, former British spy Christopher Steele.

 

Seago told jurors at the Sussman’s trial that the meeting with Franklin Foer came after she was asked with “translating” computer data that purported to show a secret back channel between a Trump Organization server and Russia’s Alfa Bank, so it could be understood by “a lay audience.”

 

Seago, Fusion GPS co-founder Peter Fritsch, a former Wall Street Journal reporter, and Fusion employee Jake Berkowitz, met up at Foer’s house in the fall of 2016, she said.

During the hourlong sit-down, they told Foer that the information had been vetted by “highly credible computer scientists” who “seemed to think these allegations were credible,” Seago testified.

“We certainly hoped he would publish an article,” she said.
 

On Oct. 31, 2016 — just eight days before the election — the Slate website posted a storywritten by Foer, “Was a Trump Server Communicating With Russia?”

 

It was quickly seized upon by Clinton, who tweeted, “It’s time for Trump to answer serious questions about his ties to Russia.”

 

Clinton also released a statement from campaign adviser Jake Sullivan, now national security adviser to President Biden, who claimed, “This secret hotline may be the key to unlocking the mystery of Trump’s ties to Russia.”
 

Prior to meeting with Foer, Seago said, she and Fritsch met in the summer of 2016 with Sussmann, Clinton campaign general counsel Marc Elias and Rodney Joffe, a tech executive who was also a Sussmann client, to discuss the Alfa Bank data.

 

According to Sussmann’s indictment, Joffe told him about the information after it was “assembled” by a computer researcher who used the moniker “Tea Leaves” and has since been identified as April Lorenzen.

 

At the time of the meeting, Seago didn’t know that the Clinton campaign was paying Fusion GPS to dig up dirt on Trump but was aware that Democrats were funding the opposition-research effort, she testified.
 

In March, the Federal Election Commission fined the Clinton campaign and the Democratic National Committee for disguising their payments to Fusion GPS on official disclosure forms.

 

During opening statements at Sussmann’s trial on Tuesday, prosecutor Deborah Brittain Shaw said an official investigation later determined that a “spam email server” used for marketing purposes was actually behind the computer data.

 

Sussmann, 57, is accused of lying to the FBI by denying that he wasn’t “acting on behalf of any client” when he handed over data and written reports related to the Alfa Bank allegations Sept. 19, 2016,

 

Following Seago’s testimony, the prosecution called Elias to the witness stand and he described hiring Fusion GPS to work for the campaign on April 1, 2016, at a rate of $130,000 a month.

Elias said only a handful of people knew Fusion GPS was working for the campaign, with Sussmann among them.

 

“When I hire any consulting firm I want there to be confidentially,” he said.

Elias testified about a series of invoices Sussmann submitted to the Clinton campaign in connection with his work on the Alfa Bank allegations.

 

They included one for a July 29, 2016, meeting of Sussmann, Elias, Joffe and the “Fusion team.”

Sussmann also billed the Clinton campaign $417 for a 30-minute phone call with Elias and Joffe on Aug. 17, 2016.

 

Elias said on the stand that he didn’t recall the meeting or the conference call but said he would have billed the campaign in the same manner.

 

Sussmann and Elias are both former partners at the powerhouse Perkins Coie law firm, which represents the DNC.

 

Elias resigned to form his own firm about three weeks before Sussmann was charged in September.

 

Sussmann quit the day after his indictment was unsealed, with Perkins Coie saying he’d been on leave and “offered his resignation from the firm in order to focus on his legal defense.”

 

https://nypost.com/2022/05/18/steele-dossier-firm-pushed-journalist-to-spread-incorrect-trump-russia-theory-witness/amp/

Edited by 7heaven
Hoax
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Sussman trial will show how the Hillary campaign use smear tactics to damage the campaign of her opponent. 
 

The narrative that computer scientists found any link between Russia and Trump organisation has been flatly debunked by FBI Baker and other witnesses. 
 

——————

 

How the Sussmann trial revealed Hillary Clinton’s role in the Alfa Bank scandal

BY JONATHAN TURLEY, OPINION CONTRIBUTOR05/21/22 10:30 AM ET

 

 

The trial of former Clinton campaign attorney Michael Sussmann crossed a critical threshold Friday when a key witness uttered the name “Hillary Clinton” in conjunction with a plan to spread the false Alfa Bank Russian collusion claim before the 2016 presidential election.

 

The mere mention of Clinton’s name sent shockwaves through Washington. In past scandals, the Clintons have always evaded direct responsibility as aides were investigated or convicted, from the Whitewater land dealings to cattle futures. Even when long-sought documents in Whitewater were discovered outside of the family quarters and bearing Hillary Clinton’s fingerprints, Washington quickly moved on. 

Clinton was not supposed to be the object of the Sussmann trial, because Judge Christopher Cooper, an Obama appointee, issued a series of orders limiting the scope of the trial and its evidence. The orders were viewed as “spar[ing] the Clinton campaign and the Democratic National Committee … potential embarrassment.” 
 

Yet, even after winning such limiting orders, it was the defense that called Mook to the stand — out of order, in the midst of the prosecution’s case, because he was scheduled to leave on vacation — and he proceeded to confirm that Clinton herself approved of the tactic.

 

It was Washington’s worst-kept but least-acknowledged secret. 

On July 28, 2016, then-CIA Director John Brennan briefed President Obama on Hillary Clinton’s alleged plan to tie Donald Trump to Russia as “a means of distracting the public from her use of a private email server.” Obama reportedly was told how Clinton allegedly approved “a proposal from one of her foreign policy advisers to vilify Donald Trump by stirring up a scandal claiming interference by the Russian security service.”
 

Thus, Mook testified that Clinton did precisely what Brennan warned Obama was being planned.

 

The date of Brennan’s warning is important: It was three days before the FBI’s collusion investigation began. It also was a couple of months before Sussmann contacted then-FBI general counsel Jim Baker while claiming he was not representing any client. (He was counsel to the Clinton campaign and, according to prosecutors, billed the meeting time to the campaign.)

 

There is a strikingly familiar pattern in both the Steele dossier — which became the basis for the Russia collusion investigation — and the Alfa Bank tale. Campaign associates developed both claims while actively seeking to conceal their connections from the public and the government, including reportedly denying the funding of the Steele dossier and concealing that funding as legal costs.

The campaign then pushed these unfounded claims to the media and the FBI. Indeed, prosecutors this week contended that Sussmann continued to push the Alfa Bank claims after Trump was elected, in an apparent effort to fuel the Russia collusion claims being breathlessly reported in the media at the time.

 

When Clinton allegedly approved this effort, at least some people connected to her campaign were aware that the Alfa Bank theory was never viewed as credible by researchers tasked with supporting it. Those researchers had warned that it would be easy to “poke several holes” in the claim, according to prosecutors, and that the data could be seen as “a red herring.” Yet, trial witnesses admitted that they hoped the media would make the claims stick.

 

Despite a record of Clinton associates pushing unfounded allegations to the FBI on both the Steele dossier and Alfa Bank, Mook and another witness, Clinton campaign general counsel Marc Elias, insisted they preferred to use the media for such efforts. The campaign found a conduit in one liberal magazine, for example, whose story was then cited as a “bombshell” report, as if the campaign had had nothing to do with it.

 

For her part, Clinton not only approved using the Alpha Bank claim but helped to portray it as an established fact, tweeting: “Computer scientists have apparently uncovered a covert server linking the Trump Organization to a Russian-based bank.”

 

That claim was then further amplified by one of her campaign advisers, Jake Sullivan, who now serves as President Biden’s national security adviser. Sullivan declared at the time: “This could be the most direct link yet between Donald Trump and Moscow.

 

Computer scientists have uncovered a covert server linking the Trump Organization to a Russian-based bank.” Sullivan added that he could “only assume federal authorities will now explore this direct connection between Trump and Russia as part of their existing probe into Russia’s meddling in our elections.” 

 

As the FBI’s Baker and other witnesses told jurors this week, there was in fact “nothing there.
 

Months after approving the Alpha Bank strategy, Clinton called in December 2016 to censor opponents whom she accused of spreading falsehoods to try to influence elections. She declared that “it’s now clear that so-called ‘fake news’ can have real-world consequences.” Indeed, Clinton has pushed for state and corporate censorship while demanding a “global reckoning” with those who spread disinformation. Of course, Sussmann could still face the real consequence of conviction given the strength of the evidence against him. Yet, there will likely not be consequences — let alone a “reckoning” — for Hillary Clinton.

 

https://thehill.com/opinion/judiciary/3496659-how-the-sussmann-trial-revealed-hillary-clintons-role-in-the-alfa-bank-scandal/amp/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 5/24/2022 at 1:48 PM, singalion said:

 

Which means you support the actions of the Alliance Defending Freedom and Family Research Council?


Lol. You can misinterpret all you want and find your own conclusions to fit your narrative. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

On 5/24/2022 at 3:22 PM, 7heaven said:

———

‘Steele dossier’ firm pushed journalist to spread incorrect Trump-Russia theory: witness

By Ben Feuerherd and Bruce Golding

May 18, 2022 | 8:32pm

Michael-Sussmann-3.jpg?quality=75&strip=
Former Hillary Clinton campaign lawyer Michael Sussmann is accused of lying to the FBI during the 2016 presidential election.AP Photo/Manuel Balce Ceneta
 
The Russian-Trump collusion has already been proven to be a hoax in Mueller Report. It is apparently linked to Hillary Campaign lawyer who is now on trial for lying to FBI that kick started the collision theory. We wonder who else in Hillary team is involved. Hopefully the trial will shine more light. 
 

WASHINGTON, DC — Members of the research firm that commissioned the infamous “Steele dossier” met with a journalist to spread an incorrect theory linking Donald Trump and Russia after learning about it from former Hillary Clinton campaign lawyer Michael Sussmann, a meeting participant testified Wednesday.

 

The testimony from Laura Seago, a former analyst at the Fusion GPS research firm, came after the judge in the case ruled that special counsel John Durham’s team could present some evidence of Sussmann’s meetings with the company and its associate, former British spy Christopher Steele.

 

Seago told jurors at the Sussman’s trial that the meeting with Franklin Foer came after she was asked with “translating” computer data that purported to show a secret back channel between a Trump Organization server and Russia’s Alfa Bank, so it could be understood by “a lay audience.”

 

Seago, Fusion GPS co-founder Peter Fritsch, a former Wall Street Journal reporter, and Fusion employee Jake Berkowitz, met up at Foer’s house in the fall of 2016, she said.

During the hourlong sit-down, they told Foer that the information had been vetted by “highly credible computer scientists” who “seemed to think these allegations were credible,” Seago testified.

“We certainly hoped he would publish an article,” she said.
 

On Oct. 31, 2016 — just eight days before the election — the Slate website posted a storywritten by Foer, “Was a Trump Server Communicating With Russia?”

 

It was quickly seized upon by Clinton, who tweeted, “It’s time for Trump to answer serious questions about his ties to Russia.”

 

Clinton also released a statement from campaign adviser Jake Sullivan, now national security adviser to President Biden, who claimed, “This secret hotline may be the key to unlocking the mystery of Trump’s ties to Russia.”
 

Prior to meeting with Foer, Seago said, she and Fritsch met in the summer of 2016 with Sussmann, Clinton campaign general counsel Marc Elias and Rodney Joffe, a tech executive who was also a Sussmann client, to discuss the Alfa Bank data.

 

According to Sussmann’s indictment, Joffe told him about the information after it was “assembled” by a computer researcher who used the moniker “Tea Leaves” and has since been identified as April Lorenzen.

 

At the time of the meeting, Seago didn’t know that the Clinton campaign was paying Fusion GPS to dig up dirt on Trump but was aware that Democrats were funding the opposition-research effort, she testified.
 

In March, the Federal Election Commission fined the Clinton campaign and the Democratic National Committee for disguising their payments to Fusion GPS on official disclosure forms.

 

During opening statements at Sussmann’s trial on Tuesday, prosecutor Deborah Brittain Shaw said an official investigation later determined that a “spam email server” used for marketing purposes was actually behind the computer data.

 

Sussmann, 57, is accused of lying to the FBI by denying that he wasn’t “acting on behalf of any client” when he handed over data and written reports related to the Alfa Bank allegations Sept. 19, 2016,

 

Following Seago’s testimony, the prosecution called Elias to the witness stand and he described hiring Fusion GPS to work for the campaign on April 1, 2016, at a rate of $130,000 a month.

Elias said only a handful of people knew Fusion GPS was working for the campaign, with Sussmann among them.

 

“When I hire any consulting firm I want there to be confidentially,” he said.

Elias testified about a series of invoices Sussmann submitted to the Clinton campaign in connection with his work on the Alfa Bank allegations.

 

They included one for a July 29, 2016, meeting of Sussmann, Elias, Joffe and the “Fusion team.”

Sussmann also billed the Clinton campaign $417 for a 30-minute phone call with Elias and Joffe on Aug. 17, 2016.

 

Elias said on the stand that he didn’t recall the meeting or the conference call but said he would have billed the campaign in the same manner.

 

Sussmann and Elias are both former partners at the powerhouse Perkins Coie law firm, which represents the DNC.

 

Elias resigned to form his own firm about three weeks before Sussmann was charged in September.

 

Sussmann quit the day after his indictment was unsealed, with Perkins Coie saying he’d been on leave and “offered his resignation from the firm in order to focus on his legal defense.”

 

https://nypost.com/2022/05/18/steele-dossier-firm-pushed-journalist-to-spread-incorrect-trump-russia-theory-witness/amp/

 

 

The complete article does not present any evidence that Hillary Clinton started the Russia collusion theory on Trump.

It is just an attempt to mislead the people from the trial hearings.

 

The articles states that the meeting with Clinton was in fall 2016.

However, the Russia collusion investigations by the FBI had already started under Obama in late spring 2016.

Seago's evidence does not elabaoraty anything different to the fact and confirms the timining, namely fall 2016 when  meeting took place with GPS.

 

Substantiation that the Trump Russia collusion FBI investigations had started a long time before this time.

Quote:

The document shows that FBI officials used a national security briefing of then candidate Donald Trump and his top aides to gather possible evidence for Crossfire Hurricane, its code name for the Russia investigation.

The new document shows that, in summer 2016, FBI agent Joe Pientka briefed Trump campaign advisers Michael Flynn and Chris Christie over national security issues, standard practice ahead of the election. It had a discussion of Russian interference.

 

If Trump had any valid evidence on his hand to indict the Democratic Party or Hillary Clinton, he would have let it be released under his presidency.

Trump had sufficient time to have the FBI investigate and find serious evidence on any Clinton involvement or creation of the Russia collusion theory.

In 2017 Trump initiated a new FBI investigation to sort out that issue, but in 2019 it did not conclude with anything at all.

 

 

Please do not plaster false statements or your usual truth distortions onto BW.

 

 

Edited by singalion
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

On 5/24/2022 at 3:22 PM, 7heaven said:

The Russian-Trump collusion has already been proven to be a hoax in Mueller Report. It is apparently linked to Hillary Campaign lawyer who is now on trial for lying to FBI that kick started the collision theory. We wonder who else in Hillary team is involved. Hopefully the trial will shine more light. 

 

This is a clear truth distortion.

7heaven you are one of the worst truth distorter on BW.

 

 

 

The Mueller Report never came to the conclusion that the Russia-Trump collusion was a hoax.

 

The Mueller Report however, found evidence on the collusion of Trump with Russia.

 

 

Mueller’s report is arguably the most damning document ever written about a sitting president, identifying numerous instances of obstruction of justice and clear collusion between President Donald Trump’s campaign and Russia.1

 

 

Here you can hear it from Mueller yourself and post it to Trump:

 

Mueller refutes Trump’s ‘no collusion, no obstruction’ line

 

 

July 24, 2019

 

Former special counsel Robert Mueller pushed back against U.S. President Donald Trump’s characterizations of his 22-month investigation, telling lawmakers on Wednesday that he did not evaluate “collusion” with the Russian government, and confirming that his report did not conclude that there was “no obstruction” of the probe.

“The president was not exculpated for the acts that he allegedly committed,” Mueller told the House judiciary committee, adding that Trump could theoretically be indicted after he leaves office.

“We did not address ‘collusion,’ which is not a legal term,” Mueller added. “Rather, we focused on whether the evidence was sufficient to charge any member of the campaign with taking part in a criminal conspiracy. It was not.”

 

Underscoring the challenge for lawmakers, the Justice Department told Mueller on Monday that his testimony “must remain within the boundaries of your public report” because Trump made a broad assertion of executive privilege over the evidence underpinning the report.

Mueller said of those restrictions: “These are Justice Department privileges that I will respect.”

 

 

 

Trump even limited what Mueller was permitted to talk.

Did Trump had something to hide or why did he set these restrictions on Mueller?

 

You distorted again the truth by posting that the Mueller Report came to the conclusion that the Russia collusion by Trump was a hoax.

As evidenced above , it is not true.

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 5/24/2022 at 3:13 PM, 7heaven said:


Please show evidence that FBI has put up on its website “that they work on hate crime with the SPLC hate group map and hate group identification.

 

I just wonder how you can misinterpret such flimsy non-official working relationship as endorsement of SPLC's work?

 

This leads readers and myself to draw the conclusion that you are like to imagine things to fit your own narrative. 

 

Scroll back on this thread then you can see.

Compared to you I am not driven by an impulse of insanity to repeat over and over the same excessively again.

 

I evidenced this already before.

 

Surely, you can conclude that the FBI endorsed the Southern Poverty Law Center's hate group assessment, when the FBI cooperates with them and even links the hate group identification on their hate crime information.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 5/24/2022 at 3:33 PM, 7heaven said:


Lol. You can misinterpret all you want and find your own conclusions to fit your narrative. 

 

My post contained a question.

 

This is avoiding to answer the question.

 

 

Do you 7heaven support the actions of the Alliance Defending Freedom and Family Research Council?

 

Yes or no?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 5/24/2022 at 4:29 PM, singalion said:

 

 

 

 

The complete article does not present any evidence that Hillary Clinton started the Russia collusion theory on Trump.

It is just

 

The articles states that the meeting with Clinton was in fall 2016.

However, the Russia collusion investigations by the FBI had already started under Obama in late spring 2016.

Seago's evidence does not elabaoraty anything different to the fact and confirms the timining, namely fall 2016 when  meeting took place with GPS.

 

Substantiation that the Trump Russia collusion FBI investigations had started a long time before this time.

Quote:

The document shows that FBI officials used a national security briefing of then candidate Donald Trump and his top aides to gather possible evidence for Crossfire Hurricane, its code name for the Russia investigation.

The new document shows that, in summer 2016, FBI agent Joe Pientka briefed Trump campaign advisers Michael Flynn and Chris Christie over national security issues, standard practice ahead of the election. It had a discussion of Russian interference.

 

If Trump had any valid evidence on his hand to indict the Democratic Party or Hillary Clinton, he would have let it be released under his presidency.

Trump had sufficient time to have the FBI investigate and find serious evidence on any Clinton involvement or creation of the Russia collusion theory.

In 2017 Trump initiated a new FBI investigation to sort out that issue, but in 2019 it did not conclude with anything at all.

 

 

Please do not plaster false statements or your usual truth distortions onto BW.

 

 


I did not make any statements in this post. It was quoted from a source which I provided the link. 
 

You quote something but again did not provide any link to your source. 
 

Next, Clinton Campaign had been fined for hiding payments to Fusion GPS on disclosure forms. Fusion GPS was the one who had been digging up dirt on Hillary’s opponent Trump. 
 

———————
 

At the time of the meeting, Seago didn’t know that the Clinton campaign was paying Fusion GPS to dig up dirt on Trump but was aware that Democrats were funding the opposition-research effort, she testified.
 

In March, the Federal Election Commission fined the Clinton campaign and the Democratic National Committee for disguising their payments to Fusion GPS on official disclosure forms.

 

https://nypost.com/2022/05/18/steele-dossier-firm-pushed-journalist-to-spread-incorrect-trump-russia-theory-witness/amp/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 5/24/2022 at 4:58 PM, singalion said:

 

 

This is a clear truth distortion.

7heaven you are one of the worst truth distorter on BW.

 

 

 

The Mueller Report never came to the conclusion that the Russia-Trump collusion was a hoax.

 

The Mueller Report however, found evidence on the collusion of Trump with Russia.

 

 

Mueller’s report is arguably the most damning document ever written about a sitting president, identifying numerous instances of obstruction of justice and clear collusion between President Donald Trump’s campaign and Russia.1

 

 

Here you can hear it from Mueller yourself and post it to Trump:

 

Mueller refutes Trump’s ‘no collusion, no obstruction’ line

 

 

July 24, 2019

 

Former special counsel Robert Mueller pushed back against U.S. President Donald Trump’s characterizations of his 22-month investigation, telling lawmakers on Wednesday that he did not evaluate “collusion” with the Russian government, and confirming that his report did not conclude that there was “no obstruction” of the probe.

“The president was not exculpated for the acts that he allegedly committed,” Mueller told the House judiciary committee, adding that Trump could theoretically be indicted after he leaves office.

“We did not address ‘collusion,’ which is not a legal term,” Mueller added. “Rather, we focused on whether the evidence was sufficient to charge any member of the campaign with taking part in a criminal conspiracy. It was not.”

 

Underscoring the challenge for lawmakers, the Justice Department told Mueller on Monday that his testimony “must remain within the boundaries of your public report” because Trump made a broad assertion of executive privilege over the evidence underpinning the report.

Mueller said of those restrictions: “These are Justice Department privileges that I will respect.”

 

 

 

Trump even limited what Mueller was permitted to talk.

Did Trump had something to hide or why did he set these restrictions on Mueller?

 

You distorted again the truth by posting that the Mueller Report came to the conclusion that the Russia collusion by Trump was a hoax.

As evidenced above , it is not true.

 

 

 


Ironically, you are the worst truths manufacturer or misinterpretor. 


Mueller’s report already concluded that there is no collusion between anyone from Trump campaign and Russia. This report was released when Biden and his fellow Democrats have majority in Congress and Senate. And if there are any collusion, why isn’t Biden’s Attorney General or any special prosecutor indicting or charging Trump? 
 

Ironically, it was Hillary campaign staff Michael Sussman who is being charged in court and standing trial now for lying to FBI that led to the investigation of now known Trump-Russia collusion hoax. 
 


—————

Mueller finds no collusion with Russia, leaves obstruction question open

Special counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation did not find sufficient evidence that President Donald Trump’s campaign coordinated with Russia to influence the United States’ 2016 election and did not take a clear position on whether Trump obstructed justice.
 

Mueller concluded his 22-month investigation and submitted a report to Attorney General William Barr on Friday, March 22. Barr and Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein reviewed the report over the weekend and filed a four-page summary of the report to Congress Sunday afternoon that was also released to the public.


In his letter to Congress, Barr summarizes the Mueller investigation as looking at two areas: Interference by Russia in the 2016 presidential election and obstruction of justice.

The special counsel found that Russia did interfere with the election, but “did not find that the Trump campaign, or anyone associated with it, conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in these efforts, despite multiple efforts from Russian-affiliated individuals to assist the Trump campaign.

 

https://www.americanbar.org/news/abanews/aba-news-archives/2019/03/mueller-concludes-investigation/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 5/24/2022 at 5:01 PM, singalion said:

 

Scroll back on this thread then you can see.

Compared to you I am not driven by an impulse of insanity to repeat over and over the same excessively again.

 

I evidenced this already before.

 

Surely, you can conclude that the FBI endorsed the Southern Poverty Law Center's hate group assessment, when the FBI cooperates with them and even links the hate group identification on their hate crime information.

 

 


Surely, Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) has not been endorsed by any law enforcement agencies nor has it got any authority to label other organisations it disagree with as hate groups. 
 

Ironically, a terrorist actually used information on SPLC website to select his target, and this shows SPLC is complicit in such tragic and mindless acts. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 5/24/2022 at 5:03 PM, singalion said:

 

My post contained a question.

 

This is avoiding to answer the question.

 

 

Do you 7heaven support the actions of the Alliance Defending Freedom and Family Research Council?

 

Yes or no?

 


Do you Singalion condemn Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) for providing information on its website used by a terrorist to select his target?

 

Yes or no?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 5/24/2022 at 3:22 PM, 7heaven said:

The Russian-Trump collusion has already been proven to be a hoax in Mueller Report. It is apparently linked to Hillary Campaign lawyer who is now on trial for lying to FBI that kick started the collision theory. We wonder who else in Hillary team is involved. Hopefully the trial will shine more light. 

 

 

this is false.

 

The Russia Trump collusion was known already prior to Sussmann talking to the FBI and the FBI was investigating this for a long time  before the Sussmann interaction with the FBI.

 

 

Substantiation:

 

EARLY JAN. 2016: Carter Page meets with Trump campaign manager Corey Lewandowski about joining the Trump campaign

AROUND MARCH 24, 2016: While in London, Papadopoulos sends an email to Carter Page and other campaign members, telling them the professor he met in Italy two weeks earlier has introduced him to the Russian ambassador to England and a Russian woman who is supposedly Putin’s niece. Papadopoulos says in the email that the two Russians might be able to help set up a meeting between Trump and Putin. (Page later tells congressional investigators he remembers that the email from Papadopoulos mentioned the professor had introduced Papadopoulos to Russian government officials.)

MARCH 2016: The FBI interviews Carter Page about his contacts in Russia.

MARCH 2016: Russian hackers launch an operation to break into computer systems associated with the DNC (= Democractic National Committee) and email accounts of Clinton campaign staff, including campaign chairman John Podesta.

MAY 2016: The DNC realizes it has been hacked and quietly hires a security company to investigate.

MAY 19, 2016: Paul Manafort, who initially joined the Trump campaign in March as a “campaign convention manager” becomes the campaign manager.

MAY 2016: The DNC realizes it has been hacked and quietly hires a security company to investigate.

MAY 19, 2016: Paul Manafort, who initially joined the Trump campaign in March as a “campaign convention manager” becomes the campaign manager.

JULY 7-8, 2016: Carter Page travels to Moscow for the commencement speech at the New Economic School. After the event, according to what he later tells congressional investigators, he “briefly” speaks to Arkadiy Dvorkovich, Russia’s Deputy Prime Minister, and they exchange “some nice pleasantries.” Shortly after the brief greeting, he sends an email to members of the Trump campaign stating: “In a private conversation, Dvorkovich expressed strong support for Mr. Trump and a desire to work together toward devising better solutions in response to the vast range of current international problems.” (That portion of the email is later quoted by congressional investigators during their interview with Page.)
LATE JULY 2016: Steele compiles another report saying he had found “further evidence of extensive conspiracy between Trump’s campaign team and [the] Kremlin.” The report says the alleged “cooperation” was “managed on the Trump side by the Republican candidate’s campaign chairman, Paul Manafort, who was using foreign policy adviser, Carter Page, and others as intermediaries.” The report also alleges that a “Trump associate admits Kremlin behind recent appearance of DNC e-mails on WikiLeaks.”

https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/russia-probe-timeline-moscow-mueller/story?id=57427441

 

Sussmund only met the FBI on 19 September 2016.

This was months after the FBI investigations had already started.

 

This is even evidenced by Fox News:

 

Baker on Thursday did testify, however, that when Sussmann brought the allegations to him on Sept. 19, 2016, the FBI "was already conducting an investigation into alleged connections between the Trump campaign and Russians at this point in time."

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/durham-sussmann-trial-baker-fbi-investigated-claims-trump-russian-bank-connection-nothing-there

 

This is the second time in less than a week that you are debunked and your truth distortions discovered by Fox News!

 

Sussmund might have kickstarted a collision theory, namely that the FBI under Trump wasn't interested in finding the truth, but Sussmund did not kickstart any collusion theory, as this collusion allegation existed already many months before Sussmund interacted with the FBI.

 

I have sufficiently evidenced this with facts (see above).

 

 

Refrain from your repeated truth distortions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, please sign in.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...