Understanding the potential implications of Special Counsel John Durham’s recent prominent Democratic lawyer and partner in Parkinson’s, Michael Susman, requires a refresher course on some of the most infamous examples of mass hypnosis in American history.
Perkins Qui Hall is a Seattle-based international law firm that represented Hillary Clinton during the 2016 campaign. Susman was recently indicted by a federal grand jury for evidence provided by Durham. The allegations against the FBI have been denied in an attempt to mislead investigators into alleged transactions between The Trump Organization and a Russian bank. The allegations were later proved to be false.
It now appears that Jack Sullivan, a longtime aide to Clinton who is now serving as the White House National Security Adviser, Also Sullivan, Susman and others lied to FBI agents about dirty tricks to create “communication” between Russian banks and Donald Trump entities.
When I ask, will 29 militant-armed FBI agents gather at Jake Sullivan’s home within hours to take him into custody? So it has been with me. Or maybe the FBI will invite OAN to remove this monopoly – since the FBI allowed CNN when I was arrested. Don’t hold your breath.
The U.S. Department of Justice, the office of Special Counsel Robert Mueller, and their willing handmaidens in the organization’s media insisted that the Democratic National Committee was the target of an online hack, citing Russian spies providing stolen emails to WikiLeaks.
Both the New York Times and the Washington Post reported that the U.S. intelligence agency had a “high level of confidence” that the DNC’s alleged Russian hack had come down exactly as Democrats, the DJ, the FBI and the CIA had claimed. Did. Only later did we learn that a minority of applicable federal agencies had subscribed to this theory.
This Still Unproven The claim was a foretaste of my own criminal charges protected by Mueller, although the trial judge in my case denied me the opportunity to present this defense by introducing forensic evidence and other expert evidence. Both the government and the media insist that the DNC hacking by “Russians” was “planned by Gusifer 2.0.” The government has not presented any practical evidence to support this theory, and I believe that “Gusifer 2.0” was actually created by US intelligence. To begin with, this alleged Romanian hacker was using software registered with an employee of the Democratic National Committee. If you bought the unexpected government narrative in the media from our so-called “investigative reporter” – that “Gusifer 2.0” hacked DNC and gave WikiLeaks stolen data, I suggest you read my own test of this minor claim.
Former CIA director John Brennan is more likely to have “Gusifer 2.0” than the Russian intelligence cut-out.
With “Gusifer 2.0” on Twitter I will have a field day of media for a completely innocent direct message exchange. This is the phenomenon of 24-word confrontation A few months after WikiLeaks DNC has already released the material, And the real content of our exchange was meaningless to those involved in national politics for the majestic, corporate media. After I was convicted, Robert Mueller wrote an op-ed for The Washington Post specifically claiming that I had been tracked “for contacting a Russian intelligence officer.” But I have no reason to believe that “Gusifer 2.0” is actually a Russian intelligence asset, and if Muller does, he will never prove it to the courts or the American people. As he knows, he mentioned that acquaintance After the actual incident, Was innocent in content, and was reported at the time. And the cunning use of his plural proves to any prudent and impartial journalist that Mueller’s entire investigation was conducted in bad faith.
The theme of Mueller’s op-ed was that I was “a convicted felon and deserving to be.” In fact, the full and unconditional pardon given to me by President Trump removes the punishment for my bogus crime.
My forthcoming book, “Roger Stone Didn’t Do Anything Wrong: My Political Persecution and the Loss of the 2020 Election,” will detail Mueller’s own misdeeds: , And his “chilling” coverup – it’s a federal judge’s feature, not mine – is the mass murder in Boston where FBI agents hang four people for murder to cover up the crimes of their own rogue agents.
In my own case, the FBI was finally forced to admit during the pretrial motion that it had never visited the Democratic National Committee’s computer servers and widely accepted claims that they had been hacked entirely by CrowdStrike, relying on a third-party report by biased IT investigative agency Michael Susman. Has done.
The government went to great lengths to ensure that the CrowdStrike report was questioned in both my trial and the media. Mark Elias, a partner in Parkinson’s, appeared at the pre-trial hearing in my case to represent the DNC in my case to U.S. District Court Judge Amy Berman Jackson, arguing that my lawyers would not be given a crowdstrike report. He didn’t need much faith. During the 55-minute trial against me, Judge Mueller strongly condemned me for daring to question the legitimacy of Mueller’s investigation, saying that I had been convicted of “lying to cover up Donald Trump” – something I had not been charged with. Convicted.
After the FBI’s stunning acknowledgment that it had never visited DNC servers began to receive traction in the media claiming completely baseless that I had “threatened” Judge Jackson to go media-feeding insane. I don’t believe it was a coincidence. I’m not sure that judicial officials felt I needed to shut up, lest I give them a full legal basis for a false investigation based on an online hack that never happened.
That’s my opinion. But which one is actually – the subject of the official record – did Jackson use this argument for an evasion order imposed on me (And all my family members!) So that I cannot question the basis of Mueller’s entire investigation.
And although the CrowdStrike report remains classified to this day, former acting DNI director Rick Grenell has sworn in the announced document that CrowdStrike’s CEO and chief lawyer have acknowledged that there is no evidence that their report was actually hacked by “Russians”.
Judge Jackson also denied my attorneys a proposal to use the completely obsolete Mueller report in my defense. Instead, he determined which departments of my defense attorneys would be approved. It was only later that we learned that Judge Jackson had failed to give us the still-revised sections of Mueller’s report where he admitted that he had found “no real evidence” against me regarding Russian collusion, WikiLeaks collaboration or phishing and publication of John Podestor emails. . Such deviations from Mueller’s final report were not made public until November, 2020, when a court order forced the DOJ to publish sections of Mueller’s report that would harm my prosecution.
Incredibly, Mueller’s report came to the conclusion that even if he found out that I had collaborated with WikiLeaks – Which he did not – It would not be a crime:
“The firm’s determination that it cannot charge WikiLeaks or Stone was also informed by constitutional issues as part of the Article 1030 conspiracy that such a prosecution would appear. Under the Supreme Court’s decision in Bartnicki v. Vopper, 532 US 514 (2001), the First Amendment protects the publication of a party to illegally raised communications of public concern, even when the publisher parties had reason to know or know about the obstruction ‘illegal origin. “(Page 178, Special Counsel Report)
Having no involvement or knowledge of WikiLeaks and the publication of the DNC’s email clearly proves that I had no intention of lying when testifying before Congress during the swearing-in, and the government’s highly controversial accusation of “lying to Congress” against me will be completely substantiated. In fact, any misrepresentation I made under oath before the House Intelligence Committee was completely incomplete. What I said was not designed to hide any underlying crime because there was no underlying crime to hide. President Trump was right – the whole thing was a hoax. My guess is that it seems to the Russians as well.
During my trial, Mueller’s prosecutors promised the judge that they would present evidence against me that was collected through a search warrant in a Russian hacking case, but no such evidence was produced.
Like the infamous and weak steel dossier used by the FBI to open the original “Russia Reconciliation” investigation, the CrowdStrike report was a fabricated argument against individuals for the strict political purpose of removing the powers of the FBI and US intelligence agencies. Appropriately elected president from office. Instead of Watergate it is the biggest abuse of power in American history, an abuse of power for which no one has yet been charged or punished. Perhaps Mr. Susman’s conviction will start.