Talk:Michael Sussmann

Rather sad. Several paragraphs using over 1400 words to show your dislike of Sussmann. Then a tiny blurb at the end saying he was acquitted of all wrong-doing. Shouldn’t the most important facts be placed at the beginning of the article? --LSimons (talk) 16:57, May 31, 2022 (EDT)

Oh, you mean like the emoluments clause being tossed out against Trump, or any of the other of dozens of bogus lawsuits against Trump should be in the Intro of his bio?

And you miss the context - entirely. The 1,400 words do not trash Sussmann - they trash the FBI. It in fact reads,

"Andrew McCarthy concluded that if Sussmann was acquitted, that will have a lot more to do with the FBI’s illegal machinations to interfere in the US 2016 presidential election than Sussmann’s innocence.

On May 31, 2022, a District of Columbia jury acquitted Sussmann...."

Secondly, CBS is not the best source you could have used here. And why isn't there anything about Trump's reaction? RobS^Z 20:18, May 31, 2022 (EDT)

The Sussmann verdict does not exonerate anybody. It points the finger at James Comey, Andrew McCabe, et al.

The issue is even bigger now; it's nnot even about getting Comey & Co; it's about a corrupt FBI that tried to manipulate an election (Comey & McCabe et al, that is, not Vladimir Putin), and bring down a president. And what steps now are being taken to to prevent a crime bigger than Watergate from ever happening again? RobS^Z 20:24, May 31, 2022 (EDT)

So the Sussmann verdict in no way tucks away the Trump-Russia scam neatly, as Trump opponents hope. And the fact that we are at war with Putin now over this fraud makes it even a bigger issue. RobS^Z 20:26, May 31, 2022 (EDT)

CBS should not be cited. CBS 60 Minutes & Leslie Stahl mocked Trump on national TV over Trump's claim that the FBI spied on the Trump campaign and Trump presidency. And the Sussmann verdict proved that was absolutely true. That was Sussmann's defense - texts and emails between FBI agents that they were out to get Trump anyway and just wanted to use Sussmann as their cover and excuse for FBI illegal activities. RobS^Z 20:37, May 31, 2022 (EDT)

Here's your best source, Technofog; here's your next best source, Sundance.

Sorry, we don't user MSM/DNC/BS for such an important matter.

And why is there no contrast for the hell, the real criminals here Comey & McCabe, put Michael Flynn through on the same charges? RobS^Z

Okay. Lot to cover here. You’re trashing Sussmann, I stand by my assertion. This is not the first time you’re questioned my ‘best’ sources, yet you’re quoting the NY Post, a trashy tabloid. The Sussmann verdict exonerates Sussmann, plain as day. FBI/Putin/Watergate/Comey/McCabe? Not going to touch that mess in your mind. The FBI was out to get Trump, but concentrated on H. Clinton’s emails instead. You blow my mind. Technofog? Sundance? I don’t follow. Is this some kind of sarcasm? --LSimons (talk) 21:16, May 31, 2022 (EDT)

Nope, not at all. Technofog is the most authoritive source; Sundance can help break it down for you. RobS^Z 21:19, May 31, 2022 (EDT)

Line four of the article quotes the NY Times by stating: ‘According to the New York Times’. Yet I’m not allowed to use the Gray Lady as a reference? Is this some sort of double-whammy reverse psychology? --LSimons (talk) 21:21, May 31, 2022 (EDT)

Good. Leave it in. For once they had facts correct. They were reading Sussmann's indictment.

Jeff Carlson of the Epoch Times also right on top of this story. So is Tracy Beanz. So is Adam Carter, who destroyed the Guccifer 2.0 BS created by Joe Biden's IT guy.

NYT took Hillary's BS and ran with it. They are thoroughly disgraced, and the Sussmann verdict adds to that. RobS^Z 21:25, May 31, 2022 (EDT)

John Solomon, Sara Carter, Shary Attkisson, Lee Smith, and Paul Sperry are also acceptable sources. RobS^Z 21:29, May 31, 2022 (EDT)

So is Deven Nunes and Kash Patal. Also Maria Bartiromo. Any of these sources can be cited. The rest are DNC propagandists. RobS^Z 21:34, May 31, 2022 (EDT)