Good morning! Blessings on you and your family, and from all the Huckabee staff! I hope you had a safe and joyous Easter. Sorry we have to get back to the news, but remember that the Good News of Easter lives on 365 days a year.
Today's newsletter includes:
- Durham has MORE evidence: Sussmann and CIA
- Russia-Ukraine War Update
- Two mass shootings reveal Democrats anti-life views
- And much more.
1. DAILY BIBLE VERSE
I can do all things through Christ who strengthens me.
If you have a favorite Bible Verse you want to see in one of our newsletters, please email [email protected]
2. Durham has MORE evidence: Sussmann and CIA
Clinton attorney Michael Sussmann is scheduled to go to trial on May 16.
SUNDAY MORNING FUTURES host Jason Chaffetz brought this up with Arizona Rep. Andy Biggs of the House Judiciary Committee for a brief discussion of Durham’s case. “I’m not sure that the Clinton campaign folks or the Democrat Party wants to see this go trial, and air their dirty laundry even further,” Biggs said.
That’s surely one reason why Sussmann’s attorneys, of the DNC-connected law firm Latham and Watkins, have been trying so hard to get evidence excluded from the trial as “immaterial” to the case. It makes their clients and friends look very, very bad.
Chaffetz ran out of time before they could discuss what the screen graphic said: “Durham: CIA concluded data from Clinton lawyer alleging Trump-Russia connection was “not technically possible.” So we’ll get to that today.
First, in case you missed our Sussmann update over the weekend, featuring the judge’s latest ruling on materiality (in favor of Durham), here’s a link to that:
The Epoch Times has an update on Durham’s latest filing. It’s a “premium” article, so here's the link but also a summary and comments below.
Durham had already included in his filings that Sussmann, on September 19, 2016, met with FBI general counsel James Baker and lied to him about why he was there. He was actually representing clients Hillary for America –- Durham has the billing records –- and tech executive Rodney Joffe but said he was not representing clients, instead coming forward on his own, out of his sense of duty. (Good grief; that outrageous whopper is getting harder and harder to stomach every day.) The FBI later determined his Alfa Bank story was not supported by the facts. But in a new filing on Friday, Durham says that several months later, on February 9, 2017 –- after Trump was President, I would note –- Sussmann brought another fake Trump-Russia story to the CIA and lied again.
Here's the document, a CIA memorandum from that meeting, that Durham wants admitted into evidence at trial.
From the memo, we learn that Sussmann had already “reached out” to the CIA general counsel, in mid-December, but had had no response though she’d said she’d be in touch “after some coordination with the FBI.” Not to be dissuaded –- he was a man on a mission –- he had reached out again.
“Mr. Sussmann advised that he was not representing a particular client and the information he was volunteering to us was not privileged,” the memo states. “His contacts wished to provide information to the USG [U.S. government] through Mr. Sussmann, preferring anonymity citing a potential threat from the Russian Intelligence Services.”
[Editorial aside: !!!!!!!]
“Mr. Sussmann said that he believed his contacts were acting in good faith and out of a sense of loyalty to the USG...He was up-front in disclosing that his law firm was active in supporting several democratic causes and office holders including both the DNC and then-presidential candidate Hillary Clinton, but that such work was unrelated to his reasons for contacting the CIA. He merely wanted to pass along information that he thought would be of interest to the USG and then let the CIA and FBI validate the information and take whatever actions they believed were necessary.”
Read on in the filing about how he presents the story itself, and it's hard not to just be angry. This was a bogus story he had facilitated, yet he’s presenting it to the CIA as a discovery by courageous people who are coming forward at “some personal risk” and “under threat by Russian Intelligence Services.” The implication is that this information is so sensitive, they’re risking their very lives. What they (including him) should be risking for what they did is a long time behind bars.
Sussmann apparently couldn't even keep his stories straight. He spoke with another CIA employee in January, who also wrote a memo: “Sussmann said that he represents a CLIENT who does not want to be known, but who had some interesting information about the presence and activity of a unique Russian-made phone around President Trump.” (Of course, that story was bogus as well.)
In a section of that memo about “the client,” it seems to be describing Rodney Joffe: “Sussmann would not provide client’s identity and was not sure if he would reveal himself...the client is an engineer with a number of patents, and is most likely a contractor [as] Sussmann claimed the client had very sensitive access to various projects.”
“Sussmann also said that the client is a Republican,” according to the memo. What an odd thing to say. Perhaps another lie? If Joffe is a Republican, he’s a Republican the way Liz Cheney is a Republican.
“...[Sussmann] claimed his client did not want to provide this to the FBI, as he knows that the FBI did not have resources to deal with these issues, or perhaps since Sussmann is openly a Democrat and openly told [redacted] that he does lots of work with DNC, did not trust the FBI.”
“Sussmann said that...if there is no interest...[his client] would most likely go to New York Times.”
Sussmann’s lawyers are trying to keep the further evidence of his lies out of court, saying their client’s statement to the CIA “cannot possibly be part of the charged offense (concerning a single, different statement), and it was not made contemporaneously with the charged crime.” As I like to remind my readers, I am not an attorney, but it seems that Sussmann has lied so much, he could just be charged with those other lies, too. Bring on all the evidence!
His lawyers also point out that what he told the CIA wasn’t to help Hillary become President, because “the election was long since over.” You bet it was over –- by then, Sussmann was trying to unseat a SITTING President.
If you care to read their filing, you’ll see how desperately they’re trying to keep this evidence of Sussmann’s additional lying out of the courtroom.
The CIA later found that Sussmann’s story about the Trump-Russia connection was “not technically plausible” and...(wouldn't this be criminal?)...“user-created.” Of course, special counsel Robert Mueller never found “illegal or criminal coordination” with Russia, either.
Durham’s filing also reveals he’s seeking immunity for someone who worked at Fusion GPS, identity not given. Another witness, “Researcher – 2,” who is David Dagon of Georgia Tech, was granted immunity even before Sussmann was indicted. Durham said he’d immunized “Researcher – 2” because five others involved in the plot had invoked their Fifth Amendment rights.
Here's a helpful analysis from Nick Arama at RedState.com. Highly recommended...
Sussmann’s attorneys are seeking immunity for Joffe, but Durham’s filing reveals he’s a subject of the investigation and “played a critical leadership role in assembling and submitting the allegations at issue,” so, no immunity for him. The defense is also trying to keep the Steele “dossier” out, but Durham said that evidence is “highly probative” because it establishes Sussmann “represented and worked for the Clinton campaign with its broader opposition research efforts.”
"The fact that FBI headquarters received on the same date both sets of information involving the same political campaign (Clinton campaign), the same law firm [Perkins Coie], and the same investigative firm [Fusion GPS] makes Steele's involvement in these matters relevant." You bet it does.
3. Russia-Ukraine War Update
Here is today’s link to the Fox News continuous feed of Russia-Ukraine bulletins.
Latest developments: The pointless violence drags on, with Russia firing several missiles at the city of Lviv. The missiles hit three warehouses and a car tire service center (strategic targets all), and killed seven people and injured 11 others. Ukraine’s military has liberated several towns near the city of Kharkiv. Russia surrounded Mariupol and gave Ukrainians there a deadline to surrender, they refused, and it’s since passed.
Ukrainian Foreign Minister Dmytro Kuleba told CBS’ “Face the Nation,” “The situation in Mariupol is both dire militarily and heartbreaking. The city doesn’t exist anymore. The remainder of the Ukrainian army and large group of civilians are basically encircled by the Russian forces.”
And Russia’s former foreign minister said he believes that despite his nuclear threats, Putin is “barking” with “no way to bite.” He believes Putin would use nuclear weapons only in very specific circumstances, such as if Russia faced an existential threat, like NATO troops coming to Moscow, or if he were facing an "overwhelming military defeat" in Donbas. But he said the problem in figuring out what Putin would do is that he’s not making rational decisions because he’s operating in a fictional universe, but it’s not clear just how much of the “universe of fiction” the Kremlin puts out that Putin actually believes.
4. Two mass shootings reveal Democrats anti-life views
By Mike Huckabee
Over the weekend, South Carolina was the site of two mass shootings, one in a mall and the other in a restaurant. A total of at least 18 people suffered gunshot wounds, although thank God, there were no reported fatalities.
Incredibly, one of the suspected mall shooters was released by a judge on $25,000 bail and allowed to wear an ankle monitor so he could go to work! I can’t imagine any of his co-workers showing up today.
This type of blasé attitude about violence and crime leads me to ask an uncomfortable question.
We know that there is no longer any place in the Democratic Party for someone who is pro-life. The radical abortion wing drives out anyone who dares to question the current push to allow unfettered abortions up to and even beyond birth (that used to be called “infanticide.”) Never mind that only 13% of Americans think abortion should be allowed in the third trimester. Blue state leaders seem to be competing to see who can make it easier to kill babies in the womb, or even recently out of it, with Colorado currently grabbing the lead in that grisly race.
My question, however, is not whether any Party leaders are pro-life, but whether they’ve actually gone so far as to become the pro-death party? If you think that’s outrageous, ask yourself: how many people have died because Democrats came to power, and they don’t seem to care about anything other than how it might affect their polling?
On the international side, we have the soldiers who died in a terrorist attack during Biden’s botched Afghanistan pullout, and all our Afghan allies who were left behind at the mercy of the Taliban (and no, I don’t believe that would have happened if Trump were still in office.) Add in all the Ukrainians who have been killed in the devastating invasion that I don’t believe Putin would have launched if Trump were still in office (you’ll notice he waited until after Trump left and Biden signaled his weakness and fecklessness in Afghanistan.)
But those are hypotheticals. Let’s look at how many people have been killed or injured as a direct result of Democrat policies right here in the US. Like Biden’s open border that’s allowed in repeat criminals, drug gangs and huge amounts of deadly drugs like fentanyl. Not to mention terrorists.
Consider how many illegal aliens with violent criminal records have been let in and shielded from deportation. Look at the skyrocketing crime and murder rates that coincidentally happen to all be in blue cities with “progressive” DA’s and city leaders, who have defunded the police and refuse to keep criminals in jail.
They have no rational justification for these deliberately deadly policies, only fuzzy euphemisms to try to cover up the bloodstains. They release career criminals to prey on the public again and again and call it “bail reform,” which is like calling partial birth abortion “reproductive justice” (which they also do.)
Even some Democrats are starting to catch on to the deadly consequences of “progressive” policies. New York City Mayor Eric Adams noted that while everyone was talking about the subway shooter, they ignored over a dozen incidents of gun violence just between Tuesday night and Wednesday morning.
Adams said, “Where are all those who stated black lives matter? Then go do an analysis of who was killed or shot last night. I was up all night speaking to my commanders in the Bronx and Brooklyn. The victims were black. Many of the shooters were black. Why are 16, 17, 18-year-olds out on our streets armed with guns at 12:00 or 1:00 a.m.? If black lives matter, then the thousands of people I saw on the street when [George] Floyd was murdered should be on the streets right now stating that the lives of these black children that are dying every night matter. We can’t be hypocrites.”
Oh but some people can be. When Adams called for fighting the violence by bringing back a plainclothes officer unit that his predecessor DeBlasio disbanded, BLM co-Founder Hawk Newsome raged that they would “take to the streets”: “There will be riots. There will be fire, and there will be bloodshed because we believe in defending our people.”
So he’s threatening riots, arson and bloodshed to protect black people from…not being shot? If that’s not a “pro-death” position, what is?
Kevin Downey Jr. at PJ Media made a related observation that the left’s tactic of dividing Americans by telling some groups that they’re helpless victims of other groups who hate and oppress them has become the driving force behind a number of horrific crimes of rage, from the subway shooting to the guy who ran over 62 people in a parade in Waukesha, Wisconsin.
As Downey puts it, they’re creating an atmosphere that fosters hate crimes, then playing the victim when the people who listen to them commit one. That's using death to gain political advantage. And it's absolutely sickening.
5. Income Tax Deadline Day
By Mike Huckabee
Reminder: Today is Income Tax deadline day, bumped from April 15th because of a local DC holiday. I hope you got all your forms filled out in time and won’t be sweating over them today (or tonight.)
Just FYI: The American Action Forum estimates that this year, complying with all the rules and regulations involved in filing income taxes will cost businesses and individuals 6.5 billion hours and a record $210 billion. That's not the taxes, just the compliance costs!
Once November passes, and (I hope) the voters send record numbers of Republicans to Congress, remember those numbers and quote them when you tell your new Congress members to scrap this insane, burdensome, economy-crippling, corruption-enabling tax system, and replace it with one that you can fill out on a postcard:
6. Absurd idea
Once again proving that George Orwell perfectly predicted today’s world, here’s another example of his observation that there are some ideas so absurd that only an intellectual could believe them:
In an article titled, “Should Will Smith’s Slap Be Condemned More Harshly Than Chris Rock’s Words?,” Yale psychologist Dr. Amanda Calhoun argues that words “can be just as detrimental as physical violence.” Claiming that words may lead to depression and even suicide, she writes, “Should a physical assault always be judged more harshly than a verbal assault, no matter the context? I don’t think so.”
This is part of a concerted effort by leftist elites to convince us that freedom of speech is dangerous, so we need “experts” to “moderate” what we say. We might say something that’s “dangerous” or worse, “wrong,” in that it challenges their opinion, which they’ve defined as objective truth. It’s funny that their arguments against free speech are actually the greatest arguments in favor of it.
As for whether words hurt as badly as physical violence, maybe we should ask Chris Rock which hurt worse: Will Smith yelling at him, or Will Smith slapping him across the face. I notice that nobody who pushes this nonsense ever says, “Wait, don’t call me an idiot! Punch me in the face instead. That would hurt less.”
7. Give up the New York Times
True to form, on Good Friday, the New York Times ran an editorial calling on people to “Give up God.” My suggestion would be to give up the New York Times. But I’ll also link you to an excellent response to this latest attack on God from the newspaper of broken record.
I Just Wanted to Say
Thank you for reading my newsletter.