↓
 
Home » More on the Sussman case…

More on the Sussman case…

The New Neo Posted on by

…from John Solomon:

In painstaking detail, Durham laid out in the indictment Thursday how Democrat superlawyer Michael Sussmann used Clinton campaign funds to construct a now-debunked memo and other evidence alleging that computer communications between a server at the Alfa Bank in Russia and the Trump Tower in New York might be a secret backdoor communication system for Trump and Vladimir Putin to hijack the 2016 election.

Sussmann delivered the package in mid-September 2016 — just weeks before Election Day as Trump and Clinton were locked in a tight race — to then-FBI General Counsel James Baker, even after the team of computer experts warned the theory was a “red-herring,” according to the indictment.

And then Sussmann falsely told Baker, the prosecutors alleged, he was providing the information to the FBI solely as a good citizen, and not on behalf of any client.

In fact, Sussmann was working on behalf of a tech executive and the Clinton campaign and charged nearly all the work on the Alfa Bank narrative to the Democratic presidential campaign, including his meeting with Baker, the indictment stated.

The alleged lying, Durham argued, deceived the FBI into thinking the allegations were coming from a neutral source — Sussmann had been a cybersecurity expert — and not an election-motivated client.

“In truth, and in fact, and as Sussmann well knew, Sussmann had acted on behalf of and in coordination with two specific clients of the law firm: tech executive 1 and the Clinton campaign in assembling and conveying these allegations,” the grand jury indictment charged.

“Sussman’s false statement to the FBI general counsel was material to that investigation because among other reasons it was relevant to the FBI whether the conveyor of these allegations was providing them as an ordinary citizen merely passing along information or whether he was instead doing so as a paid advocate for clients with a political or business agenda.”

The article also contains somewhat of a summary of Russiagate, which can be helpful to refresh your memory at this point. It’s still both astounding and disheartening that all of this actually happened, that it affected the 2020 election and the country tremendously, and that virtually no one has been punished – and it’s doubtful that anyone ever will be. That includes Sussman, who was a big player but by no means one of the biggest.

If I’m wrong and there’s a snowball effect here, I’ll be pleased. But I very much doubt it.

Comments

More on the Sussman case… — 23 Comments

  2. The chances of winning the Powerball Lottery exceed the chance that Sussman will ever be convicted or punished.
    His “indictment” is just another waste of taxpayer money; nothing of substance will
    come of this.
    We are witnessing a Stalinist show trial in reverse, where the prosecutors make believe they really intend to pursue a serious trial, but everybody already knows the suspect will walk away.
    Show me the man, and I will show you how he walks away scot-free.

  3. Sussman walking away “guilty as hell, free as a bird” will be one more straw upon the camel’s back. When the rule of law is seen to have been turned into an obscenity, when petitioning for Redress of Grievance is turned by the “authorities” into an “insurrection” with imprisonment without trial…

    A terrible reckoning begins to be fomented.

  5. If Durham couldn’t get an indictment by a year ago, before the election, it hardly matters — and the 5-year(?) statue of limitations has basically run out on everything in the summer of 2016.

    The Dems won big in Congress in 2018, based partly on constantly nightly lies by the MSM, which allowed the Dems to mostly stop most of Trump’s action policies from being enacted, like no direct funding for the Wall.

    Durham is going to claim he did “the best he could”. I don’t believe it. So ok, it’s not quite totally pathetic.

    Obviously, unfortunately, he deep state criminals mostly covered up most of their “crimes”. Like an increasing number of unsolved murders – not enough evidence for a trial.

    I wish that most FBI functional power would be added to … US Marshalls? Homeland Security? Secret Service? some new group (ugh)? AND then Congress could zero-out the budget of the FBI. Not “fired”, just and end to the organization so out of a job.

    All of them.

  6. Tom Grey:

    It really isn’t fair to civil servants to just zero out their budget and leave them on the streets. They should be offered direct transfer to the Transportation Safety Administration, where they can harass old ladies and young kids. Right up their alley.

  7. Only when that Snowball doesn’t melt in Hell will anyone be convicted.
    I have been telling my Wife for years that nothing would happen to anyone on the Dem side. As the saying goes “Prove Me Wrong”.

  9. Ooooh. Tech executive #1. It wasn’t too long ago that any number of Woodward or Bernstein wannabes would be all over that part of the story. But that was before all the journalism students mind-melded with the Democrat party in J-school.

  12. This does seem to be developing, … maybe. It’s curious that the copies of the indictment I’ve seen so far are images of the document rather than the text, so you can’t copy text.

    This link is tantalizing,
    https://www.tigerdroppings.com/rant/politics/who-is-tech-executive-1-in-sussman-indictment/98374824/

    Originator 1, working with tech exec. 1 and university researchers 1 & 2, explained that it would be possible to “fill out a sales form on two websites [Trump’s and a Russian one], faking the other company’s email address on each form,” and thereby cause them, “to appear to communicate with each other in DNS. [Domain Name Server]” Originator 1 then concluded: “If tech exec. 1 can take the *inference* we gain through this team exercise … then work to develop even an inference may be worthwhile …”

    This looks to me to be a point where thoughts of conspiracy theories can be replaced with an officially alleged conspiracy. But don’t call it that. Call it a team exercise.

  13. From geoffb’s first link, Dawson S Field says,

    I have previously speculated that the agency in the FISC case where contractors got access to raw FISA data, was the CIA. As that case noted it was another agency that got the FBI to give contractors access to the data.

    This is old news that I may have mentioned here some time ago. The above preceded the discovery by NSA head Adm. Mike Rogers that 1) NSA surveillance data was being routinely farmed out to the FBI and 2) that the FBI was farming it out to contractors. Specifically, contractors like Gen Simpson and Fusion GPS. This is when Rogers cut off the FBI and had some secret meeting with Trump &/or the Trump campaign.

    Boy, the wheels grind ever so slowly. We are so far beyond the tissue of lies. It is like a dozen thick blankets of lies.

    Note: This farmed out data is NOT the FISC authorized data, but the raw intercepts that records virtually everything in this country. At least, that is my understanding.

  14. Note to DC Parks: a great time to do any required maintenance at Ft. Marcy Park… should be damn near deserted.

  17. If the feds were serious, they’d offer a deal in return for outing a number of republicans as associates and conspirators, and they’d have some testimony they want him to memorize and swear to.
    They’d also allow him to wander around on his own recognizance.

  18. Come to think of it, he’d probably be contracting for a daily delivery of a couple of dozen Depends, and twitching at every leaf falling against a window.

  19. @ Barry – BlazingCatFur links to this Bombshell Exclusive, which has massive amounts of information damaging to Sussman and his co-conspirators. BCF’s commenters are as pessimistic as some of us here about anyone ever actually going to jail.

    https://nationalfile.com/exclusive-durham-indictment-shows-clinton-likely-worked-with-top-google-exec-to-fabricate-russia-hoax-says-google-whistleblower/
    Really seriously RTWT.

    There’s a lot of good reasons Hinderaker at Powerline is having second thoughts about the indictment being “small potatoes.”

    But geoffb’s links at “A couple of threads about Tech executive #1, Internet company #1, and U.S. agency #1.” present an alternative for Tech Executive-1 and associated company, one I’ve never heard of but I bet some of the people who really follow the “they’re mining all our communications” news are acquainted with (will wait for Greenwald to weigh in on that one). The first one gets the essentials, and the second is a deep dive on the activities and executives of Neustar.

    TommyJay’s link to “Tigerdroppings” may settle it with this nugget: “Tech executive-1 claims to have been offered the top Cybersecurity job if Hillary won the election”
    I didn’t see that in the Neustar speculations, but don’t know how important that was.

    Of course, we shouldn’t discount the possibility that both Google and Neustar were running their own particular black ops at the same time, and are connected somehow.

    Tigerdroppings adds a couple of comments to his own post, including this:

    What troubles me is that if there were an ongoing criminal investigation into TE-1, we likely wouldn’t be reading of this information in Sussmans indictment. Plus all of this occurred in August of 2016 putting us past 5 years. So we get a process charge that reads full of other bad behavior like a middle finger to the face. Whatya gonna do bout it?

    I mean think about that. We have a Tech executive exploiting his access to non public internet data with a team willing to create fake evidence to support a useful narrative, who’s then funneling this information to a Presidential campaign who in turn uses their lawyer ( which they don’t disclose) to make a report to the FBI in order to create the narrative of an FBI investigation against Trump.

  20. Well, there is lots of traffic on the web: every pundit has a post out now, so there is more to cogitate on.
    Most of them summarize the basic facts and statements in the indictment*, but the analyses and speculations differ.

    Some are going with the Neustar identification, and it appears that their executive Joffe was indeed angling for a post with Hillary’s sure-to-be-administration.
    However, it’s stated as an assertion by Mark Wauck, and he doesn’t include any real “evidence” here, although it might be in another of his posts. He does include some other interesting tidbits.

    https://meaninginhistory.substack.com/p/whats-in-the-sussmann-indictment

    Andy McCarthy, contrary to the pessimism of the Tigerdroppings writer, and others, believes that Durham’s “speaking indictment” ** presages more to come.
    https://www.nationalreview.com/2021/09/the-real-story-in-durhams-indictment-of-democratic-lawyer-michael-sussmann/

    The short of it is this: A false statement was allegedly made by Sussmann to the FBI’s then-general counsel, James Baker, on September 19, 2016. In federal law, the false-statement crime has a five-year statute of limitations, meaning it had to be charged by this Sunday (September 19, 2021). Consequently, even if Durham would probably have preferred to wait until his full investigation was concluded before filing indictments, by delaying beyond Sunday, he would have lost what appears to be an eminently provable felony charge. If he was going to indict Sussmann on this conduct, it was now or never.

    Now, more critically, the long game.

    It is unusual for a one-count false-statement charge, which can be alleged in a paragraph, to be presented as a 27-page speaking indictment. But Durham wrote a highly detailed account of the facts and circumstances surrounding the false-statements charge. It is significant in that it tells us far more about his investigation.
    …
    So, the Clinton lawyers at Perkins Coie give information to Steele, who folds it into the collusion tall tale he presses on the FBI, without telling the Bureau that he’s working for the Clinton campaign (through his cut-outs, Perkins Coie and Fusion GPS). Simultaneously, the Clinton lawyers are getting suspect information from a cyber-exec client who is hoping for a big job in the anticipated Clinton administration, and one of the lawyers — Sussmann — presses it on the FBI while allegedly lying in order to conceal that he’s actually working for both the Clinton campaign and the selfsame cyber exec who’s hoping for a job in the Clinton administration.

    Meantime, having orchestrated the creation of all this smoke, the Clinton campaign exploits it to tell the media and the American people, “See, Trump is a Kremlin mole!”

    I suddenly think the eventual Durham report could be very interesting reading.

    *downloadable and printable pdf of indictment
    https://context-cdn.washingtonpost.com/notes/prod/default/documents/3203e975-c59b-42f1-b3c8-8a07e33b01d8/note/9901e223-403a-47ce-93e0-1d78a5ff6627.#page=1

    **that is, one containing far more allegations and alleged evidence than are needed to support the charges against the indictee.

  21. Clarice Feldman makes note of this about one of the players in the indictment,.
    https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2021/09/dirty_deeds_done_not_cheap.html

    Perkins Coie is involved in far more election shenanigans than this, including dozens of pre-election lawsuits to overturn election laws in 2020. Among those challenged by the firm was a Texas law to end straight-ticket voting. They persuaded a federal court judge to void the law on the ground that straight-ticket voting would “speed lines and reduce the risk of virus exposure.” The Fifth Circuit overruled her, noting, “the Legislature had passed the law, state election officials had planned for it, and that ‘courts should not alter election rules on the eve of an election’.” It denied the firm’s effort to supplement the record. Then the firm tried to hide from the Fifth Circuit that its second motion to supplement the record in that case was virtually identical to one the Circuit had already denied. So angry was the Circuit Court that it sanctioned the attorneys for filing “redundant and misleading” information on the case.

    If the ABA follows the lead of the Pulitzer Committee it will vouch for and honor this firm as Pulitzer vouched for and honored the media shills played by the firm on behalf of Hillary and her party.

  22. Don Surber’s take is always entertaining.
    https://donsurber.blogspot.com/2021/09/media-unindicted-co-conspirators.html

    The New York Times spun it as strictly partisan, billing its story, “Trump-Era Special Counsel Secures Indictment of Lawyer for Firm With Democratic Ties.”

    Not “Lawyer Charged With Misleading The FBI About Russiagate.”

    But why would NYT start being honest? You don’t get Pulitzers by telling the truth anymore. NYT won 2 Pulitzers for promoting Russiagate.

    Hamas-Shielding AP was even worse in its report, as it did not mention Hillary until Paragraph 4. Most news outlets ran just 3 paragraphs.

    Instead, AP continued to peddle its Fake News that Mueller somehow verified Russiagate, even though not one of his indictments was related to Russiagate.

    I will let readers decide how much AP lied in its first 4 paragraphs.
    …
    Let me be the first to say “Sussman did not kill himself.”

    Of course, Sussmann is just the fall guy who is taking one for the team.

    He’ll keep his trap shut because he knows Arkancide is real. Besides, he’s taken care of. Oh, he won’t get a book deal like Jimmy the Weasel Comey got for letting Hillary off the hook in her emailing of state secrets to Red China.

    Durham knows this. The deal is to go after the little guys first and work your way up to the statue [statute, but the typo is descriptive] of limitations expiring because, hey, Durham does not want anyone someday writing, “Durham did not kill himself.”

    For several years now, I have told readers, no excitement without an indictment.

    I looked at the indictment.

    I am unexcited because none of the co-conspirators — Hillary, Obama, Comey, and the media — were indicted.

    So we shall see if Andy or Don has the correct reading on Durham’s intent.
    Much as I like Mr. McCarthy, and appreciate his lawyerly expertise on the nuts-and-bolts, his track record of “reading” the character of the people involved in the entire Trump-Russia-Clinton triangle has not been accurate; too many of them were his good friends who were much too honorable to be involved in a shady partisan hoax aimed at destroying their opponent.
    He never let the revealed nefarious of one actor tarnish his affection for the others, until they too were unveiled.

  23. shipwreckedcrew on the the light shed by the Sussman indictmen on the Mueller investigation, Coie Pekins, Marc Elias, Andrew Weissman (and the wiped Smartphones), Clinton, Russiagate, FBI, etc., along with what the indictment may reveal down the road is a must.
    https://twitter.com/shipwreckedcrew
    (Will have to scroll down a ways.)

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

HTML tags allowed in your comment: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>

↑