Several pundits have focused on almost exclusively on Michael Sussmann, a lawyer for the DNC doing the bidding of Hillary Clinton, indicted for lying to the FBI and ignored the more damning revelations contained in the indictment. John Durham has his sights on Hillary Clinton’s Campaign and those who enabled this false attack on Donald Trump.
One of the biggest clues is present on page 20 of the indictment:
Michael Sussman[ n] – Atty : [Law Firm- ] not doing this for any client Represents DNC, Clinton Foundation, etc.
Michael Sussmann was not licensed to practice law in Arkansas. The Clinton Foundation was and is based in Arkansas. How can a lawyer admitted to the bar in Washington, DC and New York carry out legal affairs for a 501 C3 corporation registered in Arkansas? That is one of the questions that Sussmann will have to answer. What was he doing for the Clinton Foundation in the District of Columbia when the Clinton Foundation has no legal foundation to operate in the District of Columbia?
Sussmann also was billing his time to Fusion GPS, which, according to the indictment, was acting as an agent for the Clinton Campaign:
Indeed, and as SUSSMANN concealed and failed to disclose, ( i ) SUSSMANN had spent time drafting one of the white papers he provided to the FBI General Counsel and billed that time to the Clinton Campaign, and (ii) the U.S. Investigative Firm – which at the time was also acting as a paid agent of the Clinton Campaign – drafted another of those white papers.
This is not an extraneous issue nor is it inconsequential. Sussmann was acting as an agent for the Clinton Campaign. This means the Clinton Campaign is in the cross hairs of John Durham.
Paragraph 33 of the indictment lays out the identities of the others implicated in this conspiracy:
Further demonstrating that SUSSMANN carried out the aforementioned work on behalf of his clients, SUSSMANN continued in the weeks following this meeting to coordinate with Tech Executive- 1, Campaign Lawyer- 1, and the U.S. Investigative Firm to disseminate the Russian Bank- 1 allegations to the media SUSSMANN continued to bill his time for such work to the Clinton Campaign.
Tech Executive is alleged to be Rodney Joffe of Neustar. Others have speculated it is Eric Schmidt, the former CEO of Google. Regardless, the Tech Executive is now a target of the investigation and will likely be indicted. The “Campaign Lawyer” is most likely Marc Elias, formerly a partner with Perkins Coie. The fact that Elias left Perkins Coie is unusual to say the least. And the “U.S Investigative Firm” is Fusion GPS. Durham’s team has not leaked a word about the legal status of these three entities. But based on Durham’s previous investigations of FBI corruption connected to the Whitey Bulger case, it is highly unlikely that he is ignoring their role in enabling this conspiracy.
The members of the Clinton Campaign staff implicated in this conspiracy are identified in paragraph 25e of the indictment:
On or about September 15, 2016, Campaign Lawyer-1 exchanged emails with the Clinton Campaign’s campaign manager, communications director, and foreign policy advisor concerning the Russian Bank- 1 allegations that SUSSMANN had recently shared with Reporter.
Robby Mook was Hillary’s campaign manager. Jennifer Palmieri was Hillary’s communications director. And Jake Sullivan was Hillary’s foreign policy advisor. We do not know if any of these three have been interviewed by Durham’s team. It would be shocking if they have been left alone. They are fact witnesses, at a minimum, to Sussmann’s alleged prevarications.
Finally, there is the CIA. While Durham’s indictment of Sussmann does not specifically identify the CIA, the language of the indictment points to my former employer:
In or about late 2016 and early 2017 Tech Executive- Originator- 1, and Researcher-2 continued to compile additional information and data regarding the Russian Bank-1 allegations, and gathered other purported data allegedly involving Trump- related computer networks and Russia (collectively , the “Updated Allegations ”). SUSSMANN would later convey these allegations to another U.S. government agency ( Agency – 2 ). doing so, and as alleged below, SUSSMANN repeated, in substance, the same false statement he had made to the FBI General Counsel that he was not acting on behalf of a client. . . .
On or about February 9 , 2017, SUSSMANN met with two Agency-2 employees (“ Employee-1” and “Employee-2 ) at a location outside the District of Columbia. At the meeting, the following , in substance and in part, occurred:
a. SUSSMANN stated falsely – as he previously had stated to the FBI General Counsel that he was “ not representing a particular client.” In truth and in fact, and as SUSSMAN had acknowledged to the Former Employee just days earlier, SUSSMANN was representing a client
b SUSSMANN disclosed that Law Firm- was active in representing several Democratic Party causes and officer-holders, including both the DNC and Hillary Clinton. SUSSMANN stated, however, that such work was unrelated to his reasons for contacting Agency . . . .
After the meeting with SUSSMANN, Employee- 1 and Employee- 2 drafted and revised a Memorandum for the Record that reflected the above- described statements by SUSSMANN.
Durham would not have included this information in the indictment if his team had not already interviewed the CIA employees and obtained the documentary evidence. My point in reviewing the details contained in the indictment is to emphasize that Durham and his team are not just looking at pursuing the lying charge against Sussmann. Something bigger is at play.
And for you skeptics (and you are fully justified to be skeptical), I hope to prove you wrong. However, if this turns out to be another failed attempt by Charlie Brown to kick the football, I will apologize for raising your hopes. Please understand this–I share your desire to see genuine justice done against those responsible for the coup attempt against Donald Trump.
