Vigilant News

Eternal Vigilance is the price of liberty.

Law

Michael Sussmann Found “Not Guilty”

By ,

Ryan DeLarme,
May 31st, 2022

A federal jury has found former Hillary Clinton campaign lawyer Michael Sussmann not guilty of lying to the FBI.  The verdict came midway through the second day of deliberations following a two-week trial on a single count of making false statements to a federal agent.

The prosecution sought to prove that Sussmann deliberately lied to then-FBI general counsel James Baker by claiming he was not acting on behalf of the Clinton campaign while providing him with data he said supported an alleged secret communications channel between the Russian Alfa Bank and the Trump Organization.

This “backchannel” was allegedly connected to the Kremlin.

The trial was held in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia before Judge Christopher Cooper and lasted 11 days, that is including jury selection and deliberations.

The Sussmann trial is only the first in Durham’s probe, which was created to look into the origins of the now-debunked Russia collusion plot.

“While we are disappointed in the outcome, we respect the jury’s decision and thank them for their service,” Durham said after the verdict. “I also want to recognize and thank the investigators and the prosecution team for their dedicated efforts in seeking truth and justice in this case.”

Prosecution attorneys said during the trial the material was “pure opposition research” and that Sussmann wanted an “October Surprise” in the 2016 presidential race.

Durham argued that Sussmann, who at the time was also a private attorney, was working on behalf of two clients, the Clinton campaign and former tech firm executive Rodney Joffe, when he presented Baker with two computer thumb drives of data and whites papers that Sussmann said support an alleged connection between the organization and the bank, which has connections to the Kremlin.

The next Durham probe trial will be in October in Virginia, this time for Igor Danchenko, a Russian analyst who is also accused of lying to the FBI in connection with the collusion plot.

Techno Fog: Day 2 of the Michael Sussmann Trial

By ,

Via Techno Fog’s SubStack:

Day 2 of the Michael Sussmann trial started with some housekeeping. Here are the rulings of note:

  1. Robby Mook, who has a scheduled vacation in Spain, will testify on Friday. He’s a defense witness.
  2. Evidence of Steele’s meetings with Sussmann and Fusion GPS in July 2016, and his tasking to conduct research on Alfa Bank, according to the judge, “can come in.” The judge observed they are “relevant to Mr. Sussmann’s activities for the campaign and his attorney-client relationship, as far as it went, with the campaign as it relates to Alfa-Bank.”

Onto the witnesses. We start with the short testimony of Deborah Fine.

Fine began working for the Hillary Clinton Campaign (aka Hillary for America) as “one of several deputy general counsels” in May 2016. She answered to Marc Elias, the campaign’s general counsel.

After being presented with calendar entries confirming her daily calls with Fusion GPS, she testified that she worked with them as “part of my work for the campaign.” In fact, she regularly interacted with Glenn Simpson and co-founder Peter Fritsch. Fine conceded that Fusion GPS were seemingly free to conduct research on their own, stating she “personally didn’t direct them” to accomplish specific tasks.

On cross-examination, she admitted she didn’t know if Marc Elias spoke to anyone else at the Clinton Campaign about the activities of Fusion GPS. She was out of the loop regarding efforts to bring the Alfa Bank allegations to the NY Times or to the FBI.

Testimony of Laura Seago

Laura Seago worked with Fusion GPS back in 2016, where she reported directly to Fritsch and Simpson. She has been granted immunity by the Special Counsel for her testimony. She understood Marc Elias to be the Fusion GPS contact for the Clinton Campaign.

Seago stated she was present at a summer 2016 meeting with “Mr. Elias, my colleague Peter Fritsch from Fusion GPS, Mr. Sussmann, and Mr. Sussmann’s client Rodney Joffe.” As to the nature of that meeting:

“The general purpose, to the best of my recollection, was to discuss allegations of communications between the Trump organization and Alfa-Bank.”

Once the Alfa Bank allegations were developed, Seago met with journalist Franklin Foer (who would write the October 31, 2016 Alfa Bank article in Slate). The purpose of that meeting was to discuss “the allegations of communication between the Trump Organization and Alfa-Bank.”

They sold Foer on the Alfa Bank data at that meeting, telling him there were “highly credible computer scientists who seemed to think that these allegations were credible.” These “credible computer scientists” would ultimately be cited in Foer’s article. She admitted that Fusion GPS did nothing to validate the DNS records – something she said was “beyond my capabilities.”

Seago was walked through a number of e-mails she had with Joffe and other members of Fusion GPS. Some of these were privileged (the Joffe e-mails) so the Special Counsel was unable to discuss with Seago the contents. However, she did know about the contents of the Joffe e-mails generally:

Finally, she admitted to understanding whose interests were served by planting the Alfa Bank story.

Now we get to Marc Elias.

Elias meets weekly with Fusion GPS at his office. Typically Peter Fritsch and Glenn Simpson would be in attendance. Generally, those meetings involved discussions of Elias’s “needs” and Fusion GPS’s “work” – which included what Elias described as the “unusual connections” the Trump Campaign had with Russia. They would also report to Elias on their findings related to Trump during the election.

Notably, Elias mentioned Jake Sullivan as someone at the Clinton Campaign who knew about the Trump/Russia research (though there is uncertainty as to whether Sullivan knew about Fusion’s activities). Elias would give the campaign these updates.

A brief aside: Jake Sullivan’s wife is Margaret Goodlander – who serves as counsel to Attorney General Merrick Garland. We understand that she has not recused herself from anything having to do with the Special Counsel’s investigation. We further understand that Goodlander is keeping close tabs on Durham’s investigation. We’ll report on that down the road…

Anyway, Elias also testified that the Clinton Campaign paid them (Perkins Coie) a “flat fee” for their legal services. Why is this important? Because it explains why Sussmann would block the bill the Clinton Campaign (see tweet below). (“Block billing” is having a multi-hour entry with a generalized description. Example: “6.5 hours on a confidential project.) For flat-fee work, attorneys are generally allowed block billing because the client isn’t paying the hourly rate.

Read Techno Fog’s full article here.

No Oversight: Who Does the FBI Really Work For?

By ,

Ryan DeLarme

The FBI has had a pretty murky track record in recent years, leading many to wonder if the domestic intelligence service still works with the best interest of the American people in mind. Whether it’s hatching the plot to kidnap Michigan Governor Gretchen Whitmer or helping to orchestrate and execute the January 6th photo op, it’s starting to appear as though the Bureau’s become a tool of the political elite.

There’s new evidence coming out suggesting that the FBI has been warped into something far-flung from its original purpose, operating by its own rules with seemingly no oversight from anyone. Inspector General Michael Horowitz recently issued a new report on the FBI’s execution of the Woods Procedures for Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) applications, and it has been called “damning”.

Last year, Horowitz reviewed 29 random FISA applications and found that the FBI was “not meeting the expectations of its own protocols.”

The FISA court has a questionable track record for excusing government misconduct as was recently displayed by the sentencing of FBI lawyer Kevin Clinesmith. After he went to great lengths to lie to a federal court and, when caught, lied by saying he didn’t really intend to lie; Clinesmith received only a year of probation. Many have been left wondering what such leniency says about the FISA Court’s “heightened duty of candor” If there aren’t heightened punishments for violating that duty.

The FISA abuse scandal isn’t the only negative press currently directed at the FBI. During a recent Senate Judiciary hearing on how the FBI failed to investigate alleged sexual abuse by former USA Gymnastics doctor Larry Nassar, Senator Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) interrupted the proceedings when he reported that the FBI had failed to respond to the Republican Senator’s letters and also that,  they had declined to meet with him “month after month, year after year, at any time for any reason”. This is significant considering that Grassley is a ranking member of the Judiciary Committee and has been for a long time.

According to Senator Grassley:

“I’ve asked Director Wray several times to meet with me relating to a very troubling briefing that I received in August 2020 from the FBI and which was later weaponized against my and Senator Johnson’s oversight. Director Wray and his staff have ignored my request to meet.”

In short, a ranking member of the Judiciary Committee can’t get the FBI to meet with him. This begs the question: does Congress have any real oversight on the FBI? Does the Bureau serve the American people or only select establishment politicians?

Senator Grassley has recently released a letter that offers some insight to the average American citizen as to how our government really works.

On August 6, 2020, we received a briefing from the FBI which, according to the FBI, was done in conjunction with the Intelligence Community (IC). This briefing was done because of political pressure from Democratic Leadership, not because of any real threat.

We have asked to meet with FBI Director Christopher Wray to discuss our concerns and have requested records relating to the briefing; however, he and his Chief of Staff, Corey Ellis, have refused to answer our communications and have failed to provide any answers or information.

FBI leadership’s failure to respond to congressional inquiries not only undermines the FBI as an institution, it also undermines the work of its dedicated agents and staff.

On July 13, 2020, Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, Senator Mark Warner, Speaker Nancy Pelosi, and Representative Adam Schiff sent a letter, with a classified attachment, to the FBI to express a purported belief that Congress was the subject of a foreign disinformation campaign.

In that letter, which was publicly released on July 20, 2020, they requested a briefing on foreign efforts to interfere in the 2020 U.S. presidential election. The classified attachment included unclassified elements that, among other things, attempted — and failed — to tie our joint investigation into the Biden family’s foreign financial deals to foreign disinformation.  

So, Schumer, Warner, Pelosi, and Schiff were trying to slow down Grassley and Johnson’s “joint investigations into the Biden family’s foreign financial deals.” How did the Democrats do it? By using their go-to strategy of leaking to their allies in the corporate media of course. The letter continues:

Then, on May 1, 2021, the Washington Post reported on “an extensive effort by the [FBI] to alert members of Congress…that they faced a risk of being used to further Russia’s attempt to influence the election’s outcome[.]”

This statement was attributed to “several current and former U.S. officials” who remained anonymous “because the matter remains highly sensitive.”

The article then inaccurately proceeded to link Russian disinformation attempts to our investigation, which was based on Obama administration government records and records that showed extensive financial connections between the Biden family and questionable foreign nationals, including individuals connected to the communist Chinese government’s military and intelligence services.

The Washington Post reporting purported to be based, in part, on an August 6, 2020, briefing that we received from the FBI, which, as the timeline above illustrates, happened in response to pressure from Democratic Leadership. The briefing was not specific. Moreover, it consisted primarily of information that we already knew and information unconnected to our investigation.

We made clear to the FBI briefers on August 6, 2020, that the briefing was not relevant to the substance of our work.

We also made clear our concern that the briefing would be subject to a leak that would shed a false light on the focus of our investigation. Indeed, the Washington Post article did exactly that and so did the other inaccurate media articles.

During your review of Crossfire Hurricane, you identified that counterintelligence briefings for Trump campaign officials were used by the FBI as intelligence gathering operations, concerns that we raised with the Justice Department on April 25, 2019, after we discovered text messages between Peter Strzok and Lisa Page. Specifically, Peter Strzok was primarily responsible for assisting the FBI agent that would be at those briefings.

In response to your findings, Director Wray established new protocols for these transition briefings to keep potential political considerations out of the decision-making process. Specifically, Director Wray noted that these briefings “should be for national security purposes and not for investigative purposes.”

Senator Grassley and Senator Ron Johnson were credited with the discovery of the now famous text messages between FBI agents Peter Strzok and Lisa Page as well as discovering that Strzok was the one of the crooked agents who used intel briefings to spy on Trump  in 2019 prior to being fired. Director Wray promised to put a stop to these phony briefings that end up getting leaked to the media, yet it happened again to Grassley and Johnson last year while investigating “the Biden family’s foreign financial dealings”.

This information is compelling regardless of which side of the political aisle one falls on. When senators start informing the people during public hearings in Congress that the FBI is setting them up with fake briefings and then stonewalling them once caught, it makes one wonder whether or not Congress is actually in charge anymore. If the FBI can engage in this sort of activity against ranking members of the Judiciary Committee, the mind shudders to think of what they might do to the average citizens of our diminishing republic.