Chris Wray Was Asked About Michael Sussmann--Not Good

I want to recommend to your attention an article at Red State that is highly suggestive of a rotten relationship between Michael Sussmann and the FBI:

Christopher Wray's Recent Evasions on Michael Sussmann Start to Make Sense After Shocking Report From Tucker Carlson

Not surprisingly, what we get here are mostly questions rather than answers, but those questions help to narrow our focus.

The article provides a 5 minute video of Chris Wray, Director FBI, being questioned by Sen. John Kennedy. Not long ago I took Kennedy to task for his dumbass statements regarding Russia, while at the same time noting that Kennedy is actually not dumb at all. This video bears that out. Kennedy is on to something here. He knows it and Chris Wray knows it, and Kennedy is probably not exposing the full extent of his knowledge.

Last night I raised the question of whether Sussmann may have been a CHS for the FBI. Overnight I recalled another possibility. Readers may recall that Jim Comey, disgraced former Director FBI, made his private legal adviser a “special employee” of the FBI—unpaid, apparently, but with full access to FBI database access. I’m not clear whether these two options are exclusive. Normally, an FBI employee would never have the status of a CHS, but I just don’t know how that would apply to a “special employee.”

In Kennedy’s questioning Wray is asked whether Sussmann had a “special badge” giving him access to FBIHQ. Something similar to that is referenced by Donna Brazile in her memoirs. In Brazile’s account this is simply a matter of Sussmann (and others) having an ongoing security clearance, but the point about Kennedy’s question is this: Wray refuses to answer it. If Kennedy’s question could have been deflected by simply explaining that Sussmann—like other former DoJ employees—retained a security clearance badge—Wray would have put that issue to rest. He didn’t. In fact, all of Kennedy’s questions are simple and all could have been answered, as the article notes. Something’s up with this. Wray knows that if he tells the full truth about Michael Sussmann’s relationship with the FBI it could be SHTF time.

Here’s a brief excerpt, including the video—of which really only the first half is directly informative. Follow the link above for more discussion. As you read and listen, remember that this special relationship with Perkins Coie dates back to 2012, before the Hillary investigations began:

… it seems as if the FBI has a lot of questions to answer. Why would a government agency choose to continue operating inside a law firm that represented Hillary Clinton even as she was under active investigation? Remember, the FBI actually did “investigate” her over her illegal email server. Did no one see that as a conflict of interest at the time? Certainly, it was a conflict of interest to become so closely connected to Sussmann.

In other words, the FBI is not innocent here, and I believe last week’s exchange between Sen. John Kennedy and FBI Dir. Christopher Wray suddenly makes a lot more sense.

If you watch the video, what you’ll see is Kennedy asking Wray directly whether Sussmann had a badge that gave him special access to the FBI HQ. Instead of answering that incredibly simple question, Wray deflects, claiming that he can’t discuss it because it’s an ongoing case and he wants to “do things the right way.”

But what does that question have to do with the case against Sussmann, which ended some days after this exchange? The answer is that it has nothing to do with it. Wray could have absolutely answered the question without interfering in the trial but chose not to. Ask yourself why he didn’t.

…

Again, nothing Kennedy is asking in any of these exchanges has to do with Sussmann lying to the FBI, therefore, it’s a stretch to suggest he can’t discuss these matters. Wray could have easily answered the questions presented to him without conflicting with anything Durham was doing.