DNC Hack Redux

In Which I Admit A Major Mistake

Today at the American Spectator George Parry, a former prosecutor, takes another look at the so-called DNC email “hack”—you known, the one that Russians are supposed to have done back in April, 2016. Parry revisits this notorious can of worms in light of John Durham’s indictment of Michael Sussmann. Sussmann is the former Perkins Coie partner who worked closely with computer security firm Crowdstrike with regard to the alleged “hack”, and in that capacity he also interfaced fairly extensively with the FBI. While we don’t know everyone that Sussmann may have spoken with at the FBI, I think we can safely assume two things—at least as working hypotheses:

1. Sussmann was dealing with top level people at the FBI, simply because of the sensitive nature of the whole matter—allegations that a significant and hostile foreign power was interfering with in US politics in a presidential election year; and

2.  There is at least a probability that some of the people at the FBI who were involved in this DNC matter were later involved in Trump - Russia matters.

If you’re looking for a nice summary of the DNC “hack” story, Parry has it for you—up to the point at which the inevitable question arises: If it wasn’t the Russians, then who was it? That question must wait for Parry’s next installment. Here’s the link:

John Durham and the Mysterious DNC Email Hack

If as is likely the DNC’s server wasn’t hacked by the Russians, who was behind the inside job and why?

Parry begins with a timeline of significant events, first noting the relevant paragraph from the Sussmann indictment:

“[i]n or about April 2016, the Democratic National Committee (“DNC”) retained Sussmann to represent it in connection with the hacking of its email servers by the Russian government. In connection with his representation of the DNC as the victim of the hack, the defendant met and communicated regularly with the FBI, the DOJ, and other U.S. government agencies. In or around the same time period, Sussmann was also advising the Clinton Campaign in connection with cybersecurity issues.”

So what is the significance of that averment and why was it included in Sussmann’s false statement indictment?

You can refer to Parry’s article for most of the details. The important part for our purposes is this.

When Crowdstrike—co-founded by former FBI guy Shawn Henry—was hired to deal with the DNC “hack” at the end of April, 2016, he wasn’t hired by the DNC. Instead he was hired by Sussmann and Perkins Coie, to advise them on how to advise the DNC, whom Sussmann and Perkins Coie represented. Got that? Shawn Henry/Crowdstrike examined the DNC server but they reported to Sussmann—not to the DNC. As Parry points out, this was a well thought out legal strategy to thwart most efforts to learn about the “hack”. The DNC would not be privy to the details, except to the extent that they received advice from Sussmann. The details would be covered by attorney - client privilege—Crowdstrike being simply a contractor to Sussmann, the DNC’s attorney.

As we know, the DNC refused to provide the FBI with direct access to the server, even though the entire case could be considered to be a highly critical national security matter. The DNC’s refusal was presumably based on advice from its lawyer, Michael Sussmann, and neither the FBI nor DoJ pushed the issue.

Now, this is the point at which the Sussmann indictment becomes relevant. It wasn’t just a matter of the DNC telling the FBI to go pound sand. Instead, Durham pointedly informs us:

In connection with his representation of the DNC …, [Sussmann] met and communicated regularly with the FBI, the DOJ, and other U.S. government agencies.

Well, when Durham says that Sussmann “met and communicated regularly” with those government agencies, we know that what he really means is that Sussmann met and communicated with specific persons who have names. The fact that Sussmann isn’t described as dealing with the FBI’s Washington Field Office or the DC US Attorney’s Office is a clue that he was dealing with high level officials at those agences—the FBI and DoJ. My guess with regard to the FBI would be people like James Baker, Peter Strzok, and Bill Priestap. There might be others, but I strongly suspect that Sussmann would have insisted on people at that level. A clue in that regard is that a few months later Sussmann was able to call Baker and arrange to meet him personally, one on one. As for DoJ, without being familiar with the NS chain of command, the name David Laufman occurs to me. Possibly Bruce Ohr, as well. Sally Yates or Mary McCord are other possibilities. All were later involved in various aspects of the campaign against the Trump presidency.

Parry is clearly suggesting that Durham’s inclusion of the “averment” in the Sussmann indictment regarding the DNC “hack” points toward a broader context in a broad conspiracy. The other possibility is that it simply demonstrates Sussmann’s familiarity with FBI personnel (but then why include “DOJ, and other government agencies”?), but I’m gonna go along with what I believe Parry intends. (See here for at least some related earlier material.)

Where Parry leaves us is with this question:

So what did Perkins Coie and the DNC allow Henry to tell the HPSCI about CrowdStrike’s findings?

I’m betting ‘not very much.’

Now, my admission of fault.

Parry has a lot more material in his article than what I’ve just discussed. For example, he reviews the involvement of Bill Binney and VIPS in disputing the claim that ‘the Russians did it.’ He also gets into the issue of the intelligence referral to the FBI regarding Hillary Clinton’s plan to distract voter attention from her email problems as SoS by manufacturing a Trump - Russia story—or, rather, by approving Jake Sullivan’s scheme to do that.

Within the last week or so I expressed some skepticism that John Brennan—as stated by John Ratcliffe—had actually made a referral that actually named Hillary Clinton. It appears that I had that totally wrong. To show that, I’ll quote Parry at some length in this regard, because it’s important to get this right:

On July 28, 2016, CIA Director John Brennan briefed President Obama on an alleged plan by Hillary Clinton to tie Trump to Russia as “a means of distracting the public from her use of a private email server” ahead of the upcoming presidential election.

Brennan’s handwritten notes (which were not declassified until 2020) state, in part, the following:

We’re getting additional insight into Russian activities from [REDACTED]…CITE [summarizing] alleged approved by Hillary Clinton a proposal from one of her foreign policy advisers to vilify Donald Trump by stirring up a scandal claiming interference by the Russian security service.

Similarly, on September 7, 2016, U.S. intelligence officials made an “investigative referral” to FBI Director James Comey on Hillary Clinton for allegedly approving “a plan concerning U.S. presidential candidate Donald Trump and Russian hackers hampering U.S. elections” in order to distract voters from her email scandal.

Nothing ever came of this referral.

During a 2020 hearing before the Senate Judiciary Committee, when asked about the referral on Clinton, Comey said it didn’t “ring any bells.”

“You don’t remember getting an investigatory lead from the intelligence community? September 7, 2016, U.S. intelligence officials forwarded an investigative referral to James Comey and [Peter] Strzok regarding Clinton’s approval of a plan [about] Trump … as a means of distraction?” Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) asked Comey.

“That doesn’t ring any bells with me,” Comey replied.

“That’s a pretty stunning thing that it doesn’t ring a bell,” Graham said. “You get this inquiry from the intelligence community to look at the Clinton campaign trying to create a distraction, accusing Trump of being a Russian agent or a Russian stooge.”

Graham added, “How far-fetched is that?”

This entire episode adds fuel to the idea that Durham’s reference to the DNC hack is a clue that Durham’s conspiracy case theory stretches far beyond Sussmann supposedly fooling James Baker one time.  It may include a coverup of the truth about the DNC “hack” as a prelude to the Alfa Bank hoax and the entire Russia Hoax. That investigative road may well begin with the fact that there is bound to be a “paper” trail for that investigative referral. I’d be very surprised if Durham has not long since had a heart to heart with the people at both ends of that referral—perhaps not Comey, the big fish, but Strzok? Comey could be in big trouble if Lindsey Graham’s skepticism is shared by John Durham—and if there’s a paper trail to connect Comey.