Doc Shipwreckedcrew Goes There: RICO!
I’m not sure what led SWC to write these two tweets up, but here they are:
All regular readers should be aware that I’ve been very adamant that I don’t see RICO at play in the Russia Hoax investigation—especially in response to commenter CTD. I don’t believe that SWC is suggesting that RICO is currently at play, either, nor that he wanted to get people’s hopes up. For RICO to be seriously at play I think there would have to be an expansion of Durham’s investigation beyond what we currently have any reason to believe is going on. Of course, there’s no harm in speculating.
What follows is an expansion of a comment that I wrote in a hurry this morning when commenter American Cardigan brought up the SWC’s tweets.
Don't jump the gun here on RICO. Please note the very tentative wording of what SWC is saying (in this composite quote):
moving in the direction of sniffing around the idea that either/or/both the Clinton campaign and the DNC were enterprises for purposes of RICO.
That's very, very tentative--a long way from seeking an indictment. Now, in my penultimate post, I stated that that is, in a sense, exactly what Durham is looking for: Durham is looking to secure cooperation from Sussmann that—in SWC’s exact words—
various activities taking place in 2016 and 2017 were organized and directed by high level members of the Clinton Campaign and DNC
What I had expressly in mind was that the decision to have Sussmann use his past relationship with the FBI’s James Baker to present the FBI with false statements (in the form of the Alfa Bank dossier) was almost certainly not one that Sussmann made on his own. Sussmann would have been all too aware of the legal implications—criminal liability—behind what he was doing. That’s exactly why Sussmann’s pitch to Baker was structured as non-clients wanting to “help the FBI”—to put Baker off the scent of a criminal conspiracy to use the FBI for political purposes. Durham has the documentation to show that Sussmann’s pitch was a complete lie, just as much as the Alfa Bank dossier was. I believe that a decision to risk criminal liability was not taken by Sussmann alone. I believe that the decision was made higher up—probably given a nod by Hillary herself—because the campaign believed Trump was truly within striking range. They thought this “dirty trick” could put Hillary over the top and so the risk would be worth it. But this went beyond “dirty tricks”, which is why Durham is still on the case.
But please note: None of what I’ve said to this point, and none of what SWC said to this point, brings RICO into play. Organization and direction of false statements to the federal government (18 USC 1001)—which is all Sussmann is charged with—is not a RICO predicate violation. (I won’t go into the full requirements for RICO here.)
Now, here’s the transition, in the second tweet, that gets SWC to the point of “moving in the direction of sniffing around the idea … of RICO.” SWC’s speculation here is preceded by a very important qualification:
To the extent the effort [i.e., of organization and direction] involved any violations of Sec. 1512 ...
What SWC says here presumes evidence for which we have no evidence at this point—that’s why he’s so tentative about “moving in the direction of sniffing around the idea … of RICO.” We do know there are witnesses who have been immunized but, as far as we know, those key witnesses in the Sussmann case (Marc Elias, Laura Seago) are not in hiding and have no special protection. It's a long way from proof--as far as we can tell.
This next is also important. 1512 is basically about obstruction of justice in some official proceeding. Would the Clinton org engage in such conduct? Sure—I believe it would, although what two practicing attorneys such as Sussmann and Elias would have done could be very different from what others in the Clinton org would have done. However, look at what's involved in a 1512 violation—all of this pertaining to an obstruction of an official proceeding:
*Whoever kills or attempts to kill another person*
*Whoever uses physical force or the threat of physical force against any person*
*Whoever knowingly uses intimidation, threatens, or corruptly persuades
So far in the Sussmann case we haven’t heard about attempts to kill or the use of physical force or the threat thereof. If any of that had occurred, that might very well lead Durham to either take special and extraordinary measures (witness protection) or proceed immediately to legal action against the perps. We haven’t seen that.
When we get to “corruptly persuades” we may be nearer SWC’s mark. There is this provision:
(c)Whoever corruptly—
(1)alters, destroys, mutilates, or conceals a record, document, or other object, or attempts to do so, with the intent to impair the object’s integrity or availability for use in an official proceeding; or
(2)otherwise obstructs, influences, or impedes any official proceeding, or attempts to do so,
So far we’ve seen lots of redaction, lots of privilege claims—all efforts to withhold evidence—but to my knowledge we haven’t seen actual alteration or destruction of records in the Sussmann case. Obviously, my knowledge isn’t coextensive with Durham’s, but neither is SWC’s knowledge—and that, again, is why SWC’s statements in these tweets are hedged with cautionary wording. “Moving in the direction … of RICO” would depend on circumstances that we can only speculate about, because “organization and direction”—and proof of that beyond a reasonable doubt—would be a factor. At this point, as far as we know, Durham isn’t there. I would expect Sussmann and Elias to have been very careful to avoid implication in any 1512 violations, and especially with someone as skilled and experienced as Durham. No doubt Durham and his team are scrutinizing everything carefully, but until we have more to go on we need to leave it there.
We’re not at RICO. To this point, Durham has centered his case on a conspiracy theory which--as you can see from the jury instructions, as quoted in the penultimate post--is far easier to prove and far more flexible in bringing pressure on members of the conspiracy.
Now, a note on Seth Rich.
So far the only killing that could be connected to a case in which Sussmann has been involved would be the Seth Rich murder. We’ve seen no evidence of progress on that front, but of course that doesn't mean Durham doesn’t have an interest there. My view is that I’m very suspicious about the Seth Rich case. It looks like a hit job. On the other hand, organized crime families that require the services of highly skilled lawyers usually insulate those lawyers from knowledge of such activities. For that reason I’m skeptical as to tying Sussmann to the Seth Rich killing. I’m also skeptical of finding the actual perps, no matter how strong the circumstantial evidence may be that Rich’s death was a targeted killing. Getting to proof beyond a reasonable doubt is the problem. Not moral certainty.
What was Peter Strzok’s role? Why was he tasked with Hillary’s email case and responding to press inquiries about the Rich murder - something that it seems ordinarily would be handled by the DC Field Office?
Sussman knows that suicide is always an option were he to try pleading out and testifying.