Huge Sussmann Analysis Dump Chez SWC

Shipwreckedcrew has been uncharacteristically quiet regarding the Sussmann indictment—until this evening. It seems he’s been reading and rereading the indictment, thinking through some of the ramifications, and maybe talking to friends. 

In any event, he went on a toot this evening, spurred—it seems—by a (somewhat uncharacteristically) cordial exchange with Stephen McIntyre. Here’s the McIntyre tweet that got SWC going—he’s referring to the Sussman indictment:

Stephen McIntyre

@ClimateAudit

·Sep 16

I'm a bit slow with this thread as I'm digesting it in real time. Each page has fresh surprises and hard to do justice to it. I encourage everyone to read it.

From there SWC saddles up and covers a number of topics related to the Sussmann case. He also endorses another Tweeter’s views, and I’ve included that fairly extensive thread, as well. 

So, here goes—I’ve edited it to make it a semi-continuous ramble.

SWC starts off with a general observation about what he believes to be Sussmann’s state of mind. Remember, Sussmann has seen this coming, probably for at least several months:

shipwreckedcrew.substack.com

@shipwreckedcrew·

2h

There is no greater motivating factor in the world of white collar crime than the prospect of losing everything you have built for yourself and your family, and heading into a prison. Drug traffickers and violent criminals know the risk of prison is always present.

That sometimes makes them brave and they simply take the hit.

Sussmann isn't taking the hit for anyone. If he's going down, so is everyone else that had a role on the scheme.

What SWC is saying here has particular application to conspiracies. If Sussmann were the sole criminal, he’d have no choice but to fight to the end on his own—or give up and plead for mercy. But as a co-conspirator he may have some options. It all depends on who has already cooperated with Durham. The shape of the indictment—a single charge—suggests that Durham is willing to listen to Sussmann. Durham may believe Sussmann has value to offer.

With that in mind, SWC responds to a question from a commenter: “Which federal crimes do you suspect were violated other that the false statement?”

The indictment reads like overt acts for an obstruction case.

There will be more on that below.

Next he responds to another commenter who attempts to tweak him about Clinesmith getting off so lightly:

They learned all they needed to learn from Clinesmith. He was a functionary, not a decision-maker. He's given statements and probably testified before a grand jury. Whether he spent time in jail or not is irrelevant.

Next SWC turns to conspiracies, prompted by a thread by Kingmaker. I insert Kingmaker’s thread:

*************

Kingmaker - Big IF! (True)

That the Sussmann indictment is an undisguised signal that conspiracy charges are soon to follow is transparent in the first few paragraphs of the indictment. One need not read past page one to understand where Durham is heading. All unlawful conspiracies have an object or purpose.

For example, a group of criminals might meet one night to plan to rob a bank the next day. When the robbers get caught and charged with conspiracy, the charging papers will describe the object of the conspiracy to be the robbery of the bank.

In the Clinton Campaign conspiracy, the object or purpose was successfully obtained beyond the wildest dreams of any of the conspirators. Durham begins the Sussmann indictment with a description of the success achieved by the conspiracy: Paragraph 1 describes and quotes from a NY Times article in October 2016, which asserts that agencies of the federal government have received and are investigating evidence that the Trump organization has been making secret back channel communications to a Russian bank. Durham describes not only the object of the conspiracy, but its successful achievement of the conspiracy’s primary purpose.

The object never was that Trump would ultimately be prosecuted for crimes he was framed for. Rather, this was always about the narrative and the press—something that the indictment stresses again and again. The Clinton Campaign wanted a friendly press not only to publish the fake narrative, but they needed the reporting to allude to the criminal or national security investigation by the FBI and other agencies. The fact of such an investigation served two ends: The narrative would have more gravitas, thereby casting Trump in a hugely suspicious light, and the fact of an investigation gave the press they may have needed to publish the uncorroborated reports.

Durham’s indictment skillfully lays out this plan, and it places Sussmann at the center of inducing The FBI to launch an investigation, and then to immediately carry the fact of the investigation to a compliant press. This was not a one-man show, which is why there are many in Washington who are not sleeping very well right now.

**************

SWC is all on board with all of the above

Kingmaker has this exactly correct.

I think this is going to end up as a 1519 conspiracy -- to knowingly falsify a document or entries therein for the purpose of influencing a federal investigation -- existing or contemplated.

This particular aspect involved knowingly creating false documents containing manufactured data intended to influence the FBI into starting an investigation of Trump and Trump Inc. They likely could have avoided criminality if they had tried to push the info straight to the press.

But they pushed it to the FBI so that press would have the investigation to report, and not just the claims created by the false data.

Don't lose track of the FBI report that it was known that this was hatched by the Clinton Campaign to distract from the investigation of her.

She never expected she would lose the election in the end.

When she did, Comey served as a firewall -- wittingly or unwittlingly remains to be seen -- but he was replaced by the Mueller SCO.

I suspect that SWC believes that firing Comey was a tactical mistake by Trump—it led to worse. OTOH, Mueller led to Durham. There never would have been what we’re seeing now without the Comey firing and the subsequent standing up of the Mueller SCO. It all follows:

The wildcard in the end was Barr.

He gave us Durham.

Durham's not done.

Now SWC gives some thought to the Mueller SCO and its failure to follow its mandate—and he raises a question that could scare the pants off anyone who was on Team Mueller. Recall, above, SWC maintained that Durham got everything he wanted from Clinesmith, and Clinesmith was on Team Mueller, privy to much that was going on. Pay attention to SWC’s reasoning here. What he’s saying is this:

Mueller was tasked with examining all things Russia and Trump—so, obviously Alfa Bank, right? Mueller dismissed that as “not true.” Now, that was the pretty swift conclusion of the FBI, so perhaps he just followed their conclusion. OTOH, suggests, SWC, maybe somebody warned Mueller to keep the whole Alfa Bank thing at arms length, don’t reopen examination of it—because it will lead to Hillary. That last part is me. That would be the reason for Mueller to stay clear of Alfa Bank.

A friend poses an interesting question to me offline:

If the Mueller SCO was tasked with examining ALL connections between Trump and Russia, why didn't they figure out the Sussmann enterprise?

Given what Durham alleges, the failure of the partisan Democrat dominated Mueller SCO to look into this in any respect takes on new implications. Are there comms anywhere warning select individuals in the SCO to avoid going down that road because of where it would take them?

Publicized allegations of comms between a suspect Russian bank and Trump Inc. could have been written off by the Mueller SCO ONLY if someone gave them a reason. Such allegations were exactly in the heart of what the Mueller SCO was tasked to examine.

Funny how quiet the Mueller SCO members have been the past several months, even with a Democrat DOJ to shelter them from harm.

Funny how none ever joined Perkins Coie.

Now SWC looks at some nuggets in the indictment:

Always pay attention to language in indictments set forth in quotation marks.

That is all.

When an indictment says that a defendant worked on a particular document on day 1, and then worked again on that document on day 2, that means the prosecution has the meta data for that document. That likely means the prosecutor has the computer that was used.

That is all.

A lot of people have wondered whether Garland can just shut Durham down. SWC doesn’t think so. Moreover, for all who think this conspiracy will be tried in DC, the indictment suggests otherwise—this is SWC’s closing shot:

Another buried tidbit in the Sussmann indictment.

Its not for nothing that Durham states at Par. 42 that Sussmann repeated his false statement to employees of Agency 2 on Feb. 9, 2017, "at a location outside the District of Columbia."

1. Extends SOL on conspiracy. [to at least February, 2022]

2. Takes venue outside. [outside DC]

3. Is another substantive "false statement" count.

4. Explains why only this one count is charged -- had to be charged by 9/19, and had to be charged in DC because that's where the meeting with Baker took place.

AND

5. All acts by anyone involved from earliest date in this indictment to at least 2/7/17 are within the scope of the conspiracy--maybe longer--meaning Durham's got a lot more time to work with.

6. This indictment gives him some seriously thick armor against Garland interference.

You can have venue in any federal district where an overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy took place. The only venue for the false statement charge is where it was made -- DC.

But Agency 2 is likely CIA, and they are in Virginia. Therefore, venue can be in EDVA.

Food for thought. Actually, February isn’t so far away—although that’s probably not a deadline written in stone. Nevertheless, I suspect we can expect the public pace of Durham’s activity to quicken now.