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:
Today Greenwald has a post on this Sussmann stuff, with such gems as:
"Isikoff, to his credit, has repeatedly admitted that much of what they "reported” — in partnership with MSNBC and much of the rest of the liberal media — was false, though Corn never has and almost certainly never will)...."
GG here has links to GG and Taibbi tweets, on Isikoff etc.
And, GG continues, "But the FBI, still under the command of former director Jim Comey, chose to say nothing about its findings which debunked the Trump/Alfa-Bank fraud. "
Too bad GG didn't immediately stress how different this was, from Comey's unprecedented presser on how HRC had been cleared on the email server matter.
Yeah, yeah. I remember the good, old days when SWC was a must read about Russia collusion and related stories. And then... his analysis slowly morphed into a labyrinthine apologia for the DoJ. Evidently his sources told him to back off if he still wanted access to them. Or something. Now I never pass up an opportunity to avoid reading his inside baseball pulp. He's going to need to get a lot of things right about these latest developments (such as the are) before I resume reading his pieces. In the meantime, I appreciate your willingness to do so on our behalf, Mark
I can't see Durham backtracking into Muller or diving much deeper in any direction.
All sides obey the DC rule of... "Cover thy precious institutions at all costs".
Not buying Hillary either... that's a dog that's failed to hunt for 35+ years.
We've seen this reading between the indictment lines thing happen so many times now on so many government related cases. Why would the long history suddenly change such dramatic course?
I'll chalk this up to great litigation showmanship and needing a enticing ending.
As you know, I thought Durham was serious about Mueller, then was disappointed. It remains that he may have his sights on the SCO. Remember, we know he got cooperation from Barnett and Clinesmith. This time, I'll be cautious.
Interesting factoid: Andrew Weissmann's twitter posts stop suddenly with no explanation around 10 July of this year (I just checked.)
I wonder how that comports with the timing of Perkins Coie losing the subpoena suppression battle with Durham, though it might be on account of something else we do not know about or even suspect.
Funny you should mention that. I've been wondering about whether Durham had found any comms between W'stein and persons of interest. Remember, W'stein spent several years as top legal guy at FBI under Mueller, he also met with Steele, Strzok, Page and others in context of CP FISA pre-election and was criticized for that by OIG. What else?
Obstruction is what I was thinking, too, but I am no lawyer. Creating and passing off fake info to get an investigation going is obstruction of the investigation you got going in the first place. Petard, meet, Ass.
One thing that SWC alludes to without explaining in detail is that the data used to created the Alfa bank back-channel narrative, which they gave to the FBI on thumb drives, appears to be fake.
One clue to this comes from a story written some time ago that I somehow missed -- Cody Shear's dossier contains an virtually identical claim about a computer back channel with cut-out story, that Shearer attributes to Bob Baer, the former CIA dude. But what most people don't know is Baer heard about it from NYTs reporters who asked him if he knew anything about it, which he repeated to Shearer IN MARCH OR APRIL 2016, months before Tea Leaves and pals even began looking at or noticing the "suspicious" Alfa bank DNS queries.
IOW, the story was being shopped to sympathetic journos at the NYT long before any "internet researchers" even noticed anything of interest, and the earliest "suspicious" DNS ping apparently did not occur until May 2016, long after Baer heard about this from the NYTs reporters.
This lends credence tho the theory that there was a front end to this caper -- somebody set this up and cued up the researchers to look for data that likely was being spoofed, according to some who have examined the data.
That's how SWC comes up with the Obstruction conspiracy. They falsified documents/data related to andinvestigation they sought to instigate via the spoofed data, and bogus interpretation of it. And that, according to SWC, gets you Obstruction.
The question is who did the spoofing; it doesn't appear to be Tea Leaves and pals.
BTW, is it my imagination, or did the usual sources of snide remarks -- Comey, McCabe, Lisa Page, Strzok -- suddenly loses their voices simultaneously, and nary a one has commented on Sussmann's indictment? You don't suppose their collective silence is "upon advice of counsel"?
That silence speaks volumes, doesn't it?
IIRC Marc Elias has conspicuously also ignored Sussmann's indictment, while tweeting about everything ELSE under the sun. Do pleas agreements include a requirement for cooperating witnesses to keep their mouths shut until the final indictments fly?
Today Greenwald has a post on this Sussmann stuff, with such gems as:
"Isikoff, to his credit, has repeatedly admitted that much of what they "reported” — in partnership with MSNBC and much of the rest of the liberal media — was false, though Corn never has and almost certainly never will)...."
GG here has links to GG and Taibbi tweets, on Isikoff etc.
And, GG continues, "But the FBI, still under the command of former director Jim Comey, chose to say nothing about its findings which debunked the Trump/Alfa-Bank fraud. "
Too bad GG didn't immediately stress how different this was, from Comey's unprecedented presser on how HRC had been cleared on the email server matter.
Yeah, yeah. I remember the good, old days when SWC was a must read about Russia collusion and related stories. And then... his analysis slowly morphed into a labyrinthine apologia for the DoJ. Evidently his sources told him to back off if he still wanted access to them. Or something. Now I never pass up an opportunity to avoid reading his inside baseball pulp. He's going to need to get a lot of things right about these latest developments (such as the are) before I resume reading his pieces. In the meantime, I appreciate your willingness to do so on our behalf, Mark
Yeah I had him 1 and 9 (Wins/Losses) from a year ago.
Durham didn't kill himself
Funny how Perkins Coie has bee chasing "stateless entity" thru the courts
I can't see Durham backtracking into Muller or diving much deeper in any direction.
All sides obey the DC rule of... "Cover thy precious institutions at all costs".
Not buying Hillary either... that's a dog that's failed to hunt for 35+ years.
We've seen this reading between the indictment lines thing happen so many times now on so many government related cases. Why would the long history suddenly change such dramatic course?
I'll chalk this up to great litigation showmanship and needing a enticing ending.
As you know, I thought Durham was serious about Mueller, then was disappointed. It remains that he may have his sights on the SCO. Remember, we know he got cooperation from Barnett and Clinesmith. This time, I'll be cautious.
Interesting factoid: Andrew Weissmann's twitter posts stop suddenly with no explanation around 10 July of this year (I just checked.)
I wonder how that comports with the timing of Perkins Coie losing the subpoena suppression battle with Durham, though it might be on account of something else we do not know about or even suspect.
Funny you should mention that. I've been wondering about whether Durham had found any comms between W'stein and persons of interest. Remember, W'stein spent several years as top legal guy at FBI under Mueller, he also met with Steele, Strzok, Page and others in context of CP FISA pre-election and was criticized for that by OIG. What else?
UPDATE:
https://twitter.com/danielchaitin7/status/1431715273443262465
Weissmann left the law firm he joined after leaving Mueller's SCO. Report of departure was on 26 August.
Sussmann and Elias (and a dozen others from PC) are out. Now we discover Weissmann left the firm he joined only 18 months ago???
I wonder how many target letters Durham has issued ....
;-)
Could be something else, of course, but suggestive ...
Tx
Yes; what else, indeed! The fact he clammed up on twitter in mid-summer is "interesting."
I assume you mean "Weissmann" when you type "W'stein" ...
FWIW, Brandon Van Grack continues to tweet, but has made only ONE snarky comment re: an article on Sussmann's indictment.
Van Grack was probably more narrowly focused on Flynn, compared to W'stein having broader interests on SCO team that go back pre-election.
Team Mueller wiped their phones… hence covering up their tracks with Alfa et al.
It remains to be seen what modern forensics has up its sleeve.
Especially if he has those conversations from other phones. Then he could add 'destroying evidence..'
Obstruction is what I was thinking, too, but I am no lawyer. Creating and passing off fake info to get an investigation going is obstruction of the investigation you got going in the first place. Petard, meet, Ass.
I hope the above analysis is right, especially on the DOJ not shutting down Durham.
That was deeply satisfying!
One thing that SWC alludes to without explaining in detail is that the data used to created the Alfa bank back-channel narrative, which they gave to the FBI on thumb drives, appears to be fake.
One clue to this comes from a story written some time ago that I somehow missed -- Cody Shear's dossier contains an virtually identical claim about a computer back channel with cut-out story, that Shearer attributes to Bob Baer, the former CIA dude. But what most people don't know is Baer heard about it from NYTs reporters who asked him if he knew anything about it, which he repeated to Shearer IN MARCH OR APRIL 2016, months before Tea Leaves and pals even began looking at or noticing the "suspicious" Alfa bank DNS queries.
IOW, the story was being shopped to sympathetic journos at the NYT long before any "internet researchers" even noticed anything of interest, and the earliest "suspicious" DNS ping apparently did not occur until May 2016, long after Baer heard about this from the NYTs reporters.
This lends credence tho the theory that there was a front end to this caper -- somebody set this up and cued up the researchers to look for data that likely was being spoofed, according to some who have examined the data.
That's how SWC comes up with the Obstruction conspiracy. They falsified documents/data related to andinvestigation they sought to instigate via the spoofed data, and bogus interpretation of it. And that, according to SWC, gets you Obstruction.
The question is who did the spoofing; it doesn't appear to be Tea Leaves and pals.
Very interesting.
BTW, is it my imagination, or did the usual sources of snide remarks -- Comey, McCabe, Lisa Page, Strzok -- suddenly loses their voices simultaneously, and nary a one has commented on Sussmann's indictment? You don't suppose their collective silence is "upon advice of counsel"?
That silence speaks volumes, doesn't it?
IIRC Marc Elias has conspicuously also ignored Sussmann's indictment, while tweeting about everything ELSE under the sun. Do pleas agreements include a requirement for cooperating witnesses to keep their mouths shut until the final indictments fly?
Nope. The silence is deafening.