Marc Elias Testified Before Durham's GJ

Jan 26

Well, we don’t know the details. It’s fact that Dem super election lawyer and Hillary adviser Marc Elias was subpoenaed to testify before Durham’s grand jury. We know this from Durham’s filing in which he asks for more time to provide discovery documentation to Michael Sussmann’s lawyers. Unfortunately we can only speculate as to what transpired before the grand jury. What’s certain is that Durham believed that Elias had information of relevance to his ongoing Russia Hoax investigation.

It’s possible that Durham considers Elias to be no more than a witness—although I personally doubt that. Elias was too high up in the Hillary campaign and too close to Michael Sussmann to be ignorant of the Russia Hoax aspects of the campaign. I’m convinced of that. After all, the Russia Hoax was in the MSM. Elias had to be aware of that and, as any competent lawyer would do, would ask to know what was going on—presuming that he didn’t already know. And that’s a stretch.

That means that in all likelihood Elias is in Durham’s crosshairs. And that can only mean that Durham is targeting key figures—the inner circle—of the Hillary campaign. People like Jake Sullivan, Robby Mook, Jen Palmieri. And then there’s Hillary. Did Elias take the Fifth before the grand jury? Has Elias made a deal? Is Durham currently pressuring him to make a deal?

Techno Fog has a rundown on the list of witness transcripts and other evidence that Durham is working on turning over to Sussmann’s lawyers and has some comments on what he thinks it means:

Durham: DNC lawyer Marc Elias has given grand jury testimony
And - the criminal investigation of Sussmann is ongoing.

Before we go there, however, let’s take a look at the witness list, because I think I can fill in a few names. Bear in mind, Durham will be trying to keep disclosures to Sussmann’s lawyers to a minimum at this point. That is very likely the reason the indictment of Sussmann was very narrow—focusing strictly on Sussmann’s false statements to FBI General Counsel James Baker regarding the Alfa Bank Hoax. At this point Durham will only be disclosing material relevant to that one charge, rather than the full range of the Russia Hoax.

So, here are our witnesses (for other materials consult either the original filing or Techno Fog’s summary). They come in two overlapping (in parts) categories. Persons interviewed by the FBI/Durham and witnesses who testified before the grand jury—my edits are in ALL CAPS. I’m assuming that “the FBI’s Russian Bank-1 investigation” refers to the investigation of the Alfa Bank:

b. 94 Reports of Interview [FD-302s, in FBI parlance] prepared by Government investigators in connection with the Special Counsel’s Investigation, including but not limited to interviews of the following witnesses:
i. JAMES BAKER the former FBI General Counsel to whom the defendant made the alleged false statement;
ii. BILL PRIESTAP a former FBI Assistant Director for Counterintelligence who took notes reflecting the defendant’s alleged false statement;
iii. PROBABLY TRISHA ANDERSON a former FBI Deputy General Counsel who took notes reflecting the defendant’s alleged false statement;

This is interesting. Was Anderson present with Baker and Sussmann, or did she take notes based on Baker’s contemporaneous retelling of what transpired in the meeting?

iv. more than 24 other current and former FBI employees;
v. two former employees of the government agency referred to in the Indictment as “Agency-1;”
vi. eight current and former employees of the government agency referred to in the Indictment as “Agency-2;”
vii. eight current and former employees of the company referred to in the Indictment as Internet Company-1;
viii. four current and former employees of the companies referred to in the Indictment as Internet Company-2 and Internet Company-3;
...
g. transcripts of sworn grand jury testimony by the following witnesses (along with their accompanying Grand Jury Exhibits):
i. JAMES BAKER the above-referenced former FBI General Counsel;
ii. BILL PRIESTAP the above-referenced former FBI Assistant Director for Counterintelligence;
iii. PETER STRZOK a former FBI Deputy Assistant Director for Counterintelligence;

There could be another DAD for CI who was involved in some way, but for now I’ll stick with Strzok as the likely suspect.

iv. an FBI Special Agent who served as case agent for the FBI’s Russian Bank-1 investigation;
v. an FBI Headquarters Supervisory Special Agent assigned to the Russian Bank-1 investigation;

This SSA was probably working for Peter Strzok.

vi. two current employees of Agency-2;
vii. MARC ELIAS the attorney previously employed by Law Firm-1 who is referred to in the Indictment as “Campaign Lawyer-1;”

Note that Elias did not submit to an FBI interview but was subpoenaed before the grand jury.

viii. two current or former employees of University-1; and
ix. a former employee of Internet Company-3.

Now for Techno Fog’s take.

First, Techno Fog sees that Durham is seeking to limit what he has to turn over to Sussmann’s lawyers, but makes an important comment:

While Sussmann has been charged with giving false statements to then-FBI General Counsel James Baker regarding the Alfa Bank/Trump Organization hoax (background here), Durham notes that the “Government also maintains an active, ongoing criminal investigation of” Sussmann’s conduct.
In other words, Sussmann’s criminal conduct likely is not limited to false statements. There is more. If we are to make an educated guess, it may have to do with the conspiracy to accuse the Trump Organization of having secret back-channel communications with Alfa Bank. We discussed the potential for a conspiracy charge here.

I would simply add that, while this observation is absolutely logical, Durham’s investigation is likely not limited to the Alfa Bank Hoax issue. There are other aspects of the Russia Hoax that Sussmann may have also been involved in—for example, the targeting of Carter Page in the Steele “dossier”. I’m speculating, of course, but the speculation is logical enough.

Second, Techno Fog considers what the nature of Elias’ grand jury testimony may have been:

While we expected some grand jury testimony, the fact that Mark [sic] Elias, the DNC/Clinton lawyer, was before a grand jury is certainly newsworthy. It’s possible that Elias’s testimony was limited to Sussmann’s involvement in the Alfa Bank hoax. As we previously noted, the Sussmann indictment provided that Durham obtained e-mails between Elias and Sussmann regarding the Alfa Bank allegations.
But consider the possibility that Durham has used the “crime-fraud exception” to compel disclosure of information and to elicit testimony.

Here I’m not willing to draw the conclusions that Techno Fog does from these circumstances. The “crime-fraud exception” would be useful for obtaining evidence, but in a criminal grand jury context testimony cannot be “compelled.” If questioned on these issues, Elias could have taken the Fifth (assuming there was no deal).

Techno Fog’s conclusion is this:

All this leads us to believe that Durham is focused on something more substantial than the false Alfa Bank allegations - perhaps the inception of it all: the claim of Russian hacking. As we have said before, consider the possibility that evidence of “Russian hacking” was placed by the DNC, Perkins Coie, et al. for Crowdstrike to conveniently “find.”

I find it highly probable that Durham is pointing toward far more wide ranging indictments than simply those involving the Alfa Bank Hoax—based on the circumstances of Elias’ testimony as outlined above. My working assumption is that Sussmann basically reported to Elias, who was central to the Hillary campaign itself. Sussmann’s close working relationship with Glenn Simpson and Fusion-GPS (for whom, note well, Chris Steele worked) suggests that Elias would be aware of the details of the “dossier”, which leads to the Carter Page FISA. That is also where the Danchenko leads—very directly. But these are matters that I assume Sussmann would have discussed with Elias. My working assumption for investigative purposes—I’d need to be convinced otherwise.

I’ll leave this topic with a bit of suggestive snark:

Dr. Shipwreckedcrew.substack.com @shipwreckedcrew

What will be the impact on Michael Sussman's voting rights if he convicted of a felony for which you are likely an unindicted co-conspirator (for now)?

Marc E. Elias @marceelias

Looking forward to discussing the fight for voting rights and democracy with @Acosta at 9pm! https://t.co/mABB0A4lzE

For right now, I’d say Marc Elias is in a very hard place (as Sergeant George would say). Not too long ago I might have said that Elias was the biggest fish that Durham had in his sights. That just shows what outside the loop speculation is worth.