Rep. Matt Gaetz: DNC Law Firm Perkins Coie Admits It Has FBI Workspace in Its DC Office and Michael Sussmann was Operating the Worksite A partial transcript appears at TGP, which I’ve linked above. The video above contains a few important items not mentioned in the partial transcript: This information was provided by a “whistleblower”--which, as we all know, is a legal designation and status that is defined by statute; the information was imparted to Jim Jordan as well as to Matt Gaetz; Gaetz and Jordan have written a letter to Chris Wray demanding an explanation.
It's not over till it's over, but I'm inclined to think that yes, it's over, and it's been over all along. The only lesson to be drawn here is that in the unlikely event the Republicans ever hold the White House again, the first, and most urgent order of business will be to purge the three letter agencies of every trace of the political opposition. Otherwise, they will simply be subverted and undermined as Trump was.
The Durham investigation will end up making, at most, a valuable contribution to the historical record, and it may serve as a warning for future would be reformers as to exactly what they will be up against. But I think any effort to prosecute the perpetrators of the Russia hoax is futile, at least for the foreseeable future.
Before Baker retired to be head legal council at Twitter, he reached out to Sussman for a job with Perkins Coie. Wonder if he did a bad job at FBI or if Sussman wasn’t able to go for a promotion. And then all the drop boxes Marc Elias sued for. And the FBI setting up J6 protestors. Sounds like FBI all the way down.
Dunno, but the question that comes immediately to mind is: Was Sussmann, like Joffe, a CHS for the FBI? Sussmann has a background in national security and cyber law, in addition to election law. But that doesn't mean that his cooperation with the FBI would be pigeonholed under one category. It would be an incredibly useful way to push "narratives"--complete with names and suggested investigative targets--to the FBI. So, pointing the FBI in certain directions re election investigations?
Good questions. It's a confusing situation, and yet ...
The strategy of the Russia Hoax was time conditioned--they had to get action from the FBI pretty much immediately. Going through channels isn't the way to make that happen, especially when the whole case would be questioned every step of the way up the ladder (a case that sensitive would have to go to the top). So, it would make sense to go to the Director's lawyer in those circs.
Re Durham, I'm not sure. Such information isn't divulged, even to prosecutors, without a very compelling reason. It's not clear to me that CHS status would have any relevance at the trial. Even if Durham would have known of it, he wouldn't have known the full extent of Sussmann's activities--only very narrowly re what was relevant to the case.
The other alternative, of course, remains: special employee, which is not at all a normal status.
As I say, it's a puzzling situation and I'm not dogmatic about it because it's totally out of the ordinary.
It's not over till it's over, but I'm inclined to think that yes, it's over, and it's been over all along. The only lesson to be drawn here is that in the unlikely event the Republicans ever hold the White House again, the first, and most urgent order of business will be to purge the three letter agencies of every trace of the political opposition. Otherwise, they will simply be subverted and undermined as Trump was.
The Durham investigation will end up making, at most, a valuable contribution to the historical record, and it may serve as a warning for future would be reformers as to exactly what they will be up against. But I think any effort to prosecute the perpetrators of the Russia hoax is futile, at least for the foreseeable future.
Do you think the FBI agents get paid extra to be criminals? Or do they do it for free out of loyalty to the DNC?
Before Baker retired to be head legal council at Twitter, he reached out to Sussman for a job with Perkins Coie. Wonder if he did a bad job at FBI or if Sussman wasn’t able to go for a promotion. And then all the drop boxes Marc Elias sued for. And the FBI setting up J6 protestors. Sounds like FBI all the way down.
PC new legal name is Dewey, Cheatem, and Howe.
Look at that. Explains Obama’s millions of dollars payments to PC. Ethics police available?
Unbelievable.
Interesting this came out after the verdict, and has been going on for 10 years.
I look forward to the spin!
…as in “there’s no “there” there!
Maybe to better organize stealing elections?
Dunno, but the question that comes immediately to mind is: Was Sussmann, like Joffe, a CHS for the FBI? Sussmann has a background in national security and cyber law, in addition to election law. But that doesn't mean that his cooperation with the FBI would be pigeonholed under one category. It would be an incredibly useful way to push "narratives"--complete with names and suggested investigative targets--to the FBI. So, pointing the FBI in certain directions re election investigations?
If Sussmann were a CHS, why didn't he submit his Alfa Bank Hoax material via his handler, rather than going to Baker?
Also, wouldn't Durham's inquisitors have discovered that relationship during the run up to the Sussmann trial?
Good questions. It's a confusing situation, and yet ...
The strategy of the Russia Hoax was time conditioned--they had to get action from the FBI pretty much immediately. Going through channels isn't the way to make that happen, especially when the whole case would be questioned every step of the way up the ladder (a case that sensitive would have to go to the top). So, it would make sense to go to the Director's lawyer in those circs.
Re Durham, I'm not sure. Such information isn't divulged, even to prosecutors, without a very compelling reason. It's not clear to me that CHS status would have any relevance at the trial. Even if Durham would have known of it, he wouldn't have known the full extent of Sussmann's activities--only very narrowly re what was relevant to the case.
The other alternative, of course, remains: special employee, which is not at all a normal status.
As I say, it's a puzzling situation and I'm not dogmatic about it because it's totally out of the ordinary.
Way beyond my pay grade. To use a hackneyed cliche