Readers may recall that in the past Shipwreckedcrew speculated that Michael Sussmann (and potentially others in the Clinton Campaign’s Russia Hoax conspiracy) may have been fingered by Marc Elias—Sussmann’s fellow law partner at Perkins Coie. Well, they
I like the way this guy thinks. Happy to be a subscriber and I suspect we'll be writing based on the thinking of each other in the future.
Check out Elias' twitter feed @marceelias - he's going full bore, perhaps to save himself by helping another Dimm victory. All those lawsuits require serious funding.
Regarding folks cooperating, he left PC with the entire Political Law group (although PC's website still notes another 21 lawyers with political law expertise) -
how many of that group would cooperate to keep their careers intact and their butts out of federal incarceration?
And another intriguing detail:
Look at what I found in the Sussmann indictment:
25 e. "On or about September 15 , 2016, Campaign Lawyer-1 exchanged emails with the
Clinton Campaign's campaign manager, communications director, and foreign policy advisor
concerning the Russian Bank-1 allegations that SUSSMANN had recently shared with Reporter-
1. Campaign Lawyer-1 billed his time for this correspondence to the Clinton Campaign with the
billing entry , "email correspondence with [name of foreign policy advisor], [name of campaign
manager], [ name of communications director] re: [Russian Bank-1] Article." ( emphasis added)." <<
I think this is very important. It may be one of the smoking guns that proves Sussmann was working on behalf of Hillary's campaign, and thus lied when he claimed he was not acting on behalf of any client by bringing the Alfa Bank info to Baker at FBI.
It's a subtle but important point: I believe the standard attorney protocol would be if an attorney at the firm gets info from HIS client (TECH EXEC-1) that could be useful for another lawyer's client (Elias -- Hillary Campaign) that he would send the info to the attorney of record at the firm for THAT client (Elias.) Directly sending the Alfa Bank DNS info to the Hillary campaign manager, communications director, and foreign policy advisor violates that protocol, and the only circumstance under which it would be tolerated would be if the second attorney is ALSO working on behalf of the first attorney's client, as well as his own.
Moreover, how would Sussmann know who to send the info to, unless he's actively working on the behalf of the client (Hillary's campaign?) Also, if Sussmann is NOT working on behalf of Hillary's campaign, then how would his communications to and from the campaign and anyone else involved be "privileged?" If he's not an attorney working on behalf of the client, the client has no privilege, or so it would seem to me.
Furthermore, why did he choose to include Jake Sullivan as one of the recipients? Jake was a foreign policy advisor to Hillary's campaign. Why would dirt on Hillary's opponent fall into his bailiwick? It's not foreign policy related. One reason for including Sullivan in distribution of the email would be if Sussmann knew Sullivan was the architect of the "smear Trump with Russia Collusion Hoax." Other than that, it makes no sense; Sussmann, if he were oblivious to what's going on inside the campaign, would simply send it to Elias and tell him to pass it along to the client if it would be of interest, or if Elias told him to send it directly, it would be to the campaign manager, who then would decide who inside the campaign it should be forwarded to.
But that's NOT what Sussmann did ... taken as a whole, in addition to the billing records showing Sussmann repeatedly charged his time to Hillary's campaign's charge number, these actions betoken an attorney who is working on behalf of that client. It also suggests he has knowledge of Sullivan's role in planning/overseeing the Trump/Russia smear operation -- why else would he have included him?
More food for thought:
>> https://twitter.com/lawyer4laws/status/1444695118297042949/photo/1 <<
This documents the fact that the Obama WH (including Biden) was made aware of the possibility that Hillary's campaign was behind all the Russia/Trump Collusion noise, in the Summer of 2016, and that Comey and Strzok were notified by an official referral from CIA to FBI in early September. How could FBI take Steele dossier bullshit and Sussmann's Alfa Bank DNS data seriously in light of this knowledge?
How could Biden then make Jake Sullivan, architect of the the Hillary campaign's plan to smear Trump with false Russia Collusion allegations while feeding it concurrently to both FBI/CIA and the news media, his National Security Adviser, when Sullivan was VP Biden's National Security Adviser while working on the very plan to smear Trump during the 2016 election campaign? (I think most people forget that Sullivan was wearing two hats in the summer of 2016; foreign policy adviser to Hillary's campaign, AND NSA for VP Biden!)
Biden is either brain dead, or he was in on the whole scheme from day one. (Or both.)
This also raises the possibility that Jake Sullivan, in his capacity as the VP's NSA, used his authority to obtain passport info on "Micheal Cohen's" travel to Prague in the summer of 2016, which is prominently featured in the Steele Dossier, though it was later determined that it was the wrong "Michael Cohen," not Trump's personal attorney with the same name who was accused in the Steele Dossier of being Trump's bag-man in a meeting with Russian IC officials in Prague, coordinating the cover-up of the hoaxed collusion.
He could have passed the info directly to Sussmann (or Elias) at PC, who passed it along to FusionGPS, who passed it along to Steele for the fabrication of yet another Trump/Russia Collusion hoax link in the Dossier. Alternatively, Sullivan could have passed the info to someone in the Hillary's Campaign, in which he was concurrently working as foreign policy adviser, (Podesta, or an underling who was wired into the Sullivan-conceived plan to smear Trump,) who then passes the info on to FusionGPS, and thence to Steele.
Gotta love the Crime-Fraud Exception to Attorney-Client Privilege.
And then their is this from the New Yorker courtesy of scumbag Jonathan Chait.
As much as I would love to see the lid blown off of this and midnight swat team arrests, I can't help but think it is just window dressing and I'll tell you why: assuming the truth of the allegations in the Sussman indictment, anyone paying attention is inevitably going to ask the million dollar question. If HRC and crew were able to pull off the Alfa Bank fairytale, why would any rational person believe that Crowdstrike was honest and that the DNC's server was "hacked by Russia"? Per the indictment, given the obvious computer expertise available, the apparent gullibility (feigned or not) of the two letter agencies involved coupled with the murder of Seth Rich and Mueller's inexplicable failure to interview Assange, it is hard to imagine how this question doesn't come up. If it does, the entire house falls and any predicate excuse for the warrantless surveillance and spying on a rival political campaign vanishes. This cannot be permitted because if it is actually exposed, the Constitutional crisis it would trigger would unprecedented.
I'm sitting here thinking that we'd have a different president and AG if this hadn't taken Durham 800 plus days to get to this point. Which makes me wonder what the lightening bolt is that ultimately makes all this go away for the Democrats? Because I am still not buying that this can actually be followed to its logical end point. There will be a spate of suicides first.
1) we can't rule out the possibility of a whistleblower -- someone we haven't heard of before -- coming out of Perkins Coie, revealing to Durham what he needs to know to target documents and records with his subpoenae. Someone who knows where the bodies are buried, but wants to not end up in jail or join them in the ground ... This scenario, BTW, opens the door to Durham laying a trap for Perkins Coie by subpoenaing documents that he already knows exist. If PC fails to deliver them under the GJ subpoena, he will then have grounds to walk into PC with a search warrant, and find the documents. I have felt since the moment I heard Sussmann was being indicted that one purpose of the charge was to "shake the tree" to see what falls out. A whistleblower/cooperating witness(es) is one possibility of what fell out of the tree when Durham shook the crap out of it.
2) the significance of the DARPA cooperation in regard to this is potentially enormous, IMHO. If the GA Tech researchers falsely billed time to the DARPA contract when they were in fact digging for dirt on Trump and his pals in the DNS data, (and/or illegally used data provided under the contract for non-contract purposes,) Durham has them over a barrel in a big way, and even worse, they are facing legal expenses on TWO fronts: Durham and Alfa Bank's civil case against FusionGPS. Joffe can afford that sort of double-barrelled legal expense, but I doubt the researchers can. My guess is these people may hate Trump, but they would hate prison even more, and thus will sing like canaries for Durham, if they haven't already.
They are not "G. Gordon Liddy Memorial Stubborn/Obstinate/Uncooperative Defendant" nominees who are willing to take a long prison sentence in order to not be a "rat." And if they roll over on Joffe, as SWC has pointed out, Joffe isn't going to trade in his retirement as a multimillionaire for a cozy cell in a miserable Fed penitentiary for 5-20 years, so he rolls over on the next guy up the food chain (Sussmann, Elias, FusionGPS folks, and perhaps Dan Jones?)
This appears to be the most straight forward conspiracy case Durham can make to break the little people to rat out the leaders of the conspiracy.... that we know of at the moment.
3. Managing partner at PC threw Sussmann under the bus in the NYT piece, quoted as reiterating a previous statement by PC that Sussmann's meeting with Baker at FBI was on behalf of a client NOT associated with the DNC or Hillary's campaign when he turned over the overcooked Alfa Banks DNS data and white papers. But that is as much as stipulating that Sussmann is guilty of the 1001 charge, because he claimed he wasn't representing ANYONE (and the billing records contradict that it wasn't for Hillary's campaign.)