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.
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?
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?
Yes; we both agree that's damned good proof, but his defenders have already trotted out a rationalization that he was just showing he was "accounting for his time," even though he wasn't *really* working on behalf of the campaign, and since it was supposedly a fixed price contract, it didn't affect what the campaign paid PC.
My argument is, even if were to accept that silly excuse, the fact that he directly communicated with the Hillary campaign is powerful circumstantial evidence he was working <i>de facto</i> for the campaign; otherwise, I assume the senior partners would have chewed his butt off for stepping over Elias and communicating directly with a client for whom he was putatively NOT working.
I doubt Sussmann himself--or, rather, his defense lawyers--would be stupid enough to try to go to trial with a claim like that. Durham surely has more that is in the indictment, including Sussmann's work with Fusion--which was working for Hillary.
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.
I'm gonna say, be cautious with that letter. My suspicion is that Ratcliffe has given an incorrect impression. Here's what I mean.
There's no question that Brennan informed Obama (and Biden) about what Hillary was up to. Depending on what he told them, that wasn't necessarily evidence of a crime. "Senior national security officials" is a bit vague. You might suppose that included James Comey--and maybe it did. We don't know. If Comey WAS in the know, that spells big trouble for him coming from Durham, because: Even if what Brennan told Obama and "senior NS officials" wasn't criminal, Comey would have been on notice from then on as to the likely partisan nature of any referral.
A month or so later, however, Brennan "forwarded an investigative referral" to Comey and Stzrok." I VERY MUCH DOUBT that Brennan included in his referral the words stating that Hillary was trying to distract the public by stirring up Trump Russia allegations. That wouldn't constitute an investigative referral against Trump--more likely against Hillary.
I think what Ratcliffe meant was that Brennan had referred for investigation allegations that revolved around the political ops Hillary was pulling and that Brennan had heard were part of the campaign strategy. If Brennan's referral to Comey had read the way Ratcliffe's letter seems to put it, I think Durham would have indicted Comey long ago.
As for Zhou hiring Sullivan, I opt for #1: he's brain dead. But what does that say about the rest of his staff?
Maybe I'm wrong re Brennan, but that's my inclination for now. The Dems wanted an FBI investigation, and telling the FBI in writing that Hillary was behind it would--or should--have had the opposite effect.
What's intriguing is Ratcliffe enclosed those passages in the letter in quotation marks. The implication is he's quoting what's in the underlying documents.
I understand that, but I won't believe that until I see the underlying docs. It doesn't make sense to me. If Brennan actually wrote that Jim Comey would have had to be insanely stupid to open an investigation. And he's not stupid.
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.
I started a similar comment then stopped. Something along the lines of Elias and Sussman increasing their life insurance policies if they are going to drop a dime on the Clinton Crime syndicate. And on the other point those controlling and thinking for Biden have Biden fire Durham or issue pardons before anything comes to light. A political price to be paid, but look what the media did to run interference for Biden last year with the Hunter shakedowns and the sexual assault allegation against senile Joe being pigeon-holed.
I find the timing of the sussman indictment curious and agree that the Xhou regime will not stand to be exposed so this is probably some cleanup in the Clinton aisle of the dem crime syndicate, how are we to know who is expendable and who isn't?, Whether ma and pa Clinton are still in the family or now outside. Might buttress Xhou to fry a Clinton or more realistically a clintonista. Might buttress the media, if that's even possible by now to fry FusionGPS and claim the media was "had" by them , might buttress Wray to fry Comey. The only way anything happens though, is if it is in some possible way advantageous to the regime.
I'm not convinced of that. Sussmann was still peddling his Alfa Bank hoax to the CIA in February, 2017. I think the timing of the indictment was probably more closely related to the end of the fiscal year.
It didn't have to be since they charged the visit to Baker. However, it was included in the indictment as part of the larger conspiracy. And indictments can be amended.
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.)
Yes to all three. Re #3, PC's main concern, as I noted above, is now their own survival. If he had admitted knowledge re Sussmann's actual activity that would implicate most of the top partners.
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.
Thanks--much appreciated. I've been following your commentary for a long time over at my former main site: https://meaninginhistory.blogspot.com/
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:
>> Quote:
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)." <<
https://www.justice.gov/sco/press-release/file/1433511/download
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?
The proof that Sussmann was working for the Hillary Campaign is that he BILLED the Hillary Campaign--including for his meeting with Baker.
Yes; we both agree that's damned good proof, but his defenders have already trotted out a rationalization that he was just showing he was "accounting for his time," even though he wasn't *really* working on behalf of the campaign, and since it was supposedly a fixed price contract, it didn't affect what the campaign paid PC.
My argument is, even if were to accept that silly excuse, the fact that he directly communicated with the Hillary campaign is powerful circumstantial evidence he was working <i>de facto</i> for the campaign; otherwise, I assume the senior partners would have chewed his butt off for stepping over Elias and communicating directly with a client for whom he was putatively NOT working.
I doubt Sussmann himself--or, rather, his defense lawyers--would be stupid enough to try to go to trial with a claim like that. Durham surely has more that is in the indictment, including Sussmann's work with Fusion--which was working for Hillary.
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.
I'm gonna say, be cautious with that letter. My suspicion is that Ratcliffe has given an incorrect impression. Here's what I mean.
There's no question that Brennan informed Obama (and Biden) about what Hillary was up to. Depending on what he told them, that wasn't necessarily evidence of a crime. "Senior national security officials" is a bit vague. You might suppose that included James Comey--and maybe it did. We don't know. If Comey WAS in the know, that spells big trouble for him coming from Durham, because: Even if what Brennan told Obama and "senior NS officials" wasn't criminal, Comey would have been on notice from then on as to the likely partisan nature of any referral.
A month or so later, however, Brennan "forwarded an investigative referral" to Comey and Stzrok." I VERY MUCH DOUBT that Brennan included in his referral the words stating that Hillary was trying to distract the public by stirring up Trump Russia allegations. That wouldn't constitute an investigative referral against Trump--more likely against Hillary.
I think what Ratcliffe meant was that Brennan had referred for investigation allegations that revolved around the political ops Hillary was pulling and that Brennan had heard were part of the campaign strategy. If Brennan's referral to Comey had read the way Ratcliffe's letter seems to put it, I think Durham would have indicted Comey long ago.
As for Zhou hiring Sullivan, I opt for #1: he's brain dead. But what does that say about the rest of his staff?
Maybe I'm wrong re Brennan, but that's my inclination for now. The Dems wanted an FBI investigation, and telling the FBI in writing that Hillary was behind it would--or should--have had the opposite effect.
What's intriguing is Ratcliffe enclosed those passages in the letter in quotation marks. The implication is he's quoting what's in the underlying documents.
I understand that, but I won't believe that until I see the underlying docs. It doesn't make sense to me. If Brennan actually wrote that Jim Comey would have had to be insanely stupid to open an investigation. And he's not stupid.
Gotta love the Crime-Fraud Exception to Attorney-Client Privilege.
And then their is this from the New Yorker courtesy of scumbag Jonathan Chait.
https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2021/09/durham-indictment-of-trumps-russia-enemies-is-falling-apart.html
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.
My guess is some low level scapegoats will be charged. The DARPA researches is my guess.
I hope I’m wrong.
I started a similar comment then stopped. Something along the lines of Elias and Sussman increasing their life insurance policies if they are going to drop a dime on the Clinton Crime syndicate. And on the other point those controlling and thinking for Biden have Biden fire Durham or issue pardons before anything comes to light. A political price to be paid, but look what the media did to run interference for Biden last year with the Hunter shakedowns and the sexual assault allegation against senile Joe being pigeon-holed.
I find the timing of the sussman indictment curious and agree that the Xhou regime will not stand to be exposed so this is probably some cleanup in the Clinton aisle of the dem crime syndicate, how are we to know who is expendable and who isn't?, Whether ma and pa Clinton are still in the family or now outside. Might buttress Xhou to fry a Clinton or more realistically a clintonista. Might buttress the media, if that's even possible by now to fry FusionGPS and claim the media was "had" by them , might buttress Wray to fry Comey. The only way anything happens though, is if it is in some possible way advantageous to the regime.
Recall Durham was running out of time with Sussman.
I'm not convinced of that. Sussmann was still peddling his Alfa Bank hoax to the CIA in February, 2017. I think the timing of the indictment was probably more closely related to the end of the fiscal year.
Feb 2017 hoax wasn’t part of the charge though.
It didn't have to be since they charged the visit to Baker. However, it was included in the indictment as part of the larger conspiracy. And indictments can be amended.
Well said.
They have the ability, to some degree, to sweep it all under the rug because of the media's silence.
But if that British actor / comedian is any indication, another layer of lefties are starting to notice and be bothered.
We may be thinking 'no sh!t Sherlock,' but it still matters.
And what kind of revelation is necessary to peel off the next layer of support, and the next...?
Three thoughts:
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.)
3 fronts. DARPA will go after Jaffe and G.T. Thieves too.
Yes to all three. Re #3, PC's main concern, as I noted above, is now their own survival. If he had admitted knowledge re Sussmann's actual activity that would implicate most of the top partners.
I remember how agitated he was about mail-in voting before the election. Afterwards, it was 'nothing to see here.'
With friends like these...