When Michael Sussmann Says, 'Jump!' ...

Does the FBI ask, How high?

This question is prompted by revelations that came out at the recent Sussmann trial. What became very clear during the trial was that the FBI-as-victim narrative was a bit of a legal fiction that John Durham deployed for the purposes of the trial. The reality that emerged for all the world to see is that the FBI’s top management was complicit in the Russia Hoax that Michael Sussmann was purveying.

One example that became public at the trial was an email exchange between Sussmann and the Jim Trainor, the Assistant Director of the FBI’s Cyber Division. The email exchange took place in the context of the so-called DNC “hack” and the FBI’s attempt to explain to the MSM what actions they were taking.

To appreciate this email exchange fully you have to think back to that whole episode. The supposed “hack” of the DNC became a key part of the Russia Hoax narrative, and has remained so to this day—fundamental dogma, so to speak. Further, the FBI’s attempts to investigate the supposed “hack” and find the perpetrators was greatly hampered by the refusal of the DNC to give the FBI access to the actual DNC server or even to the unredacted report that the private Crowdstrike firm wrote. That refusal was the work of the DNC’s lawyer—none other than Michael Sussmann!

Another aspect to bear in mind is that even an FBI Assistant Director doesn’t just up and issue public statements about high profile cases. The FBI, like every other government bureaucracy, has press offices that handle those things. So, you can bet that AD Trainor’s statement for release to the media was not simply his idea. It had to have been cleared at various levels and through various offices within the FBI’s organizational structure. Given the high profile nature of this case one would suppose that Comey and Andy McCabe were involved in the decision process.

Various accounts of this email exchange have been “out there” on the internet. I’ll draw on two.

First, the FBI had made a few early statements to which Sussmann took umbrage. These are explained in this Epoch Times article:

FBI Altered Statement On Intrusion Into Democrat Server Based On Input From Democrat Lawyer

What you’ll see here is that the FBI initially pursued a logical investigation—making it their top priority to obtain the best evidence or, failing that, at least an unredacted version of the Crowdstrike report. Again, think about that. The FBI is being blocked from conducting basic investigation, and when they persist Sussmann pushes back:

The DCCC and the DNC hired CrowdStrike, a private cybersecurity firm, to investigate and remediate the network intrusions. The FBI conducted its own investigation, relying on server images and reports produced by CrowdStrike, with Sussmann playing as the singular point of contact representing the DNC and the DCCC, according to another email introduced during the trial.

The CrowdStrike reports sent to the FBI were partly redacted. An email addressed to Sussmann by an FBI agent indicated that receiving the non-redacted versions of the reports was the top priority for the bureau. According to a previous filing by the Department of Justice in the case against Trump associate Roger Stone, the bureau never received the unredacted reports. The FBI has rejected Freedom of Information Act requests for the documents.

My guess? Those documents that the FBI won’t release probably feature Sussmann telling the FBI to take their requests and shove ‘em. Note in what follows the apologetic and conciliatory tone Trainor adopts in response to Sussmann’s pushback. Obviously Trainor had been told to placate Sussmann, to do as Sussmann tells him to do. Who gave those instructions to Trainor? No wonder the FOIA request was rejected.

Other missives entered during Sussmann’s trial showed the lawyer becoming upset after the bureau announced that it was investigating the reported intrusion into the DNC network.

Sussmann messaged Trainor, questioning the “significance of this announcement” and requesting the bureau consult beforehand with him before making public statements about the DNC case.

Trainor apologized, agreeing that when the FBI makes statements “we need to be in lock step with victims and partners.”

A law enforcement agency in “lock step with victims and partners”? Excuse me, law enforcement doesn’t work for victims. It may sound harsh, but the reality is that law enforcement agencies are part of the government and represent the interests of the government in enforcing the laws. It’s up to the citizenry to hold the government’s feet to the fire and ensure that the government’s interests represent the best interests of the citizenry. No law enforcement agency should ever be in the position of being in “lock step” with people who come in with a complaint or allegation, blindly accepting their version of what happened. That’s just asking for trouble.

Trainor said the statement was an attempt to “respond in a more authentic way” and that the bureau intended to “be equally cooperative partners as we navigate this matter.”

“Thank you for that explanation. You can understand how the statement was confusing to us,” Sussmann said. “Please try to keep us informed if the FBI says anything else publicly about its investigation.”

Translation:

Trainor: May I please kiss your ass?

Sussmann: Yes, and thank you for saying ‘please’. And don’t forget to say ‘please’ in the future, too.

Now, we turn to the account of the ensuing exchange. Having been told to run any statements past Sussmann, Trainor does just that:

Sussmann’s cozy relationship with the FBI revealed

What emerges from a perusal of the email exchange that followed, not to put too fine a point on it, is a humiliating spectacle of the FBI groveling and deferring to a top Dem political and legal operative to further the Dem narrative that was about to be deployed against candidate Trump:

Sussmann’s close relationship with the FBI was on display in 2016 emails released through the Durham trial. He also edited a proposed FBI statement that summer. The FBI circulated a draft within the bureau on July 29, 2016, which read in part:

“The FBI is aware of the recent media reporting on a possible cyber intrusion involving the DCCC and is working to determine the nature and scope of the matter.”

That seems to be a simple, straightforward description of what the FBI, as an investigative agency, should be doing. What more could anyone ask for?

Well, as it happened, Michael Sussmann could, and did, ask for more. Think about that. A private attorney, in essence, writing a statement for the FBI to release to the media, describing the FBI’s investigative posture in this case:

Jim Trainor, the assistant director of the FBI cyber division, emailed the draft to Sussmann that day, saying:

“Michael — our press office is once again getting a ton of calls on the DCCC matter. Provided below. Wanted to get your thoughts on this prior to sending out.”

Sussmann replied:

“I have a comment/concern regarding the first sentence and have suggested a revised first sentence below. The draft you sent says only that the FBI is aware of media reports; it does not say that the FBI is aware of the intrusion that the DCCC reported. Indeed, it refers only to a ‘possible’ cyber intrusion and in that way undermines what the DCCC said in its statement (or at least calls into question what the DCCC said).”

In other words, Sussmann is “suggesting” that the FBI should confirm the DNC’s version of what happened without the FBI having even examined the DNC server!

He added, “With that in mind, please let me know if this suggested revision is acceptable.”

The tone of Sussmann’s reply appears to be properly deferential, but what he’s actually saying amounts to: Don’t release the statement until you’ve confirmed the revisions with me.

Sussmann’s proposed first line read:

“The FBI is aware of the cyber intrusion involving the DCCC that has been reported in the media and the FBI has been working to determine the nature and scope of the matter.”

The FBI official replied,

“We try to really limit what we see and not acknowledging too much but the below edits are fine and we will send out.”

So, at the insistence of Sussmann and without having conducted basic investigative steps, the FBI confirmed the DNC’s narrative, which formed the basis for the Russia Hoax.

ADDENDUM: I pressed “Send” too quickly. I meant to point out that this episode should probably be seen within the context of a much longer special relationship between Sussmann and the FBI. It seems clear to me that Sussmann was able to pull strings at the FBI with people above Trainor—Baker, McCabe, Comey?