Posted on 09/17/2021 12:55:41 PM PDT by Red Badger
Let me start by acknowledging the legitimate skepticism of many Gateway Pundit commentators that any justice will come out of John Durham’s work. You have been promised the moon in the past and instead received a flaming bag of dog poop.
But let’s accept the fact that yesterday’s news that DNC lawyer Michael Sussmann was going to be indicted turned out to be true. Charlie Brown got to kick the football this time.
So what does this mean? Is it a meaningless gesture or the first domino to fall in a line of dominoes? I think this is just the first domino to fall and that others will come. I base this on what the indictment says.
If you have the time, please read the indictment (here).
https://www.scribd.com/document/525726563/Sussmann-Indictment
Durham’s indictment of Sussmann lays out the foundation of a conspiracy. Michael Sussman was indicted for lying to the FBI about the source of information he gave the Bureau. He claimed he got it independently. He did not. It was bought and paid for by Hillary Clinton and her campaign. The indictment essentially charges Sussmann with sending the FBI on a wild goose chase:
The FBI had, in fact, initiated an investigation of these allegations in response to a meeting that MICHAEL A. SUSSMANN, the defendant herein– a lawyer at a major international law firm (“ Law Firm -1”, i.e. Perkins Coie) – requested and held with the FBI General Counsel on or about September 19, 2016 at FBI Headquarters in the District of Columbia. SUSSMANN provided to the FBI General Counsel three “ white papers” along with data files allegedly containing evidence supporting the existence of this purported secret communications channel.
During the meeting, SUSSMANN lied about the capacity in which he was providing the allega to the FBI Specifically, SUSSMANN stated falsely that he was not doing his work on the aforementioned allegations “ any client,” which led the FBI General Counsel to understand that SUSSMANN was acting as a good citizen merely passing along information , not as a paid advocate or political operative . In fact, and as alleged in further detail below, this statement was intentionally false and misleading because, in assembling and conveying these allegations, SUSSMANN acted on behalf of specific clients, namely, ( i ) a U.S. technology industry executive (“ Tech Executive- 1”) at a U.S. Internet company “Internet Company”) , and ( ii) the Hillary Clinton Presidential Campaign (the “Clinton Campaign”).
That “Tech Executive” and the Hillary Clinton Campaign are now possible targets. The critical question is whether or not Sussmann was acting on his own. The indictment states he was acting at the behest of the Tech Executive and Hillary. It would be prosecutorial incompetence if they had not already be interviewed and evidence collected against them.
Paragraph 6 of the indictment gives a strong indication of how Durham and this team view Sussmann’s lie:
Had the FBI uncovered the origins of the relevant data and analysis, and as alleged below, it might have learned, among other things , that ( i ) in compiling and analyzing the Russian Bank- 1 allegations, Tech Executive- 1 had exploited his access to non-public data at multiple Internet companies to conduct opposition research concerning Trump; ( ii) in furtherance of these efforts, Tech Executive- 1 had enlisted, and was continuing to enlist, the assistance of researchers at a U.S.-based university who were receiving and analyzing Internet data in connection with a pending federal government cybersecurity research contract ; and ( ) SUSSMANN , Tech Executive, and Law Firm- 1 had coordinated, and were continuing to coordinate, with representatives and agents of the Clinton Campaign with regard to the data and written materials that SUSSMANN gave to the FBI and the media.
First, pay close attention to the indictment’s claim that “non public data” from a “federal government research contract” was being used to bait the FBI. I believe that is a criminal act. Second, the indictment makes it very clear that Sussmann, the Tech Executive and Perkins Coie did not just commit one act of conspiracy. Nope. They were “continuing to co-ordinate with representatives and agents of the Clinton Campaign.” This means it was not just one person working on the Clinton Campaign. It was many people.
The Tech Executive is in big trouble. He was using “non-public” data that was obtained from a Federal government research contract. This may refer to the searches flagged by NSA Director at the time, Mike Rogers, who acted to shutdown the access once he learned that “contractors” were conducting illegal searches.
Paragraph 20g of the indictment states that the Tech Executive was communicating with Fusion GPS in August 2016 regarding the Alfa Bank scam. The next paragraph in the indictment also implicates Perkins Coie’s Marc Elias in the plot:
As alleged in further detail below, in or around the same time period – and in furtherance of his efforts with SUSSMANN and Campaign Lawyer-1 to disseminate allegations regarding Trump – Tech Executive- 1 used his access at multiple organizations to gather and mine public and non-public Internet data regarding Trump and his associates, with the goal of creating a “ narrative” regarding the candidate’s ties to Russia.
Prosecutor Durham reiterates that “non-public” Internet data was being used to create a lie about Donald Trump’s alleged ties to Russia.
The indictment goes into great detail about the Tech Executive’s efforts to gather information from two other internet companies. One of this companies was initially unwilling to do the Tech Exec’s bidding but ultimately caved:
The aforementioned individual and other personnel at Internet Company- 3 were uncomfortable regarding this tasking from Tech Executive- 1 because they believed that using the companies data in this manner was inappropriate. They complied with the tasking, however, because Tech Executive- 1 was a powerful figure at both companies.
In connection with this tasking, Tech Executive- 1 emailed to Internet Company-3 personnel a five-page document (the “ Trump Associates List listing six associates of Trump and a purported U.S.-based lobbyist for Russian Bank- 1 who was also discussed in written materials prepared by the U.S. Investigative Firm that SUSSMANN would later provide to the FBI General Counsel The Trump Associates List contained detailed personal information for these individuals, including, for example, their names, home addresses, personal email addresses, business names , business websites and email domains , suspected IP addresses for those domains, and information pertaining to the spouse of one of these associates. Tech Executive- 1 directed that these individuals should be a focus of Internet Company- 3’s data queries and analysis.
This paragraph strongly implicates the illegal use of the NSA databases. I do not think that Durham is just mentioning this for color. It is far more serious. He is laying the predicate for further charges. For now, the FBI and DOJ executives involved in the plot to feed the narrative about Trump and Russia are not in the cross hairs. I know that most of the readers of this blog believe correctly that they should be. It remains to be seen.
Advertisement - story continues below
For now, based on this indictment, I expect we will see indictments of the Tech Executive, Fusion GPS’s Glenn Simpson, former Perkins Coie partner Marc Elias and at least two people from the Clinton Campaign. At this point, Durham is making that case that those people were responsible for “misleading” the FBI. But it begs the question, is the FBI really so stupid and gullible that they would blindly accept bullshit without checking it out first?
I will provide more analysis tomorrow.
Maybe you could consider Instagram and Facebook two companies, but FB bought IG in 2012. They are really one company. Google has many subsidiaries, could they be considered separate?
Jack Dorsey does in fact control 2 separate Tech Companies, Twitter and Square. Not sure how Square could fit into the scheme though. Perhaps they buy access to data from other companies.
There are other possibilities I'm sure. If I had to guess, I'd say maybe only Google or one of the major telecoms would have the best capabilities to dig through data but Trump was also very active on the social platforms so...
People need to remember, they thought they were going to win. They were going to use this against Trump after he was defeated. He wouldn’t have been able to fight it near as well and they intended to put an innocent citizen of the United States in prison. Likely for life.
Didn’t this guy Sussman Die in a Car Accident next week??
Crowdstrike. Hopefully it will be the end of that scumbag company.
Bkmk
I've seen reports the "tech executive" is Shawn Henry, a former FBI agent (appointed as Mueller as Executive Assistant Director of the Criminal, Cyber, Response and Services Branch, leaving his position as Assistant Director In Charge of the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s Washington Field Office)
Henry then retired from the FBI in 2012 and joined Crowdstrike
You'll remember Crowdstrike from being the keeper of the DNC's server that was "hacked by the Russians" LOL.
In order to show Zuckerman the respect he deserves I mangle his name.
If this is true, then Mr. Durham should CCW and have a security detail.
Arkincide is not a pretty thing. Just ask Vince Foster and Jeffrey Epstein.
Oh wait, my bad.
5.56mm
‘Received a flaming bag of dog poop”
That reminds me…..Christmas is coming and I have to get presents for Democrats.
Henry then retired from the FBI in 2012 and joined Crowdstrike
You’ll remember Crowdstrike from being the keeper of the DNC’s server that was “hacked by the Russians” LOL.
—-——
Hmmm.
give us the highlights of what he said
Lmao!
I’m saving that one.
“Zuckerbucks” has a nice ring to it.
because this indictment is under the wire for limits, does the indictment open the door to other indictments now, or are they moot
If this is the case, then more serious charges could be waiting, for which the statute of limitations is much longer.
thx...
The statute of limitations was for lying to the FBI for this particular incident. Other cases will have different dates, cases, and charges.
thx
if the charge in other cases is conspiracy the statute of limitations begins to run fron the last act in the conspiracy..thus likely more time
Conspiracy is a continuing offense. For statutes such as 18 U.S.C. § 371, which require an overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy, the statute of limitations begins to run on the date of the last overt act. See Fiswick v. United States, 329 U.S. 211 (1946); United States v. Butler, 792 F.2d 1528 (11th Cir. 1986). For conspiracy statutes which do not require proof of an overt act, such as RICO (18 U.S.C. § 1961) or 21 U.S.C. § 846, the government must allege and prove that the conspiracy continued into the limitations period. The crucial question in this regard is the scope of the conspiratorial agreement, and the conspiracy is deemed to continue until its purpose has been achieved or abandoned. See United States v. Northern Imp. Co., 814 F.2d 540 (8th Cir. 1987); United States v. Coia, 719 F.2d 1120 (11th Cir. 1983), cert. denied, 466 U.S. 973 (1984).
An individual’s “withdrawal” from a conspiracy starts the statute of limitations running as to that individual. “Withdrawal” from a conspiracy for this purpose means that the conspirator must take affirmative action by making a clean breast to the authorities or communicating his or her disassociation to the other conspirators. See United States v. Gonzalez, 797 F.2d
https://www.justice.gov/archives/jm/criminal-resource-manual-652-statute-limitations-conspiracy
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.