Posted on 05/23/2022 5:30:41 AM PDT by janetjanet998
up this morning Bill Prestap-FBI
Trisha Anderson- FBI
Both took notes from a meeting with James Baker shortly after his meeting with Sussman
Judge to rule, perhaps today, what kind of topics Durham's team can get into with NY Times reporter Eric Lichtblau
Until his trial prep in May, Bosworth points out that Gaynor didnt know who Sussmann represented or whether he came on his own to the fbi.
Adam Goldman
@adamgoldmanNYT
Gaynor says he made that statement on May 3 but Bosworth says agents during witness prep need to note anything new. And that was not noted in his May 3.
Bosworth is grilling Gaynor but Cooper stops for lunch
another live twitter
THREAD: United States of America v. Michael A. Sussman, Day 6 — May 23, 2022.
https://twitter.com/realwqnderwqman/status/1528728444321808389
THREAD: United States of America v. Michael A. Sussman, Day 6 — May 23, 2022.
Judge Cooper addresses that the government would be precluded from calling Mr. Lichtblau of the New York Times to testify. Judge Cooper is asking the extent of which the defense would be questioning Lichtblau.
Berkowitz says that the scope would be—discuss Mr. Sussman and Joffe’s communications/meetings that they had with Lichtblau, his communications with the FBI, and any follow-up communications Lichtblau had with Sussman.
Judge Cooper says that from his perspective this area would lead to whether Sussman lied or not to Mr. Baker. Berkowitz says that fundamentally this would lead to defining Sussman’s timeline of going to the FBI and the press.
Judge Cooper says if part of the direct would go toward Sussman’s intentions with going to the press, then why wouldn’t Lichtblau’s communications with Fusion GPS be included? Judge would like to handle this as a matter of scope and relevance.
DePhillipis of the prosecution now says, beyond any conversations he had with Sussman and Joffe, the government WOULD like to inquire about Lichtblau’s communications with Fusion GPS since Fusion was a client of the Clinton’s.
Judge asking if DePhillipis thinks this would be considered a waiver of sorts. Judge says wouldn’t be waiver because reporter holds the privilege. DePhillipis says their argument is that a privilege is a qualified one because the emails exchanged are at the heart of the charge.
The categories of people that Lichtblau communicated with include 3 researchers. Since Sussman mentioned these people, and mentioned them to Mr. Baker, these communications would sit at the heart of the charges.
Sussman chose to identify them to cast legitimacy over the allegations. DePhillipis says if it turns out Lichtblau says that Sussman had no idea about his communications, then that’s different.
DePhillipis essentially says that Lichtblau’s testimony is necessary in putting the puzzle piece together to prove that this was a coordinated effort, as directed by Sussman and Joffe. DePhillipis says that these communications are highly probative in the story.
Edward Priestap is on the stand. Founder of consulting firm Trenchcoat Advisors, Mr. Priestap worked at the FBI for 21 years as the Assistant Director for Counterintelligence. He oversaw global efforts for counterintelligence.
In September 2016, he learned of the Trump-Russia-Alfa Bank allegations. Priestap is unaware of how these allegations were brought to the FBI.
He knows they looked into the allegations. Priestap was provided briefings of this investigation, and it was ultimately under his control in counterintelligence.
Government Exhibit 2 is Priestap’s notebook. They are looking at September 16, 2016. The contents appears to be all about the Trump-Russia-Alfa Bank allegations.
Priestap says that he took notes at some meetings to help remember what was being discussed or what was told, and only took notes sometimes when he took phone calls or was in conversation.
The prosecution asks in what context Priestap took these notes in his notebook, as in, did Priestap take these notes while they were fresh in his memory? Priestap “no longer remembers” the pretenses that led him to take these notes.
Priestap’s notes on this page include
“Michael Sussman and Todd Himmen(?) attorney at Perkins Coie.”
“Not doing this for any client.”
“Former DOJ officials.”
“NYTimes, Washington Post, WSJ, foreign power contacting Trump. Secret Trump Org server? Comms with Moscow? Connected to Kremlin? Hospital in U.S. used as line of communication. Tour - Spectrum Health in Michigan?...”
The notes continue with “Another article to come out later about Trump Org contacting foreign nations. CID (Criminal Investigative Division as a tour expert)”
Priestap says he was given this information. Priestap says he did not know Michael Sussman in September 2016.
Priestap does not recall what the notes about NYT, WaPo, WSJ mean but says normally meant an article was coming out. Priestap says he does not remember going to meeting at DOJ on March 6, 2016, but understandably as Assistant Director for Counterintelligence he had many meetings.
He says they receive info from variety of sources; sometimes FBI engages with people outside of the FBI, and agrees it’s important to know how these individuals obtained info they’re bringing to the FBI to know what to do with it. The motivation is relevant but not dispositive.
The defense is examining Mr. Priestap. Priestap says he testified to a Grand Jury in 2021 and has not spoken to either party since. In the fall of 2016, Crossfire Hurricane was already taking place.
Priestap explains that Crossfire Hurricane was about whether the Russians were trying to interfere with the 2016 election, which is a threat that the counterintelligence agency would investigate to protect the U.S. and democracy.
The defense is asking why Crossfire Hurricane was more important than investigating the Trump-Russia-Alfa Bank story? Priestap says to his recollection, the allegations about Alfa Bank didn’t amount to much.
Government Exhibit 243. Priestap’s notes from September 16, 2016, contain “DNC” which to his understanding means Democratic National Committee. The defense asks if Priestap knows an agent Joseph Pientka, Peter Strzok, and Curtis Heidi.
Joseph Pientka was an agent in Washington’s field office. Peter Strzok at one point was Priestap’s Deputy Assistant Director. Curtis Heidi was an agent working out of Chicago’s field office.
Priestap says he doesn’t remember why he took these notes, and that he doesn’t recall typing these notes into a formal report. Priestap says he’s unaware if anyone else spoke with Mr. Sussman regarding these Trump-Russia-Alfa Bank allegations.
On 9/22/2016 email exchange between Priestap and James Baker. The subject line reads: RE: Reporter
“If the FBI knew that a newspaper article was coming out about a story that’s a threat to the nation, is there ever a situation where the FBI would ask the paper to hold off?”
Priestap: “Yes, in some cases if a story could negatively affect the country, the FBI would want to have a conversation about it.”
Defense Exhibit 525
Defense: “What is an Opening EC in the FBI? On September 23, 2016, there was an Opening EC all about Alfa Bank.”
Priestap says he doesn’t deny being part of opening the investigation but honestly doesn’t remember.
IMs at the FBI are displayed on the screen from September 2016 where Agent Joseph Pientka sends IMs that say “[We must] investigate [the Trump-Russia-Alfa Bank allegations], per Priestap.”
This confirms that Priestap was instrumental in the opening of the investigation!
Government exhibits displayed also show Priestap had communications with Eric Lichtblau!
It’s worth noting that defense pulled up memo from FBI entitled: “FBI Reporting on Alfa Bank and the connection to Russian Government Officials and Russian Intelligence Services.” In related Exhibit brought into evidence, according to FBI, Putin was on Alfa Bank’s payroll.
A new witness is called. DePhillipis begins his examination. Special Agent Ryan Gaynor works at the FBI’s Norfolk field office. He’s a Special Agent in charge and covers all national security programs.
His entire career has been in national security with terrorism and counterintelligence. During the summer of 2016, he worked as a unit chief in Washington DC.
According to Gaynor, Sussman provided the Trump-Russia-Alfa Bank allegations to James Baker. Gaynor says that Sussman was upfront about being an attorney for the DNC, which according to Gaynor meant that he was associated with the DNC but came to the FBI representing himself.
🚨 Apparently the senior leaders had put a close hold on the material, which means that the identity of the provider of this information could not be provided to others levels of the Bureau. Gaynor questioned if this would hinder their investigation.
Gaynor says he did not have significant cyber experience but an understanding of the technology due to infrastructure related experience. To his knowledge, the European Cyber Operations unit of the FBI had reviewed this case.
Central Dynamics is a marketing firm, and to Gaynor’s understanding, Central Dynamics used one of the domain names that was part of this case. He says Central Dynamics sends out spam, but also protects companies from getting spam attacks.
Gaynor says that in a report he wrote the FBI was waiting for CD to get back to them with the logs of the data before making a determination of what it meant, while also examining the Barracuda fire wall filter, which prevented CD themselves from getting attacked by spam.
🚨 Gaynor says that Allison Sands of the Chicago field office reportedly wrote that portions of the data did not show merit. Other agents ALSO reported that the data did not show merit.
The prosecution is showing email exchanges from October 3, 2016 regarding the Trump-Russia-Alfa Bank allegations between the Miami field office. Allison Sands, Curtis Heide* and Gaynor are all on it. Daniel Wierzbecki is also on the chain.
Later in the afternoon on October 3, Gaynor was pulled into a meeting for election infrastructure protection project (which had a potential to overlap with Crossfire Hurricane, but did not) so he did not respond to the emails until October 4, 2016.
On October 4, 2016 at 10:00 AM, Gaynor wrote an email that essentially read the FBI would need to learn more about the [the data and where it came from] before coming to a decision to determine whether or not upper leadership would pull the close hold.
Gaynor was waiting for the log review to determine if there had been a covert communication system which would warrant removing the close hold on the author of the data.
🚨 Mandiant, a renowned U.S.-based cyber security firm reportedly hired by Alfa Bank to investigate the data, reported the data did not have merit; this was consistent with what Gaynor and his colleagues were finding, that there was no conclusive analytical merit.
The “confidential human source” told the FBI that this data had merit and that it was given to the press. To Gaynor’s knowledge, this source was not Sussman.
A Mr. Dagan reportedly authored the famous white papers. Gaynor and his team found that this was, to their knowledge, not true, and that there was no merit to the overall allegations. 🚨Gaynor says that by pursuing these allegations, it would have ultimately damaged the election.
If the investigative step was necessary, Gaynor said they would have to investigate the allegations after the election.
Due to the first amendment, the FBI is not allowed to perform activity that would make an individual not exercise their right to free speech if it is their intent to do so. If Mr. Dagan was in contact with the media, this is protective speech.
Government Exhibit 283 is shown and displays an email exchange from October 5, 2016 with the subject line: “Trump issue” between national security correspondent at Reuters, Mark Hosenball, and others.
When asked by the prosecution if he knows Agent Strzok, Gaynor confirms that Peter Strzok was the Deputy Assistant Director of the Counterintelligence division at this time.
🚨According to Gaynor’s knowledge, the investigation on Trump-Russia-Alfa Bank was closed in January 2017. Gaynor said Sussman’s involvement with the DNC ALONE should have impacted the senior leadership’s decisions, and should have affected whether the close hold was in place.
Had Sussman’s motivation been clear from the start, Gaynor says he believes the need for a close hold should have changed, meaning, the close hold should not have existed based on this information.
Gaynor says that if it was clear that the confidential human source was politically motivated, the FBI [should] consider the truthfulness of source. These factors would have affected whether he joined the case. 🚨He would have been highly unlikely to join the investigation.
Gaynor says that he only joined the project because Joseph Pientka had a lot on his plate with Crossfire Hurricane, and since he originally only believed this investigation to be about tracking logs, he believed he could do that for Mr. Pientka.
🚨 FBI agent Gaynor reportedly said in a meeting that he believed the DNC to be the SOURCE of the Trump-Russia-Alfa Bank data given to the FBI. “We weren’t going to be able to go to the Democratic National Committee in such close proximity to the election” to get further info.
Adam Goldman
@adamgoldmanNYT
Lunch break ends at 1:45. Bosworth has a lot more questions for Gaynor so not sure we’ll get to another witness today.
Adam Goldman
@adamgoldmanNYT
Bosworth repeatedly hammering home that Gaynor did not pass along the info about Sussmann to case agents in Chicago. “You knew that but didn’t tell them,” Bosworth said. “That is correct,” Gaynor responded.
Adam Goldman
@adamgoldmanNYT
Bosworth asks Gaynor if the complete data would determine if there was a covert communications. Gaynor said he thought FBI could get an answer through a data-driven way.
Gaynor says he was not initially concerned where the data came from but what it showed.
Adam Goldman
@adamgoldmanNYT
This is a little confusing. Gaynor eventually remembered there was a close hold after reviewing his notes. But prior to that he told the govt that the agents would have been biased if they had interviewed Sussmann before getting the data because of Sussmann’s background
looks like the defense impeached the witness?? see above post
During the Oct. 2020 interview, Gaynor said he thought he was a witness and hadn’t done anything wrong
Adam Goldman
@adamgoldmanNYT
But during the meeting with the special counsel’s team, Gaynor’s lawyer was told his status had changed and he was a subject.
Gaynor described his reaction: “I was in significant peril.” He potentially faced criminal charges.
Adam Goldman
@adamgoldmanNYT
·
1m
At the next meeting in Dec. 2020, Gaynor notifies them that he had reviewed his notes and there was a close hold. He was eventually informed his status had changed back to witness from subject.
Yeah sure Sussman only represented himself. He was just a concerned citizen/sac
Adam Goldman
@adamgoldmanNYT
Bosworth now reviewing document that Gaynor says triggered his memory about the close hold.
Apparently there are accuracy problems with a Gaynor 302.” Bosworth asks Gaynor if he would be surprised to learn there wasn’t another document identifying the close hold or another witness? Except Gaynor’s scraps of paper, Bosworth said.
Too bad, I would have hoped Durham was more than just another Johnny Depp show trial.
Adam Goldman
@adamgoldmanNYT
·
2m
Bosworth keeps hammering at the point that Mandiant was Alfa Bank’s “paid consultant.”
Adam Goldman
@adamgoldmanNYT
Bosworth talking about the Alfa Bank info published by Tea Leaves and whether anybody from FBI tried to interview T.L. Bosworth said that had FBI bothered to interview T.L. agents would have discovered that Tea Leaves was really April Lorenzen.
Seems like Bosworth is making the point that there were multiple avenues the FBI could have taken to determine origins of Alfa Bank data.
DeFilippis on redirect.
Adam Goldman
@adamgoldmanNYT
Gaynor says he would want to know if a political campaign might have been funding info.
Gaynor is done. Long day for ASAC Gaynor.
Not to mention Mueller spending 35 million and not uncovering this.
AUSA Brittain Shaw is now questioning Allison Sands who works at ROKU. She worked at FBI from 2016-19.
Sands was the lead case agent investigating the Alfa Bank allegation. She worked on the case with Heide.
She received the white paper from Heide who said they were opening a cyber investigation.
Adam Goldman
@adamgoldmanNYT
·
39s
Sands said the first thing she did was reach out to more experienced cyber agents to discuss the white paper the fbi had received. A computer scientist on the squad — Carl Speer (SP) — assisted with the investigation.
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.