Durham trial: Prosecution says Clinton lawyer used FBI to create an 'October surprise

A

anatta

100% recycled karma
opening statement ( maybe the most interesting part of the trial)

Special Counsel John Durham’s team in its opening argument Tuesday alleged that former Clinton campaign lawyer Michael Sussmann used the FBI as "a political tool" to "manipulate" the bureau on the eve of the 2016 presidential election to create an "October surprise" against then-candidate Donald Trump — a plan that "largely succeeded."

Sussmann is charged with making a false statement to the FBI when he told former FBI General Counsel James Baker in September 2016 — less than two months before the presidential election — that he was not doing work "for any client" when he requested and attended a meeting with Baker where he presented "purported data and ‘white papers’ that allegedly demonstrated a covert communicates channel" between the Trump Organization and Alfa Bank, which has ties to the Kremlin.

Durham’s team alleges Sussmann was, in fact, doing work for two clients: the Hillary Clinton campaign and a technology executive, Rodney Joffe. Following the meeting with Baker, Sussmann billed the Hillary Clinton campaign for his work.

Federal prosecutor Deborah Brittain Shaw delivered the government’s opening argument, saying the case is one "about privilege."

"Privilege of a lawyer who thought he could lie to the FBI without consequences; privilege of a lawyer who thought that for the powerful, normal rules didn’t apply," Shaw argued on behalf of the government.

The government argued that in bringing the "serious allegations" to the FBI, Sussmann "bypassed normal channels and went straight to the FBI’s top lawyer," then-General Counsel James Baker.

"He then sat across from that lawyer and lied to him," Shaw said, noting the lie was "designed to achieve political" ends, and "designed to inject the FBI into the election."
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/su...ion-clinton-lawyer-fbi-october-surprise-trump
 
urham prosecutor Brittain Shaw repeatedly said “the evidence will show that this is a trial about privilege” — likely a strategic choice of words since the case will probably be dominated by the Clinton campaign’s assertions of attorney-client privilege over key information.

Shaw said Sussmann was a privileged and high-powered D.C. lawyer who thought he could use his connections to get what he wanted and who believed “he could use the FBI as a political tool.”

She said the “evidence will show that he bypassed normal channels” to meet with Baker and “then sat across from that lawyer and he lied to him” with a falsehood “designed to achieve a political end.” The Durham prosecutor said Sussmann’s goal was to “inject” the FBI into a presidential election.

The prosecutor argued: “No one should be so privileged as to walk into the FBI and lie.”

Sussmann, who also helped the Democratic National Committee handle its response to the 2016 hack, denies wrongdoing, has pleaded not guilty, and unsuccessfully called upon the judge to dismiss the case, even relying in part on legal analysis by fired FBI agent Peter Strzok.

Michael Bosworth, one of Sussmann’s defense lawyers, declared in his opening statement: “Michael Sussmann didn’t lie to the FBI. Michael Sussmann wouldn’t lie to the FBI.”

Bosworth argued: “In the summer of 2016, this serious national security lawyer got information that raised serious national security concerns.”

He said that is why Sussmann wanted to go to the press about it and claimed his client only went to the FBI to give the agency a "heads up" about a possible impending New York Times story about the allegations.

Shaw said Sussmann saw the Alfa-Bank claims as a “golden opportunity to deliver a big win” for the Clinton campaign and Joffe.

The prosecutor also addressed “the proverbial elephant in the room” — everyone’s “strong feelings” about Russia, Donald Trump, Clinton, and the 2016 election.

She urged the jury to be apolitical in its decision-making, saying: “We are here because the FBI is our institution. It should not be used as a political tool by anyone. Not Republicans. Not Democrats. Not anyone.”

She said, “Whether we hate Donald Trump or love him,” no one should be able to lie to the FBI.

The prosecutor contended Sussmann’s actions were part of “a plan to create an October surprise on the eve of a presidential election” and to get the FBI to investigate, arguing the plan "largely succeeded." Shaw said Sussmann and Joffe “leaked the Alfa-Bank allegations to the New York Times,” and when that wasn’t published immediately, Sussmann brought a sense of urgency to the FBI about the media being on the verge of running a story. Shaw argued the FBI getting involved would make the story “more attractive” to the press.

Shaw said: “This was a breach of trust between a citizen and a law enforcement agency. … The FBI should never be used as a political pawn.”

Special counsel Robert Mueller, the FBI, the CIA, a bipartisan Senate Intelligence Committee investigation, and Durham’s team have all cast doubt on or rejected the Alfa-Bank claims touted by the Clinton campaign.

“The server was merely a spam email server,” Shaw said Tuesday. “The server did not reflect a crime, nor was it a threat to national security.” She said the real crime tied to this was Sussmann lying.

Baker, who was part of the Crossfire Hurricane investigation and left the FBI in 2018, was hired as deputy general counsel at Twitter and will be called by Durham as a key witness.

Durham argues Sussmann’s alleged lie to Baker was “material” and that it mattered. Sussmann argues he didn’t lie and, even if he had, it was immaterial.

JURY SELECTED AS DURHAM MAKES RARE APPEARANCE

Baker met with Bill Priestap, who was assistant director of the FBI’s Counterintelligence Division, and FBI Deputy General Counsel Trisha Anderson after his Sussmann meeting in 2016. Priestap wrote that Baker stated that Sussmann “said not doing this for any client.” Anderson wrote, in part, “No specific client.”

Sussmann also put his apparent lie down in writing in a text message to Baker the night before their meeting in September 2016, according to Durham.

“I have something time-sensitive (and sensitive) I need to discuss,” Sussmann wrote, adding, "I’m coming on my own — not on behalf of a client or company — want to help the Bureau.”

The defense team wants to point to handwritten notes during a March 2017 meeting by Associate Deputy Attorney General Tashina Gauhar that put “attorney” in quotation marks and said this person “brought to FBI on behalf of his client." Notes by acting Assistant Attorney General Mary McCord said, “Attorney brought to Jim Baker and d/n [did not] say who client was.”

Sussmann’s lawyer argued Tuesday “Mr. Baker’s memory is clear as mud.”

Marc Elias was the Clinton campaign's general counsel and hired the opposition research firm Fusion GPS, which hired British ex-spy Christopher Steele in 2016 to create his discredited dossier. Elias previously testified he was aware of Fusion's plans to have Steele brief reporters during the 2016 contest, met with Steele in 2016, and periodically briefed the campaign about the findings from Fusion and Steele. Elias coordinated closely with his Perkins Coie colleague Sussmann on anti-Trump research in 2016.

Durham said evidence at trial would show that beginning in late July 2016, Sussmann, Joffe, and “agents of the Clinton campaign” were “assembling and disseminating the [Alfa-Bank] allegations and other derogatory information about Trump and his associates to the media and the U.S. government.” The special counsel said this “joint venture” aimed to hurt Trump politically.

Durham said Sussmann told the CIA about the purported Russian bank connection in a February 2017 meeting in which Sussmann again allegedly misled about his client. The special counsel said Sussmann also claimed that data to which he had access “demonstrated that Trump and/or his associates were using supposedly rare, Russian-made wireless phones” called YotaPhones “in the vicinity of the White House and other locations.” Durham found "no support for these allegations.”

CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM THE WASHINGTON EXAMINER

The special counsel said he has evidence Sussmann’s other client, Joffe, “exploited” domain name system internet traffic at Trump Tower, Trump’s Central Park West apartment building, and the Executive Office of the President.

Durham revealed the CIA “concluded in early 2017” the Alfa-Bank and YotaPhone information was not “technically plausible" and did not “withstand technical scrutiny."

The special counsel said Joffe had tasked researchers with mining internet data to establish “an inference” and “narrative” tying Trump to Russia. Durham said Joffe indicated he was doing this to please certain “VIPs” on the Clinton campaign.
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/justice/durham-sussmann-lawyers-clash-in-opening-to-trial
 
Gosh, when has a prosecuting attorney ever spun the facts of a case.

ROTFLFMAO!!!! Fuck anatta is stupid.
 
Concart said:
Gosh, when has a prosecuting attorney ever spun the facts of a case.

ROTFLFMAO!!!! Fuck anatta is stupid.
Click to expand...
Did you see the DeSantis protest bill thread?

He wanted to know if he was supposed to go out in his 'underware' and debate protestors.
 
Concart said:
Gosh, when has a prosecuting attorney ever spun the facts of a case.
Click to expand...
I said it's an opening statement. I said it's probably the most interesting part of the case

Sussman doesnt matter, the Clinton conjuring us Russian collusion is waht matter and is in the Opening statement in part
 
anatta said:
I said it's an opening statement. I said it's probably the most interesting part of the case

Sussman doesnt matter, the Clinton conjuring us Russian collusion is waht matter and is in the Opening statement in part
Click to expand...

The most interesting part because it is speculation that in no way will be supported by facts?

What is interesting is how the FBI seems to be willing to lie for Durham on the stand.
FBI agent Hellman was shown FBI messages that he saw at the time of the investigation that refer to the investigation as a "DNC report" and then is forced to admit under oath that Durham's team told him that "DNC" was probably a typo even though no one has testified to it being a typo.
So the FBI referred to it as a "DNC report" but they somehow had no idea that the info came from the DNC? That seems a bit of a stretch, don't you think?
 
anatta said:
I said it's an opening statement. I said it's probably the most interesting part of the case

Sussman doesnt matter, the Clinton conjuring us Russian collusion is waht matter and is in the Opening statement in part
Click to expand...

This is going nowhere, at best, and it is a reach, Durham might find Sussmann lied to the FBI, the only purpose of this whole charade is to provide the right wing media with enough material to launch innuendos.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top