>https://twitter.com/BreitbartNews/status/1531641390672891904
''After a three-day weekend, a jury Tuesday is deliberating the fate of former Clinton attorney Michael Sussmann following Friday's conclusion of his 10-day trial for allegedly lying to the FBI about concocted Trump-Russia links in the weeks before the 2016 election. ''#SussmannTrial
10:55 AM · May 31, 2022·Twitter Web App
https://twitter.com/JFHaughey58/status/1531650508783493120
''A flurry of activity this morning in #SussmannTrial as jurors asked to see govt exhibits 406 and 207. It seems as if exhibit 207 is the White Paper Sussmann gave Baker. There is no 406 listed in govt. exhibit so not clear what they were looking for or if # misstated.''
@WashTimes
10:04 AM · May 31, 2022·Twitter Web App
https://twitter.com/JeffMordock/status/1531637760225837056
https://jonathanturley.org/2022/05/30/friends-with-benefits-sussmann-trial-is-an-indictment-of-the-fbi-and-the-washington-establishment/
Friends with Benefits: Sussmann Trial Further Exposes the FBI and Washington Establishment
jonathanturley.org/2022/05/30/friends-with-benefits-sussmann-trial-is-an-indictment-of-the-fbi-and-the-washington-establishment
May 30, 2022
Below is a slightly expanded version of my column in the Hill on Sussmann trial and what it revealed about the role of the Federal Bureau of Investigation in the combined Russian collusion investigations. It also looks down the road at whether Special Counsel John Durham will be allowed to write the same type of public report that concluded the Mueller investigation.
Here is the column:
With the jury out in the trial of former 2016 Clinton campaign counsel Michael Sussmann, the usual odds-takers appeared on cable news, rating the chances of a conviction. Despite the seemingly overwhelming evidence against Sussmann, the jury’s makeup seems strikingly favorable for the defense.
One verdict, however, appears to need little deliberation. It concerns the Department of Justice, and particularly the FBI. The trial confirmed what many have long alleged about how top officials eagerly accepted any Russia collusion claim involving Donald Trump’s 2016 campaign. Special counsel John Durham’s investigation, which led to Sussmann’s trial, is an indictment of a department and a bureau which, once again, appeared willfully blind as they were played by Hillary Clinton’s campaign.
Despite the trial judge’s rulings imposing strict limits on the scope of the trial evidence, Durham’s case still revealed new information on how the Russia collusion theory was pushed into the FBI and the media by the Clinton campaign. Perhaps the most ironic moment came when Sussmann’s defense team outed Clinton as personally approving the campaign’s effort to spread a baseless claim that the Trump organization maintained a secret channel to the Kremlin through Russia’s Alfa Bank.
That claim was a real tinfoil-hat conspiracy theory without support. Durham previously disclosed how researchers tasked with supporting the claim were afraid it was so unsupported that they would be mocked. They argued, according to Sussmann’s indictment, that anyone familiar with analyzing internet traffic “would poke several holes” in the theory. One researcher warned: “Let’s assume again that they are not smart enough to refute our ‘best case scenario.’ You do realize that we will have to expose every trick we have in our bag to even make a very weak association.”
Yet, the Clinton campaign did not seem remotely concerned about even minimal inquiries that might expose the lack of proof. The researchers were told to just worry about creating a “very useful narrative.”
During the trial, Clinton campaign general counsel Marc Elias and campaign manager Robby Mook both said the campaign trusted the media to push the story. They were right: Slate quickly ran it, and then Clinton and one of her aides, Jake Sullivan (now President Biden’s national security adviser), released statements expressing alarm about the claim as if it were news to them.
The Clinton campaign similarly pushed the infamous Steele dossier into the news, too, after secretly helping to fund it. And both the Steele dossier and the Alfa Bank claim was pushed to friends in the FBI.
Regardless of what the jury decides regarding Sussmann, the combined record of the Steele dossier and the Alfa Bank claim makes the FBI look like an unindicted co-conspirator.
On the witness stand in Sussmann’s trial, for example, FBI general counsel James Baker was asked why it took him so long to turn over the most damaging evidence — a text message to him in which Sussmann said he was not representing any client in pushing the Alfa Bank claim to FBI officials. Baker explained that Sussmann was his friend and told prosecutors that “this is not my investigation. This is your investigation.”
In other words, there was no reason for the Justice Department to expect that Baker, a former top Justice lawyer, would help to make the case against Sussmann. It did not help the optics when Baker left the Justice Department and joined Brookings Institution, liberal think tank linked to key figures who framed the early Russian collusion claims. For some, it seemed like not just friends but “friends with benefits.”
Later, the supervisory agent for the FBI’s Trump-Russia probe, Joe Pientka, sent a note to FBI special agent Curtis Heide, stating: “People on the 7th floor to include Director are fired up about this server.” Pientka then messaged Heide: “Did you guys open a case? Reach out and put tools on?”
1/
That description of the apparent eagerness of then-FBI Director James Comey and others only magnifies concern over the bureau’s alleged bias or predisposition on the Trump investigation. It was the same eagerness that led the FBI to pursue the Russian investigation for years despite being warned early by American intelligence that the Steele dossier contained not just unsupported allegations but possible Russian disinformation.
When FBI investigators were given Sussmann’s allegation, they were told by supervisors that it came from the Justice Department, not Sussmann. Even with that framing, however, investigators found what the Clinton campaign researchers feared — in Baker’s words, that there was “nothing there.”
The FBI, however, went on to pursue the other Russia collusion claims. That effort would result in a conviction of FBI attorney Kevin Clinesmith for making false statements by altering key evidence to obtain secret surveillance orders against Trump associate Carter Page. Another trial witness, the FBI’s Heide, admitted he is under investigation for allegedly withholding exculpatory information contradicting the premise of the Russia investigation.
Previously, of course, another special counsel, Robert Mueller, never found any basis for criminal charges related to Russia collusion. But what is now even more striking is how so much of this information about “fired up” FBI officials and the role of the Clinton campaign mysteriously escaped Mueller and his team.
The question now is whether Durham will be given the same opportunity as Mueller to write a report on his findings. All of these disclosures were made despite limitations placed on Durham by the court. Clearly, Durham is sitting on more information about how the collusion claims were packaged and pushed to eager friends in the media and the FBI.
Before Mueller declined to press criminal charges on any Russia collusion allegations, Democrats in Congress insisted that he should not just issue a report but that the report should be released unredacted, including ordinarily secret grand jury material.
There is no such hue and cry for a similarly unredacted report by Durham.
If Durham does not issue such a report, much of the true story behind the Russia collusion scandal could be buried. Indeed, even if control of Congress were to flip to Republicans in November, the Justice Department could refuse to turn over investigatory material and information. That is precisely what many in Washington undoubtedly would like to happen.
Yet, after the glimpses offered in Sussmann prosecution of still undisclosed evidence, the public deserves to have a full Durham report on how these scandals were conceived and crafted among “friends.”
Jonathan Turley is the Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at George Washington University. Follow him on Twitter @JonathanTurley.
2/2
>Regardless of what the jury decides regarding Sussmann, the combined record of the Steele dossier and the Alfa Bank claim makes the FBI look like an unindicted co-conspirator.
''Supreme Court Reportedly To Demand Cellphones and Affidavits From Clerks in Leak Investigation==
jonathanturley.org/2022/05/31/supreme-court-reportedly-to-demand-cellphones-and-affidavits-from-clerks-in-leak-investigation
May 31, 2022
The Supreme Court appears to be ratcheting up its investigation into the leaking of the draft opinion in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization. According to CNN, the Court is asking clerks to provide cell phone records and sign affidavits. Some of us have been surprised by Chief Justice John Roberts’ decision not to ask for assistance from the FBI, which is the world’s leading law enforcement agency on computer and forensic investigations. Yet, the affidavits may come with the most worrisome change for the leaker. Once signed, the leaker will reaffirm his or her potential criminal liability.
The cellphone records raise obvious privacy concerns. Communications with Politico or intermediaries can be masked or concealed as casual or personal exchanges. An email entitled “Leaked Confidential Dobbs Draft” is not likely to exist. That means that any meaningful review would require a broader review, creating challenges in how to filter messages and emails.
The affidavit may be a greater concern for the leaker. After all, the leaker may have wisely avoided using the cellphone or creating digital tracks. The affidavit is a sworn statement to federal investigators. If false, it would establish that a federal crime has been committed. Under 18 U.S.C. 1001, it is a federal crime to knowingly and willfully make a materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement in any matter within the jurisdiction of the executive, legislative, or judicial branch of the United States. While there were possible criminal claims that could have been brought based on the leak, this makes such criminality clear and undeniable.
That would mean that any doubt would be removed for the leaker. If he or she were to go public or be uncovered in the future, there would be a risk of not simply disbarment but criminal prosecution. The leaker may expect that they will be lionized for this effort in the media, though that is more likely if it was a liberal rather than a conservative leaker. This could frustrate such plans. Frankly, I am surprised that such affidavits were not required in the first week.
Despite claims that the leaker is clearly coming from one side or the other, there are equally plausible theories for a leaker on the right or the left. What is clear is that this was a disgracefully unethical act that shattered the long traditions of the Court. The affidavits will make it more difficult for this individual to later try to capitalize on this wrongful act.
FBI Pledge Allegiance to Black Lives Matter, Antifa, Nation of Islam and New Black Panthers Protesters…
theconservativetreehouse.com/blog/2020/06/07/fbi-pledges-allegiance-to-black-lives-matter-antifa-nation-of-islam-and-new-black-panthers-protesters
June 7, 2020
In a display of public unity with ‘The Movement’ writ large, FBI officials took a knee to declare their woke allegiance with the protesting mobs. With that visible display we now have a better understanding of the motives behind a history of FBI failures.
Setting aside the optic that some members of the FBI looking more like ‘meal-team-6’, there was always a suspicion the FBI were more concerned about political correctness than actually doing the work of a federal investigative agency. Historically the FBI has failed miserably to stop domestic terror threats; and when the investigative failures are researched there’s usually a prior connection between the attackers and the FBI.
The father of the Orlando Pulse nightclub terrorist, Omar Mateen, was a guy named Seddique Mateen (you might remember seeing him at the Hillary Clinton rally). After Omar killed 49 people it was discovered that Seddique had been an FBI informant for over eleven years (2005 to 2016).
Similarly, after the Parkland school shooting, it was discovered the FBI was fully aware of Nikolas Cruz, yet again they had taken no action. The exact same scenario had played out several years earlier when the FBI was warned about the Tsarnaev brothers before the Boston Marathon Bombing 2013 and yet they did nothing to stop it.
The FBI is now a political agency with police powers within the federal government. The activity of Lisa Page, Peter Strzok, James Comey, Andrew McCabe and a host of very familiar names has shown just how important politics is within the institution. Indeed, as we saw in the ridiculous Hillary Clinton investigation, politics was the prism for every decision; and protecting their ideological tribe was the biggest concern within the agency.
Understanding the sensitivity behind the FBI to the Muslim community; a sensitivity almost identical to the expressed position of the democrat party apparatus; it should not come as a big surprise to see FBI agents ignoring terror threats and simultaneously taking a knee to show their allegiance with Black Lives Matter.
After all, Black Lives Matter (BLM) is an assembly of political grievance activists that includes the Nation of Islam (Farrakhan) and the New Black Panther Party (NBPP). The overall network is currently working in coordination with the ultra-violent Antifa.
When the FBI takes a knee to support BLM they are openly aligning with Antifa and the violent advocacy it carries; and not being subtle about sticking a finger in the eye of the U.S. Attorney General Bill Barr.
Once we accept the FBI is a weaponized political agency it makes sense they would only target people adverse to their political agenda; and more harshly target anyone whom they would view as a political opponent (Roger Stone). Somehow the FBI found the motivation and resources to send more heavily armed agents to arrest 68-year-old Roger Stone than ever stepped foot in Benghazi, Libya.
This also explains why the FBI refused to deal with FBI chief legal counsel Dana Boente when his corrupt activity was discovered within an attempt to overthrow President Trump.
Severe politicization also reconciles how Robert Mueller and Andrew Weissmann were able to instruct over 50 FBI agents to investigate a transparently non-existent Russian collusion conspiracy for over two years; as part of a strategy to help democrats win the 2018 election.
One example within the FBI operation in 2018 was the fraudulent nonsense behind Cesar Sayoc. You might remember: FBI Director Christopher Wray outlined during his remarks the mysterious devices consisted of PVC pipe, clocks, batteries, wiring and “energetic material that can become combustible when subjected to heat or friction”.
Indeed, in hindsight things make a lot more sense when we see the FBI take a knee to express their politics publicly, and we have two years of FBI Director Christopher Wray explaining how the FBI is an earnest group of employees who just needed a little more “bias training” to ensure their bias did not surface in their investigations.
Understanding the political prism through which all decisions are made in the FBI, also helps reconcile why FBI Director Christopher Wray would choose David Bowditch as his deputy director.
David Bowditch was the FBI official in charge of the 2015 San Bernardino terrorist attack carried out by Syed Farook and Tashfeen Malik. 14 people were killed and 22 others were seriously injured. Everything behind the attack was sketchy, and there was clearly a green card scam being run as part of the background operation.
Yes Alice, once you accept that everything the FBI does is based on their politics, then everything starts to make a lot more sense; including how those suspects were able to carry out their operations while under surveillance.
From the recent Pensacola Naval Air Station attack, to the attack in Las Vegas, to the Garland Texas terrorist event everything makes sense from the perspective the FBI are first and foremost a political operation.
One other event also takes on a remarkable amount of clarity now (watch):
https://youtu.be/nAtYSOu3-hk
https://youtu.be/2tyoJq_GLb0
>https://twitter.com/Breaking911/status/1531333101883998208
🐸😱😱😱 Gm frens, I need cobbee stat!
Sniff This Joe!
https://twitter.com/jeffmason1/status/1531655809599406080
.
~~@POTUS~~ with @jacindaardern
in the Oval Office.
11:16 AM · May 31, 2022·Twitter for iPhone
https://twitter.com/charlie_savage/status/1531640271875805184
Judge Cooper came back into his courtroom to take a guilty plea via zoom against a Jan.6 Capitol rioter. Appears to be Richard Michetti. Media room was confused at firest r why this zoom call was being piped in. His defense atty appears to be on a boat. /6
10:14 AM · May 31, 2022·Twitter Web App
https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1531622835709419520?refresh=1654013079
Good morning from the E. Barrett Prettyman federal courthouse in downtown DC. Hope you all had a good Memorial Day weekend. Reporters are reconvening to watch for a verdict in the Sussmann-Durham trial after closing arguments on Friday. /1
Prosecutors and Defense Duel in Closing Arguments of Politically Charged Trial
A verdict is expected as early as Tuesday in the case brought by a Trump-era special counsel against a lawyer with ties to Hillary Clinton’s 2016 presidential campaign.
https://www.nytimes.com/2022/05/27/us/politics/michael-sussmann-trial-durham.html
I had thought judge might convene court at 9 a.m. to check in on how the first few hours of deliberations went on Friday afternoon, but the courtroom is empty. Not clear when we'll learn the status of anything but I'll update when something is happening. May be a boring day. /2
A flurry as court convened and lawyers start talking to judge, but no audio in media room so swarm of reporters dash up to the courtroom to catch tail end. The jury had asked to see exhibits 406 and 207, I think. Court adjourns again./3
Correction, the jury asked for GX 306, which doesn't seem to be in evidence so possibly garbled on their end, and for GX 403/DX 436, which is the taxi cab receipt. (more)/4
Also told the jury also asked whether they had to have consensus on each element or just the overall result; the judge said it had to be consensus of each element to find the defendant guilty, but just consensus on overall result to acquit. /5
Judge Cooper came back into his courtroom to take a guilty plea via zoom against a Jan.6 Capitol rioter. Appears to be Richard Michetti. Media room was confused at firest r why this zoom call was being piped in. His defense atty appears to be on a boat. /6
MICHETTI, Richard
https://www.justice.gov/usao-dc/defendants/michetti-richard
Marcy located the PDF /7
On the monitors, we can see that prosecutors and the defense team+Sussmann have returned to the courtroom. Hopefully the audio problem is fixed and we will be able to clearly hear whatever is about to be discussed without having to sprint upstairs again./8
The jury has reached a verdict./9
The judge says the note came at 11:05 a.m. They were supposed to deliberate until 5 p.m. on Friday. So they had about four hours on Friday, and about two this morning - six hours in all.
Jury is filtering in./10
Michael Sussmann is acquitted. /11
Sussmann sits back down. His face is impassive. Judge thanks jury and dismisses them. /12
Judge excuses Sussmann from all pretrial conditions and adjourns the court. /13
Sussmann will make a statement in person soon, we are told.
Team Durham will issue a statement but not give a presser, I was told earlier by DOJ. /14
• • •