An anonymous Washington, D.C. jury will now consider the case against former federal prosecutor-turned-Hillary Clinton and Democrat Party lawyer Michael Sussmann in the Trump-Russia Collusion hoax. Sussmann is accused of lying to the FBI when he told the General Counsel in a meeting two months before the election that he was bringing him Trump dirt out of his civic duty and not on behalf of his client, Hillary Clinton.
Testimony in the two-week-long trial cast Sussmann’s defense claims in deep doubt. FBI testimony, billing records, expense reports, emails, and texts showed clearly that Sussmann’s information indeed came from not one but two clients — Hillary Clinton’s campaign and cybersecurity executive Rodney Joffe.
John Durham’s special counsel prosecutors subpoenaed FBI investigators, who testified that if they’d known Sussmann’s suspicious DNS data, white papers, and flash drives purporting to show some nefarious connection between Donald Trump and the Kremlin had come from the Hillary for America campaign, they would have treated it with much more skepticism because, among other things, it was so close to the election.
And that’s the crux of the case. Did Sussmann lie about who sent him? And if he did, was that lie material? In other words, did it change the way the FBI investigated what turned out to be Hillary Clinton Campaign disinformation and perhaps tampering with an election?
Related: The Vastly Different Cases of Two Michaels – Flynn and Sussmann – Both Accused of Lying to the FBI
Durham walked a fine line in this trial. His special prosecutor team highlighted befuddled FBI line agents, believing them to have somehow been beguiled into investigating this mess while opening the door for criticism of FBI brass, like the forgetful counterintelligence chief, Bill Priestap, his direct report, Peter Strzok, Jim Comey, and the rest of the 7th Floor executives who were rooting for Hillary.
“Fired up” executives from the 7th Floor ordered the agents to press on with the investigation into a bogus super-secret server between Donald Trump and the Kremlin’s favorite bank, Alfa-Bank. As I reported in this story for PJ Media, nothing Sussmann brought as “evidence” of a connection between Trump and Russia passed the smell test.
It turns out that the “connection” was a hotel and hospitality marketing firm sending out spam emails. Trump runs hotels, as you may have noticed.
Because the information was so hinky, “didn’t pass analytical merit,” and didn’t show “a covert communications system,” agents prevailed on their boss to ask the 7th Floor at the FBI headquarters if they could be read in on who provided the flash drives, white papers, and other documents purporting the link. The brass who claimed the information came from the DOJ and said as much in the official referral to investigators. The Sept. 24, 2016 referral never mentions Michael Sussmann.
In closing arguments, Sussmann defense attorney Sean Berkowitz called the FBI’s efforts “shoddy” and “an embarrassment.” He too wanted it both ways. He claimed that because the line investigators didn’t know who sent the bad intel to them and FBI HQ refused to identify the source, it “made your investigation incomplete, did it not?” FBI agent Curtis Heide replied, “yes.” Indeed, all of the investigators begged to know the provenance of the disinformation, and they were denied.
Berkowitz also argued that everyone knew that Sussmann and his firm Perkins Coie were Hillary for America and DNC representatives. “Mr. Sussmann had DNC and HFA tattooed on his forehead; they assumed that’s where the information came from.”
Berkowitz claimed that the Durham case was about “misdirection” — that it didn’t make sense for Sussmann to lie to the FBI because he had “everything to lose [and] nothing to gain.”
It’s a wonder jurors didn’t get whiplash.
But when it comes down to it, Sussmann texted a note to James Baker claiming he wasn’t coming on behalf of a client, and Baker, Priestap, and others all put in their notes that Sussmann wasn’t coming on behalf of a client, when in fact he was representing Hillary’s campaign. His billing records showed he charged Hillary’s campaign for his supplies and time. The 7th Floor didn’t tell line investigators who brought the bogus information.
Both sides argued for “justice,” and federal prosecutors appealed to the D.C. jury’s wokeness by arguing that Sussmann used his “privilege” when he leveraged his position to “bypass normal channels” and get a meeting with James Baker to poison the media, FBI, and CIA with Hillary’s approved disinformation.
Who knows? Maybe such an appeal will work on a jury filled with Leftists, Trump haters, and Democrat donors in a company town rife with conflicts of interest.
The jury began deliberations Friday afternoon. Barring a verdict Friday — doubtful, since the judge left town for the Memorial Day weekend — they’ll resume deliberations on Tuesday.
Join the conversation as a VIP Member