Michael Sussmann: Prosecutors say Clinton campaign lawyer tried 'to manipulate the FBI' with Trump-Russia tip as first Durham trial opens - CNNPolitics

  

Category:  News & Politics

Via:  jbb  •  one month ago  •  57 comments

By:   Marshall Cohen (CNN)

Michael Sussmann: Prosecutors say Clinton campaign lawyer tried 'to manipulate the FBI' with Trump-Russia tip as first Durham trial opens - CNNPolitics
Special counsel John Durham's prosecutors laid out their case against Hillary Clinton campaign lawyer Michael Sussmann during opening statements Tuesday, accusing him of scheming "to inject the FBI into a presidential election" by peddling an ultimately unsubstantiated tip about Donald Trump's ties to Russia, eight weeks before Election Day.

The problem Durham has is that, YES, the CIA and FBI were investigating Donald Trump's Russian dealings long prior to the 2016 election. By at least 2014 Trump and Co sought out and established relationships with known agents of Russian State Intelligence Services. What got Trump investigated was that beginning by at least by 2014 Trump was in secret negotiations with Vladimir Putin to build Trump Tower Moscow. These secret negotiations continued right up to election day in November of 2016. Hillary Clinton cannot be responsible for the legally predicated CIA and FBI investigations into Trump's Russian dealings that began in 2014 as she retired from public service in January of 2013...


S E E D E D   C O N T E N T



(CNN)Special counsel John Durham's prosecutors laid out their case against Hillary Clinton campaign lawyer Michael Sussmann during opening statements Tuesday, accusing him of scheming "to inject the FBI into a presidential election" by peddling an ultimately unsubstantiated tip about Donald Trump's ties to Russia, eight weeks before Election Day.

"The defendant's lie was all part of a bigger plan. ... It was a plan to create an October surprise on the eve of the election ... to use and manipulate the FBI," prosecutor Brittain Shaw said. She described Sussmann as a "high-powered DC lawyer" who "lied to direct the power and resources of the FBI to his own ends, and to serve the agendas of his clients," who were the Clinton campaign and a tech executive. "This is a case about privilege," Shaw added. Sussmann has been charged with one count of lying to the FBI, and the case was brought as part of Durham's investigation into potential misconduct related to the FBI's Trump-Russia probe. The indictment accuses Sussmann of falsely telling the FBI he wasn't representing any clients when he provided the Trump-Russia tip in September 2016. Sussmann has pleaded not guilty. Prosecutors appealed to the jurors to set politics aside and convict Sussmann because, they say, he abused the trust of senior FBI officials to try to help Clinton win the 2016 presidential election. Jurors' political affiliations, contributions and volunteer work for candidates, including Clinton, repeatedly came up during the jury selection process. Read More "Whether we hate Donald Trump or like him, we have to agree that some things have to be above politics. One of those things is our law enforcement agencies, and the other is truth," Shaw said. Who's who in the Michael Sussmann trial The case, playing out in DC federal court, is expected to last about two weeks. It's the first major courtroom test of the three-year Durham investigation. For the second day, Durham was in court for the all-day proceedings, and huddled with his team in the hallways during breaks.

Defense blasts 'nonsensical' case


In opening statements, Sussmann's defense attorney said the case was "an injustice" and vehemently denied that he was part of any scheme to deceive the FBI. His lawyer, Michael Bosworth, argued that all Sussmann wanted to do was get information to the press about Trump's ties to Russia. Once a major outlet was ready to publish the material, Sussmann wanted "to help the FBI" and warn them that a story was coming, Bosworth said. "The meeting with the FBI is the exact opposite of what the Clinton campaign would've wanted," Bosworth said, explaining that the FBI quashed the news story after learning about it from Sussmann. "The FBI meeting is something they didn't authorize, they didn't direct him to do, and they didn't want him to do." Bosworth lambasted Durham's central theory of the case, telling jurors it is "nonsensical" that Sussmann was trying to conceal his ties to the Clinton campaign. For one, Sussmann's partisan ties were well-known to the FBI at the time, largely because he was the Democratic National Committee's lawyer after they were hacked by the Russians in 2016. "His partisan affiliations, they were out and about, loud and clear for everyone to see," Bosworth said, as he displayed some of Sussmann's emails to the FBI in his role as the DNC's lawyer. Bosworth added: "If he was trying to dupe the FBI, why give them the data that they could evaluate for themselves? ... He had a genuine interest in national security and doing the right thing."

Glimpse into Trump-Alfa probe


The first day of witness testimony shed considerable new light on the FBI's efforts to run down Sussmann's tip -- that the Trump Organization had a secret server that was potentially communicating with Russia-based Alfa Bank during 2016, perhaps to collude on the election. It's been public for years that the FBI determined there weren't improper cyber links. But the US government hasn't previously told the public what the FBI did to reach that conclusion. FBI special agent Scott Hellman, a cyber division supervisor who examined Sussmann's data and a "white paper" with assertions about the data, testified that the people behind the material performed a "questionable" analysis and "jumped to some conclusions that were not supported." "I thought perhaps the person who had drafted this document was suffering from some mental disability," Hellmann said, after he was asked to explain what he meant in an internal FBI chat message that he sent after reviewing the white paper, where he said: "it feels a little 5150-ish." Durham's team also revealed the FBI's final conclusion on what the data showed. This has remained one of the unsettled mysteries from the 2016 election, especially after special counsel Robert Mueller released his sweeping report but never mentioned the Trump-Alfa server claims. The FBI investigation found "the server was merely a spam email server used for sending out marketing emails," Shaw told the jury during her opening statements. "The server did not reflect a crime, nor was it a threat to national security." The spam server theory was previously put forward by Alfa Bank. A bipartisan Senate report said in 2020 that it accepted the FBI's findings about the "unusual activity," but noted that the two companies gave contradictory explanations for what happened. Over the years, some cybersecurity experts have raised questions about the thoroughness of the FBI's inquiry. Hellmann said he made his findings within one day, before passing the case onto other investigators in the FBI's counterintelligence division. He said he didn't attempt to interview the researchers who compiled the data, didn't seek search warrants or subpoenas. This story has been updated with further developments on Tuesday.


Tags

jrDiscussion - desc
[]
 
JBB
Professor Principal
1  seeder  JBB    one month ago

The CIA and FBI were already investigating Trump's Russian dealings prior to the Sussman meeting...

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
1.1  Vic Eldred  replied to  JBB @1    one month ago

Lest we forget, five former CIA Directors lied to get Biden elected.

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
PhD Guide
1.1.1  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  Vic Eldred @1.1    one month ago

and the FBI Director and quite a few FBI agents...

 
 
 
pat wilson
Professor Guide
1.1.2  pat wilson  replied to  Vic Eldred @1.1    one month ago

Please name them, lest we forget.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
1.1.3  Vic Eldred  replied to  pat wilson @1.1.2    one month ago

You know who they are Pat. I'll take the time to enter them into the record:

[Deleted, subsidiary of a banned, questionable source]

[deleted, no value

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
1.1.4  Tessylo  replied to  pat wilson @1.1.2    one month ago

He cannot.  They do not exist.  

They're also not identified in the rag he cited, the Washington Standard, whatever that is

 
 
 
pat wilson
Professor Guide
1.1.5  pat wilson  replied to  Vic Eldred @1.1.3    one month ago
And to think that you were the one who complained about " incessant questions from a questioner who already knows the answers."

I don't ask "incessant" questions Vic.

Your link names 51 spies who cast doubt on the Hunter Biden laptop story. So ?

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
1.1.6  JohnRussell  replied to  Vic Eldred @1.1.3    one month ago

I did a slight amount of checking into the author of your Washington Standard link. 

Tim Brown

Tim Brown is an author and Editor at   FreedomOutpost.com ,   SonsOfLibertyMedia.com ,   GunsInTheNews.com   and   TheWashingtonStandard.com . He is husband to his "more precious than rubies" wife, father of 10 "mighty arrows", jack of all trades, Christian and lover of liberty.
He resides in the U.S. occupied Great State of South Carolina . .
Follow Tim on   Twitter . Also check him out on   Gab ,   Minds ,   MeWe ,   Spreely ,   Mumbl It   and   Steemit
 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
1.1.7  Vic Eldred  replied to  pat wilson @1.1.5    one month ago
So ?

They lied.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
1.1.8  JohnRussell  replied to  JohnRussell @1.1.6    one month ago

I looked up SonsOf Liberty Media too. One far right crackpot conspiracy theory after another.  You need better sources Vic. 

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
1.1.9  Vic Eldred  replied to  JohnRussell @1.1.6    one month ago

Who gives a shit. You know just like Pat does that 51 former intelligence officials came out during the 2020 election and called the Hunter Biden laptop story "Russian disinformation."  Do you deny that?

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
1.1.10  Vic Eldred  replied to  JohnRussell @1.1.8    one month ago
You need better sources Vic. 

No I don't John. The story is common knowledge. You want to lie and say that you don't know about those former officials and the lie they told?

Honesty John!

 
 
 
pat wilson
Professor Guide
1.1.11  pat wilson  replied to  Vic Eldred @1.1.9    one month ago

No, many of them just didn't respond to the questions put to them. For whatever reason.

The emails and the laptop, Oh my !

 
 
 
pat wilson
Professor Guide
1.1.12  pat wilson  replied to  Vic Eldred @1.1.7    one month ago

That's the title of the story only. 51 spies didn't actually lie.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
1.1.13  JohnRussell  replied to  Vic Eldred @1.1.10    one month ago

I want you to stop using far right conspiracy sites as sources. That is what I want. 

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
1.1.14  Vic Eldred  replied to  pat wilson @1.1.12    one month ago
51 spies didn't actually lie.

Oh but they did, They called the Hunter Laptop story "Russian disinformation."

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
1.1.15  Vic Eldred  replied to  JohnRussell @1.1.13    one month ago
I want you to stop using far right conspiracy sites as sources. That is what I want. 

When somebody asks for a link to a story that is common knowledge, I'll take the first one I find. You can blame the msm or Google for not being more open.

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
1.1.16  Tessylo  replied to  pat wilson @1.1.5    one month ago
"Your link names 51 spies who cast doubt on the Hunter Biden laptop story. So ?"

Really Pat!  So?

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
1.1.17  Tessylo  replied to  JohnRussell @1.1.6    one month ago

I figured it was an unreliable source.  SSDD.

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
PhD Guide
1.1.18  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  pat wilson @1.1.12    one month ago
That's the title of the story only. 51 spies didn't actually lie.

Then explain 

After the story surfaced in October 2020 right before the presidential election, Twitter and Facebook made a concerted effort to bury it and censored the  Post’ s article, arguing it was unsubstantiated and illegitimate reporting. Biden and over 50 former intelligence officials   smeared   the laptop revelation as part of a   Russian disinformation operation . Over a year later, the   New York Times   and the  Washington Post   finally confirmed the story after dismissing it as unsubstantiated for months. Hunter Biden had previously admitted that the laptop did in fact belong to him.

Some Republicans have argued that the early tech and liberal media suppression of the story   misled the public   and may have effected the results of the 2020 election.

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
1.1.19  Tessylo  replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @1.1.18    one month ago

You're using the National Review as a source.  Fail.  It's nothing but a whackjob conspiracy theory site anymore.  Especially since this Hunter Biden nothingberder.  

Got nothin'!

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
PhD Guide
1.1.20  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  Tessylo @1.1.19    one month ago
You're using the National Review as a source. 

When you have noting you attack the source.  What was your source again?  

Got nothin'!

Exactly what you have.

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
1.1.21  Tessylo  replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @1.1.20    one month ago

That's all you ever have.  

 
 
 
pat wilson
Professor Guide
1.1.22  pat wilson  replied to  Vic Eldred @1.1.7    one month ago

Go back and review the list of "spies". Most of them "didn't respond". Unless you want to call that "lies of omission" they didn't lie.

Your laptop-gate is a dud.

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
Professor Principal
1.1.23  Trout Giggles  replied to  Vic Eldred @1.1.3    one month ago

Look, Vic, this is how it works. You cite a "fact" and if asked how you came to that "fact" it's up to you to do the footwork.

And Pat is not anything like the troll she described in the meta article

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
Professor Principal
1.1.24  Trout Giggles  replied to  Vic Eldred @1.1.15    one month ago

[deleted]

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
1.1.25  Vic Eldred  replied to  Trout Giggles @1.1.23    one month ago
Look, Vic, this is how it works. You cite a "fact" and if asked how you came to that "fact" it's up to you to do the footwork.

Look Trout, this is how it works: I cite a fact and if asked how I came to that "fact" it's up to me to do the footwork. I did that Trout. You and a few others may not like the source or maybe some just like to play games. I am quite sure that all of you cheered on those former intelligence officials who got in line to call the Hunter Biden Laptop "Russian disinformation." Some of you may have used that description at the time that social media censored the New York post along with that story. Recently, however, the New York Times, Washington Post and even CNN came out and said the Hunter Laptop story was real. When somebody says they have no knowledge of a major story like that, I'm willing to still give them a link, but it will be the first one I come across. She got her link and none of you may like to admit it but you know those officials lied.

 
 
 
JBB
Professor Principal
2  seeder  JBB    one month ago

Thing going badly for Grand Inquisitor John Durham! 

 
 
 
Tacos!
Professor Expert
3  Tacos!    one month ago
Sussmann wanted "to help the FBI" and warn them that a story was coming

That sounds completely unbelievable.

 
 
 
Ender
Professor Principal
4  Ender    one month ago

So Durham was in court all day.

So is this all he has? Sure seems like it.

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
4.1  Tessylo  replied to  Ender @4    one month ago

How many articles are going to be posted about this?

 
 
 
bugsy
Professor Participates
4.1.1  bugsy  replied to  Tessylo @4.1    one month ago

Probably a lot, but that would still put them YEARS behind the Russia collusion hoax stories.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
4.1.2  Vic Eldred  replied to  Tessylo @4.1    one month ago

It's an ongoing investigation.

 
 
 
Dismayed Patriot
Professor Participates
4.1.3  Dismayed Patriot  replied to  bugsy @4.1.1    one month ago
but that would still put them YEARS behind the Russia collusion hoax stories

What "hoax"?

Did the Russian government intentionally aid the Trump campaign, which included millions spent on fake social media ads, illegal hacking of private US email servers, illegally releasing political party emails and offer dirt on Hillary to the Trump campaign in an effort to get Trump elected over Hillary Clinton? Yes. Was the Trump campaign eager and thankful for such aid? Yes. Did the Trump campaign and the Russian government have numerous contacts during the campaign? Yes. The only thing that wasn't proven was any promise of repayment to Russia for their aid, though it was clear from the Flynn conversation with the Russian ambassador that stopping sanctions was clearly being considered as a 'gesture' of good will after all the aid Russia had given.

The Republican led senate investigation report corroborates past findings by researchers and the intelligence community that a notorious Russian troll farm “sought to influence the 2016 U.S. presidential election by harming Hillary Clinton’s chances of success and supporting Donald Trump at the direction of the Kremlin.”

They concluded, based on the evidence that Moscow "engaged in an aggressive, multifaceted effort to influence, or attempt to influence, the outcome of the 2016 presidential election." They detailed extensive contacts between Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort and Konstantin Kilimnik that the report labeled a "Russian intelligence officer," and said Manafort sought on numerous occasions to "secretly share internal Campaign information with Kilimnik" and said his willingness to share information with Kilimnik and other Russian operatives "represented a grave counterintelligence threat."

What has the Durham investigation uncovered so far? Apparently some money spent by the campaign on opposition research was misreported as a different expense and an attorney who notified the FBI about a story that was going to be run may not have disclosed his connection to the Clinton campaign, though as his defense has pointed out, he was well known by the FBI to have ties to the Clinton campaign due to his working for the DNC after they were hacked by the Russians in 2016.

How anyone can compare the two investigations and come to the conclusion that it was the Democrats who must be the real criminals here, not the enemy foreign government that we know for a fact meddled in the election in favor of one candidate over another, or that candidates campaign manager and staff who were clearly eager for the enemy foreign government aid and according to a Republican Senate investigation "represented a grave counterintelligence threat", is simply mind blowing. Perhaps it's dirty Donald's balloon knot tightening around their necks that could illicit such insane conclusions.

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
4.1.4  Tessylo  replied to  Dismayed Patriot @4.1.3    one month ago
"What has the Durham investigation uncovered so far? Apparently some money spent by the campaign on opposition research was misreported as a different expense and an attorney who notified the FBI about a story that was going to be run may not have disclosed his connection to the Clinton campaign, though as his defense has pointed out, he was well known by the FBI to have ties to the Clinton campaign due to his working for the DNC after they were hacked by the Russians in 2016. How anyone can compare the two investigations and come to the conclusion that it was the Democrats who must be the real criminals here, not the enemy foreign government that we know for a fact meddled in the election in favor of one candidate over another, or that candidates campaign manager and staff who were clearly eager for the enemy foreign government aid and according to a Republican Senate investigation "represented a grave counterintelligence threat", is simply mind blowing. Perhaps it's dirty Donald's balloon knot tightening around their necks that could illicit such insane conclusions."

That's it in a nutshell DP.

SSDD

 
 
 
bugsy
Professor Participates
4.1.5  bugsy  replied to  Dismayed Patriot @4.1.3    one month ago

Of course you failed to link where you got this from. Maybe because it is a blog or some other unreliable source?

Probably

BTW...maybe you need to report your findings to Mueller, since he apparently was wrong when he stated no collusion in his report.

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
4.1.6  Tessylo  replied to  Dismayed Patriot @4.1.3    one month ago

We believe you DP.  Don't trust the supporters/enablers of the trumpturd.  

 
 
 
Dismayed Patriot
Professor Participates
4.1.7  Dismayed Patriot  replied to  bugsy @4.1.5    one month ago
Of course you failed to link where you got this from.

My quotes were from the Senate investigation findings. If you're that incapable of verifying or even bothering to look up what the Senate investigation concluded then here's a link.

Report_Volume2.pdf (senate.gov)

BTW...maybe you need to report your findings to Mueller, since he apparently was wrong when he stated no collusion in his report.

The Republican Senate investigation used Mueller's investigation among others to draw their conclusions, there is nothing in what I posted above that they don't already know, and guess what? No where in my comment do I claim there was criminal conspiracy aka 'collusion'. I stated facts, now all you can do is whine about my source and proclaim I said something I didn't, clearly you have a 'winning' argument. /s

 
 
 
Dismayed Patriot
Professor Participates
4.1.8  Dismayed Patriot  replied to  Tessylo @4.1.6    one month ago
We believe you DP.

You don't have to believe me, it was a Republican led Senate investigation that came to these conclusions, but I appreciate your sentiment. Apparently some here have trouble even believing their own party when the facts don't fit their desired narrative. It seems right wing media didn't cover the investigations findings much (I wonder why? /s) since right wing conservatives seem completely oblivious to the facts. All they covered from the investigation was "No collusion" as if that completely proved the Trump campaigns innocence despite there being nearly a dozen of the Trump campaign managers and staff along with Trump friends and allies who have been charged and convicted or plead guilty to lying among a host of other crimes. But none of that matters to those intoxicated on the hot wind blowing out Trumps ass. They're all clearly real fart smellers...

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
4.1.9  Tessylo  replied to  Dismayed Patriot @4.1.8    one month ago

I know that. 

Just had to let a certain poster know (the one who claims that they're always right and never are) who stated:  "Maybe because it is a blog or some other unreliable source?  Probably"  that I don't take anything into consideration that he states because I know that it's not true right out of the gate.

I trust you 

The comment was more for him than you.  I refuse to comment to certain posters directly.  

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Expert
4.1.10  Sean Treacy  replied to  Dismayed Patriot @4.1.3    one month ago

Do you know what collusion means? 

you have to show Russia and Trump worked together on these things. Showing what Russia did or didn't do on its own isn't relevant.  So yes the collusion claim is a hoax.  It quite obviously never happened and you haven't even come close to showing otherwise. . 

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
4.2  Tessylo  replied to  Ender @4    one month ago

They pretty much got nothin', as usual

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
4.2.1  Vic Eldred  replied to  Tessylo @4.2    one month ago

That's why Sussman, Elias, Joffe and Danchenko are lawyered up.

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
4.2.2  Tessylo  replied to  Vic Eldred @4.2.1    one month ago

Ya!  Nothin', like I said

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
4.2.3  Vic Eldred  replied to  Tessylo @4.2.2    one month ago

They got caught!

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
4.2.4  Tessylo  replied to  Vic Eldred @4.2.3    one month ago

Still nothin'

 
 
 
JBB
Professor Principal
4.2.5  seeder  JBB  replied to  Vic Eldred @4.2.3    one month ago

Caught doing what? Talking out of school about the open secret that the FBI and CIA had been investigating Trump's Russian dealings for years? The legal predicates for the CIA and FBI investigations into Trump's Russian deals had been established by 2014!

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
4.2.6  Tessylo  replied to  JBB @4.2.5    one month ago

This is all they got after years of Durham investigating the investigators.  Pathetic!

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
4.2.7  Vic Eldred  replied to  JBB @4.2.5    one month ago
Caught doing what?

Caught trying to promote a monster hoax about candidate Trump.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
4.2.8  Vic Eldred  replied to  Tessylo @4.2.6    one month ago
after years of Durham investigating

We had a pandemic that slowed that down considerably

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
PhD Guide
4.2.9  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  Vic Eldred @4.2.8    one month ago

They seem to forget that Meuller spent 4+ years investigating Trump resulted in nothing.  Durham has only spent 18 months investigating and come up with significantly more against the Democrats.  Although we can attribute a lot of it to to Meuller finding some of this and failing to do something about it.

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
4.2.10  Tessylo  replied to  Vic Eldred @4.2.8    one month ago

Pandemic had nothing to do with it.

All those years for nothing.  What a slacker!  All you got is this one guy.  You got nothin'!

LOL!

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
4.2.11  Tessylo  replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @4.2.9    one month ago

That's not true.  4+ years?  That's not true either.  

Durham has been at this more than 18 months.

What a loser.  All the republicans have is losers and criminals.  

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
PhD Guide
4.2.13  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  Tessylo @4.2.11    one month ago
That's not true.  4+ years?  That's not true either. 

I recommend you talk to your counterparts then.  Your talking points aren't lining up.  They're claiming Trump was being investigated as far back as 2014. 

 
 
 
Just Jim NC TttH
Masters Principal
4.2.14  Just Jim NC TttH  replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @4.2.13    one month ago

And nary a link to back it up..................

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
PhD Guide
4.2.15  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  Just Jim NC TttH @4.2.14    one month ago

I'll be honest, there have been a few links.  Most are misinformation and mimic the already disproven talking points.  

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
4.2.16  Tessylo  replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @4.2.13    one month ago

No need.  It's you and your pals here whose talking points aren't lining up.  

 
 

Who is online

Texan1211


28 visitors