June 1, 2022
The verdict is in -Despite overwhelming evidence, Hillary Clinton’s campaign lawyer, Michael Sussmann was found not guilty of making a false statement to the FBI.
The acquittal is a loss for Special Counsel John Durham- appointed by then-Attorney General Bill Barr in 2019 and those who believe in equal justice under the law. However, although Michael Sussmann will walk scot-free, Durham’s investigation and Sussmann’s trial have exposed damning evidence of the role Hillary Clinton and her campaign played in originating and disseminating the bogus claims of Russian collusion, as well as the FBI’s complicity.
Prosecutors alleged that Sussmann planned to “create an ‘October surprise’ on the eve of a presidential election” in September 2016 and was politically motivated when he requested a meeting with then-FBI general counsel James Baker. They also contended that Sussmann denied to the FBI that he was working with a client when he brought information asserting there was a back-channel between the Trump Organization and the Russian-based Alfa Bank.
The evidence introduced at his trial provided overwhelming proof that Sussmann lied to the FBI.
Baker testified that he was “100% confident” that in the meeting Sussmann informed him that he was not acting on behalf of a client but was there “as a good citizen”. Backing up Baker’s assertion is a smoking gun text message Sussmann sent him the night before the meeting.
“Jim- It’s Michael Sussmann. I have something time-sensitive (and sensitive) I need to discuss. Do you have availability for a short meeting tomorrow? I’m coming on my own-not on behalf of a client or company-want to help the Bureau. Thanks.”
Sussmann’s billing records were also damning. On the day of his meeting with Baker, Sussmann billed the Clinton campaign for 3.3 hours of work. The billing entry read, “work and meetings regarding confidential work.”
Further, the false Trump-Russia evidence Sussmann gave Baker consisted of “white papers” and two flash drives. Sussmann filed an expense report three days after the meeting for the “purchase of flash drives”, which according to the receipt, he purchased before he met with Baker.
There is no doubt that Sussmann sought the FBI meeting on behalf of the Clinton campaign and that he lied to the FBI to make his dubious information appear more trustworthy.
But, one has to wonder how the FBI believed that Sussmann was a neutral party. Even if he lied about who he was representing, it is incredulous that the FBI could not figure out that a lawyer known for working with the DNC may be politically motivated.
Further, the data presented by Sussmann was so farcical that even one of the tech executives whom Sussmann tasked with producing the information did not believe it was credible, expressing in an email that it was just a “red herring” that should be “ignored”.
Were some at the FBI willingly duped because of their motivation to stop Trump?
During the trial, a message sent by FBI agent Joe Pientka to Special Agent Curtis Heide revealed that the higher-ups within the FBI were enthusiastic about opening up another investigation into Trump. (Remember the FBI opened an investigation into Trump-Russia collusion dubbed Crossfire Hurricane in July 2016) The message read-
“People on the 7th floor [a reference to FBI leadership] to include Director are fired up about this server. Did you guys open a case? Reach out and put tools on? If not I will call Dan as Priest says its not an option- we just do it.”
Within days after Sussmann presented his research, rank and file agents concluded his claims had no merit. FBI supervisory agent Scott Hellman testified of the white paper, “I thought perhaps the person who drafted this document suffered from a mental disability.” Hellman added that despite knowing the claims were worthless, they continued with the counterintelligence investigation because “headquarters told us that not investigating was not an option.”
Suspiciously, the higher-ups in the FBI concealed Sussmann’s identity from the agents conducting the investigation. Although the Department of Justice had nothing to do with the research Sussmann brought to the FBI, a communication drafted by agents Curtis Heide and Allison Sands stated that “the Department of Justice provided the FBI with a white paper that was produced by an anonymous third party.”
When questioned by prosecutors, Heide claimed that he believed the DOJ reference was just a “mistake in our paperwork.” Was it? Then why was Sussmann classified as a “confidential informant” and his identity hidden from the investigating agents? Was that a mistake? Or were the upper echelons in the department attempting to conceal Sussmann’s role to lend more credibility to the claims?
Interestingly, Heide disclosed that he is the subject of an investigation over claims that he withheld exculpatory information in the Crossfire Hurricane investigation. (Reportedly, the information he withheld pertained to then-Trump aide George Papadopoulos).
Crossfire Hurricane also had the Clinton campaign fingerprints all over it. Recall that Clinton’s campaign, through Perkins Coie- Sussmann’s law firm, commissioned and paid for the Steele dossier, which tarred Trump as a Russian asset, and although unverified, was used by the FBI in FISA warrants to spy on Trump campaign aide Carter Page.
If most in the media were not liberal partisans, the fact that the FBI used unverified oppositional research as evidence from a presidential candidate to spy on the opposing party’s presidential candidate and his campaign would have been earth-shattering news.
Further evidence that FBI officials were biased against Trump and actively aided Hillary Clinton’s campaign – Kevin Clinesmith plead guilty last year to falsifying an email used as evidence in a FISA warrant application to spy on Page during the Crossfire Hurricane investigation. The original email stated that Page had been a source for the CIA, undermining the FBI’s claim that he was a Russian agent. Clinesmith altered the document to say he was never a CIA source.
Let’s also not forget the infamous texts between lovers and colleagues, FBI agents Lisa Page and Peter Strzok (the agent in charge of the Crossfire Hurricane probe) whose back and forth text messages revealed a hatred for then-candidate Trump. One text from Page stated- “[Trump’s] not ever going to be president, right? Right?!” Strzok replied-“No. No, he won’t. We’ll stop it.”
Although it is taking an excessive amount of time, the Durham investigation has revealed damning information about the origins of the Russian collusion hoax that would have never otherwise seen the light of day.
For the first time, as uncovered during Sussman’s trial, Hillary Clinton, not just her campaign, was revealed to have played a direct role in creating the false Russian collusion narrative.
Hillary Clinton’s former campaign manager Robby Mook testified during the trial that, despite the dubious nature of the Trump-Russian Bank connection allegations, Clinton gave the go-ahead for her campaign to release the information to the media. After Slate, a left-wing website published the story, Clinton tweeted a press release about the false allegations drafted by her senior policy advisor, Jake Sullivan.
Disturbingly, Sullivan is now Biden’s National Security Advisor.
Incredibly, Hillary Clinton tweeted the false claims out to the world as if she read them from a news source and did not have a hand in creating the allegations.
Although the Sussmann verdict was disappointing, he was just a minor player in the Russian collusion hoax, and this is not the end. Durham is yet to release his full report. And Igor Danchenko, the alleged source of Christoper Steele’s debunked dossier, charged with lying to the FBI, goes on trial this October in Virginia.
There will likely be more indictments and additional damning information exposing the origins of the Russian collusion hoax. Undoubtedly the more that is revealed, the harder it will be for those in the media to deny that Hillary Clinton and members of her campaign, along with a complicit FBI and media, concocted the most corrupt plot to take down a political opponent in the history of our nation.
