Sussmann of Perkins Coie indicted for lying to FBI.
context-cdn.washingtonpost.com/notes/prod/def… Indictment contains fascinating details on (long-denied) role of Clinton campaign and Democrats in perpetrating this fraud.
2/ Sussmann's work in pushing and disseminating the fraudulent "Alfa" logs was billed to Clinton campaign, contradicting prior claims that he represented some anonymous public-spirited client. Image
3/ Durham's characterization of July 29, 2016 meeting leaves out one of most important facts: in addition to Fusion personnel (US Investigative Firm) attending this meeting, Christopher Steele of Orbis was in attendance. Why omit this? Image
4/ Sussmann, Elias and Fusion were coordinating in August 2016, with time charged to Clinton campaign Image
5/ Tech-Executive 1 (Max, who, prior to indictment, was plausibly identified by @FOOL_NELSON as Rodney Joffe of Neustar) also communicated directly with Fusion GPS. Questoin: are these communications disclosed in Communications Log provided to Alfa? Image
I'm a bit slow with this thread as I'm digesting it in real time. Each page has fresh surprises and hard to do justice to it. I encourage everyone to read it.
6/ I'm going to walk through chronology of events, adding commentary. Durham observes that Tea Leaves/Originator 1 had "assembled purported DNS data" by "in or around late July 2016" spanning time period from May 4, 2016 to July 29, 2016. Image
7/ the July 29 date matches, by coincidence or not, the date of a meeting between Sussmann, Elias, Fusion GPS and Christopher Steele at Perkins Coie office. This was in the immediate wake of Wikileaks publishing DNC emails. Also date that Crossfire Hurricane opened.
8/ the latest timestamp in Tea Leaves' purported DNS log was July 19, 2016 11:33 AM (EDT). So it was finalized only minutes before the Perkins Coie meeting. Image
9/ by coincidence (or not), the earliest timestamp in the purported DNS logs was on May 4, 2016 6:48 AM (EDT), the very day that Crowdstrike's engagement began and, within minutes, purported to identify Russian state hackers.
9/ Durham says that Originator-1 (Tea Leaves) was "a business associate of Tech Executive 1 [Joffe]". WeaponizedAutism convincingly identified Tea Leaves some time ago as April Lorenzen. Detail in Indictment consistent with this identification. Image
10/ at almost exactly the same time, Steele and Danchenko published Report 95 (undated but within a day or two of July 27, 2016), which broke the most detailed and damning fabrications of Trump-Russia collusion, claiming that Wikileaks hack and drop a product of this collusion
11/ the fraudulent Steele Report 95 would almost certainly have been on the agenda of Fusion, Steele, Elias and Sussmann at their July 29 summit meeting - in addition to the incipient fraud related to "Alfa Bank" communications
12/ the Indictment itemizes contacts between Sussmann, [Joffe] and Elias in August, all billed to Clinton campaign. Image
13/ the next section of Indictment describes efforts by Tech Executive 1 to "use his access at multiple organizations" to dig up dirt on Trump and Russia with the "goal of creating a 'narrative'" regarding Trump-Russia. If nothing else, this sounds like FARA in-kind contribution. Image
14/ Tech Executive 1 used his authority at two companies to direct employees to search "public and non-public" data for "derogatory" information on Trump. Some of this data appears to have been held by companies in supposed confidence, but such duties ignored. Image
15/ employees appear to have told FBI that they were "uncomfortable" with such an assignment, but Tech Executive 1 was a "powerful figure" Image
15/ on orders from Tech Executive 1, employees carried out a monumental search of "non-public Internet data" held in confidence for contacts of Trump associates. (Keep in mind that the Tea Leaves "data" was already in hand and has nothing to do with this August research.) Image
16/ employees of Internet Company 3 appear to have drafted a "written paper" for Tech Executive 1 containing "some of the same technical observations". I presume that these were comments on the Tea Leaves data, as hard to understand otherwise. Image
16/ concurrently, Tech Exec 1 commissioned Tea Leaves [Lorenzen] and two researchers at University-1 (plausibly identified as Georgia Tech) to research Trump ties to Russia to "please certain 'VIPS'". Another in kind contribution not declared to FEC. Image
17/ Durham observed that University-1 and Agency-1 were then finalizing a major contract. Walkafyre has convincingly identified this as the DoD-Georgia Tech contract announced on Nov 29, 2016. PI was Manos Antonakkis. Michael Farrell was Chief Scientist news.gatech.edu/news/2016/11/2… ImageImage
18/ Durham says that TeaLeaves/Originator 1 was "founder of a company that [Georgia Tech] researchers were considering as a potential data provider". Slight support for identification of Lorenzen as putative Tea Leaves, as she was founder of Dissect Cyber. ImageImage
19/ TechExec1 and InternetCompany1 provided [Georgia Tech] with confidential data, including DNS data of an Executive Branch office which [Neustar] held confidentially as a "sub-contractor in a sensitive relationship between USG and another company". By what authority I wonder? Image
20/ the ostensible purpose of Company 1 supplying confidential data to [Georgia Tech] was for research "to protect US from cyberattacks". However, TeaLeaves and the GT researchers "exploited" data to research alleged Trump-Russia ties Image
21/ but while the researchers were carrying out oppo research on all sorts of confidential data that they had for other purpose, this research not only doesn't appear to have turned up any derogatory information, but to have raised questions about Tea Leaves' original file
21/ Researcher 1 queried the DNS datafiles on domain mail1.trump-email.com (the domain in later controversy) and was unable to locate any communications linked to Russia, reporting that list "does not make much sense with the storyline you have". Image
21/ Originator 1 sent an email to [Joffe] and the other researchers on Aug 20, 2016, pointing out that it would be easy to fill out sales forms on two websites with a fake email address, and thereby cause them "to appear to communicate in DNS". Image
22/ [Joffe] then sent an email to [Lorenzen] and the researchers saying that "VIPs would be happy" with "evidence of *anything* that shows an attempt [by Trump] to behave badly". Very clear that [Joffe] complying with requests from Perkins Coie and Democrats. Image
23/ on August 21, 2016, [Joffe] concurred with researchers that DNS traffic "was not a secret communications channel" with Alfa Bank, noting that host was "legitimate cusomter relationship company" and that they could "ignore it", but urged researchers to press on in search. Image
24/ on August 22, Researcher 1 totally backed off allegations, saying that they could not credibly defend against criticism that traffic was "spoofed", that they would need to use "every trick" to make "even weak association" and claims could not "fly public scrutiny" Image
25/ so, at this point in Indictment, the tech specialists, including Tech Executive 1 (Max) have concluded that DNS logs did not provide defensible evidence of backchannel communications via Alfa Bank. Yet Sussmann and Perkins Coie proceeded anyway. On to balance of Indictment
26/ on September 5, Sussmann "began billing work for drafting" white paper summarizing the Alfa allegations, allegedly working on this with [Joffe], [Lorenzen] and the [Georgia Tech] researchers. One presumes that a lawyer acting as a lawyer would be obliged to include negatives Image
27/ on Sept 6, Sussmann (billing Clinton campaign) met with Fusion representatives, media, "consultant" (Tech Exec 1?) and Elias. Probably Eric Lichtblau of NYT was being pitched. Image
28/ on Sept 7, Sussmann (billing Clinton campaign) continued work on White Paper (which thus appears to be primarily work of Sussmann and Perkins Coie, as opposed to Max, Tea Leaves, Fusion or the Georgia Tech researchers) Image
29/ next paragraph interesting. Om Sept 14, Sussmann "continued work" on White Paper and met with [Joffe]. This time he billed time to both Clinton campaign and Internet Company 1 [Neustar?]. Did InternetCo1 file this contribution with FEC? How much was it? Image
30/ also on Sept 14, [Joffe] sought comments from [Lorenzen] and the [Georgia Tech] researchers on whether Sussmann's White Paper would be "plausible" to "security experts" (not as "dns experts"), at least enough to throw mud. Image
30/ the cynicism of the conspirators is breathtaking. Researcher 1 commended White Paper for avoiding the caveats and thought that it would fool "non-DNS" security professionals. "Nice!" Image
31/ On Sept 15, Tea Leaves also agreed that Sussmann's White Paper managed to be "plausible" within the "narrow scope". (By concealing and evading the caveats and question-marks which they were all aware of.)
32/ on Sept 16, Researcher-2 was also on board and suggested that Sussmann's White Paper was ready to "be shared with government officials". This is three days prior to Sussmann's meeting with FBI. Image
32/ this next paragraph suggest's that what I've been calling Sussmann's White Paper was more properly a joint product of Sussmann and TechExec1 [Joffe]. [Lorenzen] said that [TechExec1] had "carefully crafted message that could work to accomplish goals". Seems like a conspiracy Image
32/ concurrently, Sussmann was personally acting as agent for Clinton campaign with media. On Sept 1, he met with Franklin Foer (Reporter 1) who had previously authored article on Trump as Putin's bitch and would later break fraudulent Alfa communications story. Image
33/ on Sept 12, Sussmann and Elias talked to one another about Sussmann's efforts to place story with [New York Times]. Both Elias and Sussmann billed Clinton campaign for call. Image
34/ on Sept 15, Elias corresponded with 3 Clinton campaign officials about "Alfa" allegations that were subject of Sussmann-[Joffe] White Paper: campaign manager Robbie Mook, communications director Jen Palmieri and foreign policy advisor Jake Sullivan (now Biden Nat Sec Advisor) Image
35/ for readers new to this story, several of the key names in this narrative (Rodney Joffe, April Lorenzen, Georgia Tech researcher David Dagon) are listed in Alfa Bank subpoenas (located by Walkafyre at appsgp.mypalmbeachclerk.com/eCaseView/land… Search 2020ca006304). My collation below. Image
typo here. This should be July 29, 2016. Arggh.
36/ by coincidence, Rodney Joffe visited White House on Mar 23, 2016, 4 days after Podesta hack. Accompanied by Ilona Johnson of Neustar linkedin.com/in/ilana-johns… and Martin Lindner, soon to join SecureWorks, which endorsed Crowdstrike's ID of Fancy Bear linkedin.com/in/martin-lind… Image

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh
 

Keep Current with Stephen McIntyre

Stephen McIntyre Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!

PDF

Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @ClimateAudit

Jan 24
UK has published some relatively detailed data showing "unadjusted" rates of case infection of boosted vs unvax by age group.
assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/upl… As context, Ontario SciTable only shows "adjusted" case rate purporting to show unvax rate as twice that of vax (2 or more doses) ImageImage
2/ in ALL UK ages above 30, "unadjusted" case infection rate for triple-vax was HIGHER than among unvax. These results troubled UK authorities who printed unadjusted unvax rates in light gray, warning "comparing case rates ...should not be used to estimate vaccine effectiveness" Image
3/ the UK conclusion that "comparing case rates among vaccinated and unvaccinated populations should not be used to estimate vaccine effectiveness against infection" will come as news to Ontario SciTable and other authorities which regularly use such data in briefings
Read 14 tweets
Jan 16
Quebec, in midst of draconian lockdown, (unlike Ontario) publishes new hospitalization data by age group, vax status msss.gouv.qc.ca/professionnels…

These are real counts, neither "normalized" relative to population nor "adjusted" by Ontario Science Table (or CDC). What do you notice? Image
2/ the most obvious observation about new hospitalizations is that (unsurprisingly) they are dominated by seniors and particularly over 80s - a group which is almost totally vaxxed.
3/ a secondary observation is that, in younger agegroups, number of new hospitalizations among unvax is pretty similar to number of new hospitalizations among vax, even though population of unvax is much smaller. This is consistent with primary messaging from governments.
Read 17 tweets
Jan 12
in response to recent threads in which I showed actual vax and unvax case counts (not just per million), I've been abused by many commenters for my supposed failure to understand "data science 101" - that ONLY per million matters and only a moron would look at counts.
2/ I suspect that most of the abusive commenters are much younger than me and thus fail to consider why actual counts of fully-vax cases are of particular concern to someone who is fully vax and in a vulnerable age group (like me.)
3/ Nearly every 80+ and 70+ in Ontario was fully vax in Dec; yet there was unprecedented explosion of cases among seniors in mid-Dec. This is NOT due to almost non-existent unvax seniors. I wish it were. Yes, the few unvax are at more risk. But they arent causing senior caseload
Read 15 tweets
Jan 11
the actual operating problem for Ontario govt - what puts pressure on hospitals and ICUs - is most likely the dramatic resurgence of cases among Ontario seniors, even including 99.99% fully-vax 80+s.
2/ it is well known that hospitalization and ICU rates for senior COVID cases are FAR higher than younger cohorts. In Toronto, where fine-grained data is available, 34% of cases among 80-90s are hospitalized; 25% of cases among 70-79s hospitalized, 5.8% into ICU
3/ in November, the priority of federal government and Science Table appears to have been vaccinating 5-11 year olds, as opposed to boosting seniors. "Younger" seniors (60s and 70s) mostly wer not eligible for boosters until December due to 6-month federal regulation.
Read 4 tweets
Jan 10
today's Ontario cases are down almost 50% from Jan 1 max. Fully-vax cases accounted for ~85% of all cases; on a per million basis, fully vax cases still are higher than unvax cases. SciTable shows increasing cases, with "adjusted" unvax cases exceeding vax cases on per MM basis.
2/ here is today's NON-ICU hospitalizations, absolute and per million, by status. About 75% of non-ICU hospitalizations are full vax, flipping ratio that applied earlier in pandemic. Relative unvax rates remain higher.
3/ to estimate "excess" unvax non-ICU occupancy, I calculated what non-ICU numbers for unvax "should have been" if they had same relative occupancy as full-vax. It was ~100 extra for most of 2021, now ~150. This is 8% of present 1925 non-ICU occupancy.
Read 15 tweets
Jan 9
today's disinformation from Ontario Science Table. Local to me, but prob representative of science advice elsewhere. Left- ACTUAL hospitalization data by vax status. Right - hospitalization infographic from Science Table. Look at difference,
2/ up to mid-Dec, actual COVID hospitalizations were dominantly unvax, with only handful of full_vax. In last 3 weeks, reported hosp'ns exploded, with vast majority being two-plus vax. While unvax proportion is higher, "problem" arises from absolute count. Which is now mostly vax
3/ SciTable infographic implies that onslaught of hospitalizations is coming from unvax, with vax hospitalizations making only a minor contribution. No wonder politicians are demonizing unvax. While unvax "over-contribute", they are not driving the increase. Contrary to SciTable
Read 25 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!


This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Too expensive? Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal

Or Donate anonymously using crypto!

Ethereum

0xfe58350B80634f60Fa6Dc149a72b4DFbc17D341E copy

Bitcoin

3ATGMxNzCUFzxpMCHL5sWSt4DVtS8UqXpi copy

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us on Twitter!

:(