Thread by @BradMossEsq

Ok, I’ve had a chance to read the Sussman indictment. My view: do stupid things, win stupid prizes.

If the allegations in the indictment are true, Sussman was careless about how he described his background when reaching out to the FBI. It’s not like the FBI didn’t know

one of his clients was the Clinton Campaign. He mentioned it during the meeting, and it’s reflected in the notes of the meeting. The billing records and calls with other firm colleagues certainly indicate his work was on behalf of at least one client, if not two clients.

So why not say that? The underlying details in the indictment about the work of the Tech executive and coordination of data with the Clinton campaign does not seem to have raised any criminal liability issues. So why be misleading?

This will be interesting to see how it plays

out over the next few months. I certainly see enough to seek an indictment, but this is pretty thin in terms of getting a conviction at trial. There is a lot of conflicting recollections and hearsay.

What I found more interesting is how much “mission creep” has shown up here for

Durham’s probe, which has already gone longer than
Mueller’s probe and secured far less in terms of indictments.

This isn’t the promised action against government officials for misusing their power to investigate Trump’s campaign. It’s not even an indictment for lying to the

FBI about the underlying information.

It is a false statement charge - remember the cries of “meaningless process crimes??” - for lying about whether the information was being presented on behalf of a client.

This is what Durham has been doing? OK.

/end