It makes interesting reading about elaborate machinations by Fusion, GPS, Sussman, and a client of Sussmann’s called Tech Executive 1, to present evidence to the FBI and the press of an active secret communications connection between Trump and a Russian bank. It was all bogus
… but that fact didn’t seem to bother the participants in this noble endeavor. All they needed something that supported a “narrative “ that would be pleasing to unidentified VIPs. It’s easy to see why half of establishment DC is nervous. A couple of questions practically jump
… off the pages: Who is Tech Executive 1? And has he cut a deal with Durham to spill his guts about a conspiracy involving others in a scheme to mislead the FBI? Specifically, what role did Clinton and members of her campaign play? As the indictment alleges. the campaign was
billed extensively for Sussmann’s work in putting this phony narrative together. It’s unclear from the indictment that Sussmann knew it was likely phony, but Tech Executive clearly did. My guess is that tithe fact that Tech Executive is not being publicly charged today for
conspiring to submit a false and misleading report to the FBI suggests that he has already agreed to plea to an indictment that’s still under seal or to be filed shortly. The signs seem to be pointing towards the campaign as a potential target.
Without the testimony of Tech Executive, this would be a relatively weak, even blah, case against Sussmann. Durham needs Tech Executive or someone close to him to convincingly explain what the game plan was, how the campaign was involved as Sussmann’s client, and the goal was
to spin a narrative that the FBI found plausible, so they could take it to the press and Hillary could use during debates. Sussmann will be under a lot of pressure to give up his client and perhaps his former law partner, Marc Elias.
The strongest “tell” in the indictment that Tech Executive is cooperating, probably after pleading guilty, is the allegation that he went to all this trouble to spin a false narrative (including accessing non-public data from private internet companies), because he had been
promised a high cyber job in a Clinton administration, if he could help her win. That quid pro quo allegation likely has one or more persons connected to the campaign very nervous tonight.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
That the Sussmann indictment is an undisguised signal that conspiracy charges are soon to follow is transparent in the first few paragraphs of the indictment. One need not read past page one to understand where Durham is heading. All unlawful conspiracies have an object or
purpose. For example, a group of criminals might meet one night to plan to rob a bank the next day. When the robbers get caught and charged with conspiracy, the charging papers will describe the object of the conspiracy to be the robbery of the bank. In the Clinton Campaign
conspiracy, the object or purpose was successfully obtained beyond the wildest dreams of any of the conspirators. Durham begins the Sussmann indictment with a description of the success achieved by the conspiracy: Paragraph 1 describes and quotes from a NY Times article in
But Durham’s speaking indictment has flipped the script. A year ago everyone was focusing on a possible conspiracy involving high level gov’t actors: Comey, Brennan, Clapper, and maybe even Obama. Durham is likely still interested in the govt part of Spygate, but on a smaller
… scale. But his speaking indictment against Sussmann lays out a powerful overarching conspiracy by private actors to frame Trump and his associates- particularly when you factor in what’s been made public about the Steele dossier. This indictment describes a flurry of
The details in the Sussmann indictment describing the joint creation of Sussmann’s white paper, so as to avoid facts the experts knew would tend to debunk the hypothesis, are described below in this portion of a thread by @ClimateAudit :
It’s clear from the above that Durham has drawn a bulls eye on Marc Elias, Robbie Mook, Jennifer Palmieri, and-are you sitting down?- Jake Sullivan, as potential targets of a conspiracy indictment. That’s a thinly veiled suggestion that each of them need to come tell Durham what
they know and don’t know about this scheme. The indictment, in great detail, outlines a conspiracy. Other than Sussmann, Tech Executive, and the researchers, it leaves for us to guess who else was involved and could be prosecuted. Sussmann will be charged, unless he cuts a deal.
I think Durham’s long game is to ultimately charge two overlapping conspiracies- one involving non-government actors such as Simpson, Steele and the campaign to fabricate a collusion narrative and then to feed it to a compliant FBI to investigate, and a second inside- govt
… conspiracy to bury the origins and fabrications of the campaign’s conspiracy. The second of these exposes Comey and McCabe:
And the overlapping nature of the two conspiracies is proved by the CIA’s memo to the FBI in August 2016, warning that the Russians had already stumbled on the campaign’s design to create the Trump/Russian collusion narrative as a political dirty trick. That memo went to Comey
To elaborate, Horowitz describes a former FBI confidential source bringing the FBI a list of Trump associates and Alfa Bank connections in July 2016, which coincides with the timing of what the hard-at-work conspirators we’re doing to create the Trump/Alfa Bank communications
narrative. The main thrust of the indictment was that when he met with the FBI in September, Sussmann lied about who his clients were that were behind the narrative spinning effort. The Horowitz footnotes indicate that the CH told the FBI in July and August who was behind the
As we anxiously await, binoculars in hand, for the next very rare Durham sighting, it helps to step back for a moment and take a broader view. The focus today is on Sussmann due to the running of the statute of limitations this weekend. In practical terms, as the below tweet
alludes to, indicting a respected, experienced lawyer is a huge challenge to a prosecutor. Lawyers and their files are prone to spewing word salad after word salad, easily confusing the average jury. As a rule of thumb, a good prosecutor will want to have not only strong
documents to create an understandable paper trail to show criminal conduct by the lawyer, but they will need the strong testimony of eye witnesses, including the lawyer’s colleagues and clients. If Sussmann is indicted, I would expect that Durham will have nailed it down. He has