{"id":81454,"date":"2022-04-06T06:00:00","date_gmt":"2022-04-06T11:00:00","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.shotinthedark.info\/wp\/?p=81454"},"modified":"2022-04-05T20:37:49","modified_gmt":"2022-04-06T01:37:49","slug":"suss-this","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"http:\/\/www.shotinthedark.info\/wp\/?p=81454","title":{"rendered":"Suss This"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

Given the glacial pace of John Durham’s investigation, it’s easy to assume that nothing is really going to come of his efforts; it’s a drill we’ve all seen before. Before Lucy pulls the football away yet again, let’s note that Durham did establish something long suspected<\/a>:<\/p>\n

\n

John Durham released a potential smoking gun in the case against Michael Sussmann on Monday night, as he published documents showing the Democratic cybersecurity lawyer messaged the FBI general counsel that he was not working on behalf of any client, when in fact he was working for the Clinton campaign.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

So what did Sussman say?<\/p>\n

\n

On Monday evening, however, Durham revealed Sussmann conveyed that lie in a text message to [FBI general counsel James] Baker on Sept. 18, 2016 \u2014 the night before their meeting at the bureau.<\/p>\n

\u201cJim \u2013 it\u2019s Michael Sussmann. I have something time-sensitive (and sensitive) I need to discuss,\u201d Sussmann wrote to the FBI top lawyer. \u201cDo you have availibilty [sic] for a short meeting tomorrow? I\u2019m coming on my own \u2013 not on behalf of a client or company \u2013 want to help the Bureau. Thanks.\u201d<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

Except he wasn’t. He was indeed representing the Clinton campaign. As the linked article from the Washington Examiner explains:<\/p>\n

\n

Sussmann\u2019s lawyers have said Sussmann met with the FBI in September 2016 \u201cto pass along information that raised national security concerns\u201d and characterized this as simply \u201cto provide a tip.\u201d The lawyers contended that Sussmann was \u201ccharged with making a false statement about an entirely ancillary matter \u2014 about who his client may have been when he met with the FBI \u2014 which is a fact that even the Special Counsel\u2019s own indictment fails to allege had any effect on the FBI\u2019s decision to open an investigation.\u201d<\/p>\n

Durham countered that \u201cthe defendant made his false statement directly to the FBI General Counsel on a matter that was anything but ancillary: namely, the existence \u2026 of attorney-client relationships that would have shed critical light on the origins of the allegations at issue.\u201d<\/p>\n

\u201cThe defendant\u2019s false statement to the FBI General Counsel was plainly material because it misled the General Counsel about, among other things, the critical fact that the defendant was disseminating highly explosive allegations about a then-Presidential candidate on behalf of two specific clients, one of which was the opposing Presidential campaign,\u201d Durham wrote.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

Do I have any reasonable expectation that Sussmann will ultimately be brought to justice, let alone his clients? Forget it D, it’s Chinatown. And as Sussmann’s client famously said in yet another context:<\/p>\n