Michael Sussman Should Probably Be Concerned

Michael Sussman is getting what I'm sure is, for him, unwanted attention in the wake of the release of transcripts of House interviews of persons connected to the Russia Hoax investigation. I've mentioned Sussman before--many times. Pay particular attention to James Baker And Michael Sussman Revisited, and recall that James Baker is now said to be cooperating with John Durham's investigation. Here's a brief intro to Sussman, which should leave no doubt as to why he's important for the Russia Hoax investigation:

Michael Sussmann, formerly with the U.S. Department of Justice, is a nationally-recognized privacy, cybersecurity and national security attorney. He is engaged on some of the most sophisticated, high-stakes matters today, such as his representation of the Democratic National Committee and Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign in their responses to Russian hacking in the 2016 presidential election.

However, Sussman's involvement goes far, far, beyond that. It was Sussman who connected Glenn Simpson's Fusion GPS with the Clinton campaign--laundering that connection through his Perkins Coie law firm (a possible election law violation). Anyone who thinks Sussman wouldn't have vetted Simpson hires for the Russia Hoax--such as Nellie Ohr and Chris Steele--should immediately reconsider. In fact, we now know from Steele's London testimony that Steele did meet with Sussman personally.

It was also Sussman who personally went to FBIHQ to meet with his friend James Baker and peddle the fake Alfa Bank story. And the FBI did, in fact, open an investigation into that hoax, with Baker fully aware of Sussman's deep connectins to the Clinton campaign. Here's how Kim Strassel characterized that meeting (Who Is Michael Sussman?):

Horowitz Reports Steele Meetings With Clinton Lawyers

What could be less surprising than Chris Steele meeting with the people who were paying him? Still, I'm sure they tried to keep meets to the minimum that were essential.

Here's the date that really interests me. September 23, 2016.

Horowitz reported that Steele met with Perkins Coie in July 2016, on or about Sep 23, 2016 and Oct 2016.  I don't recall this being known previously. Can anyone recall prior reports of Steele-Perkins Coie meetings on these dates? pic.twitter.com/hgVnlx3F8j

— Stephen McIntyre (@ClimateAudit) December 15, 2019

As I like to bring up, Steele was part of an extraordinary meeting in mid-September, 2016, that included future Team Mueller hotshots Andrew Weissmann and Zainab Ahmad, veteran DoJ Clintonista Bruce Swartz, Bruce Ohr, Lisa Page, and Peter Strzok. I've maintained that this looked like a meeting to tell Steele what they needed in the "dossier" so they could get the FISA on Carter Page. It's unquestionably a strategy meeting. And a few days later Steele meets with Michael Sussman, the Dems' real evil legal genius when it comes to elections.

Can I swear that the proximity of the two meetings wasn't coincidence. I suppose not, but I wouldn't want to bet that it is coincidence. In fact, if I were an investigator I'd be operating on the assumption that it sure wasn't a coincidence.

(It's About Pressure Points, passim)

James Baker: Light On Informants And The "Russia" Investigation

It has long been known that the FBI used informants or assets ("confidential human sources" in bureaucratese) in attempts to "lure" persons associated with the Trump campaign into incriminating statements. These "lures" took place both in the United States and abroad (OCONUS, Outside the Continental US). Interestingly, we know from the text messages between Peter Strzok and Lisa Page that the FBI was seeking approval for the use of the "OCONUS lures" already in late 2015, well before Trump had won the GOP nomination and also before Carter Page and George Papadopoulos had joined the Trump campaign. Nevertheless, as soon as Page and Papadopoulos joined the campaign in late March or April, 2016, the FBI swung into action with their informants to target these two. All this is now well known, and it seems notable that the FBI's interest was already focused on Republicans rather than Democrats with ties to Russia and Ukraine.

This knowledge takes on greater importance going forward when we examine the new information to be gleaned from a NYT article yesterdays (h/t/ CTH), in which we learn, all the way at the end, that IG Michael Horowitz has launched an investigation into one of those FBI informants, Stefan Halper:

Andy McCabe And Lisa Page Texted!

They emailed, too, and spoke with each other on their phones, but up till now we've only seen some of the Strzok/Page texts. It appears that that's about to change. Interesting as those texts have been, I suspect the McCabe/Page communications will have plenty to tell us--and none of it will redound to the credit of the major Russia Hoax players.

To set the stage for the Fox News article that discusses some of those communications, here are some entries from a Paul Sperry twitter thread re McCabe:

Paul Sperry‏ @paulsperry_

BREAKING: 4 days after the NYT broke the story of Hillary using private unauthorized server, McCabe privately met with her former campaign co-chair. Then, 20 days after IC IG forced FBI to open investigation of Hillary, McCabe suddenly promoted to HQ & controls the "special" case

8:18 PM - 21 Mar 2019

1. End of conversation
2. New conversation
    ❌ 🌹Pretty In Pink  🌹 ❌‏ @pepesgrandma 9h9 hours ago
   Replying to @paulsperry_
    ❌ 🌹Pretty In Pink  🌹 ❌Retweeted  ❌ 🌹Pretty In Pink  🌹 ❌
   Lottsa coincidences
    ❌ 🌹Pretty In Pink  🌹 ❌added,
   
    ❌ 🌹Pretty In Pink  🌹 ❌ @pepesgrandma
   BOTH McCabe and his wife met personally with Clinton donor (who ran a PAC), 5 days after public announcement about Hillarys email server. #mccabe #fbi #hillarysemails #hillaryclinton…
   
   
3. 1.  ❌ 🌹Pretty In Pink  🌹 ❌‏ @pepesgrandma 9h9 hours ago

      Replying to @paulsperry_

       ❌ 🌹Pretty In Pink  🌹 ❌Retweeted  ❌ 🌹Pretty In Pink  🌹 ❌

      And more coincidences

       ❌ 🌹Pretty In Pink  🌹 ❌added,

       ❌ 🌹Pretty In Pink  🌹 ❌ @pepesgrandma

      98% of Gov McAuliffe related donations 2 McCabe's wife were after Hillary investigation started #McCabe #hillary http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/03/15/fbi-official-did-not-disclose-wifes-ties-to-clinton-ally-records-show.html …

      
      
4. New conversation
    ❌ 🌹Pretty In Pink  🌹 ❌‏ @pepesgrandma 9h9 hours ago
   Replying to @paulsperry_
    ❌ 🌹Pretty In Pink  🌹 ❌Retweeted  ❌ 🌹Pretty In Pink  🌹 ❌
   And yet another coincidence
    ❌ 🌹Pretty In Pink  🌹 ❌added,
   
    ❌ 🌹Pretty In Pink  🌹 ❌ @pepesgrandma
   Jill McCabe, wife of deputy dir of FBI Andrew McCabe, was asked to run for senate only weeks after Hillary's email server news was made public. See page 70. #mccabe #fbi @jeffsessions #hillaryclinton #hillary …
   
   

With all that in mind, would you trust McCabe to run a fair and impartial investigation of anything involving the Clintons? Recusal for McCabe from the Hillary email case would seem to a no brainer, yet McCabe fought furiously to remain involved. Apparently it was only the determination of James Baker, Comey's counsel, that succeeded in forcing McCabe to step aside. And, of course, we also know from Baker's testimony that the top level of FBI executives were fully aware that the Russia Hoax was totally driven by Clinton campaign operatives, such as Michael Sussman and Glenn Simpson's Fusion GPS. But McCabe was a key to pushing the Clinton Russia Hoax operation within the FBI.

What James Baker Told Congress

Kim Strassel at the WSJ has an article today that addresses James Baker's testimony to Congress. Baker, of course, was General Counsel for the FBI under the leadership of his good friend, James Comey. That made Baker Comey's closest legal adviser and the top lawyer at the FBI. We've gone over the parts of Baker's testimony that have been leaked through Jeff Carlson. The relevant posts include:

James Baker And Michael Sussman Revisited

James Baker Identifies Another Source Behind the FISA Application

It's James Baker's Turn To Throw Rosenstein Under A Bus

Strassel writes behind the WSJ's subscription wall. For those who don't subscribe, here are the main points that Strassel makes in What FBI’s Counsel Told Congress: Baker’s testimony shows Comey wasn’t being fully candid about the dossier.

The title tells Strassel's central point. Comey tried to "play dumb" about what he knew regarding most of the Russia Hoax. The reality, however, was that Comey--and the FBI generally, at the executive level--had a very clear understanding of who the players behind the "dossier" really were, and that they represented the Clinton campaign:

The general counsel [Baker] explained that the FBI’s application to eavesdrop on Carter Page through the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act was one of the few he ever personally reviewed. Why? Because it was “sensitive” and “controversial” and targeted a person with “connections to a candidate for the office of President of the United States.” 

That, Mr. Baker said, was also why in its FISA application “we were obligated to talk about Simpson [Glenn Simpson, Fusion GPS, Clinton oppo researcher] and what the hell we knew about him”—namely to “alert the [FISA] court to the fact that there were a range of issues with respect to the providence [= provenance] of this information and the relationship that we had with respect to Mr. Simpson and his credibility.” Mr. Baker nonetheless fails to explain how that “range of issues” was communicated via the obscure footnote the FBI ultimately included in its application, which vouched for Mr. Steele and made only vague reference to an “identified U.S. Person” who might (or might not) have political motives. 

As to Mr. Sussmann and his documents, Mr. Baker similarly says he “was concerned about the nature of this material from the first instance.” He knew Mr. Sussmann was involved with the DNC and had also given his documents to the New York Times.

Of course this isn't news, but I think we can count on it that Baker's testimony will get much closer to center stage as the Russia Hoax continues to unravel. Comey, McCabe, Strzok, Page ... Baker's cooperation is very bad news, and it will get worse.

Please refer to the links above to refresh your recollection if necessary.

Marc Elias: A Reminder

A search of this blog reveals, remarkably, that there appear to be no references to Marc Elias, so this post will remedy that. And right up front I want to offer (FWIW) a hat tip to Mark Penn, the former "pollster and adviser" to Bill Clinton, whose (typically) excellent article on the Roger Stone indictment and arrest brought Elias specifically to my attention (Mueller’s selective prosecution of Stone, Venezuelan-style).

Who is Marc Elias, and why is he important for understanding the Russia Hoax? Wikipedia explains it lucidly:

Marc Erik Elias (born February 1, 1969)[1] is an American attorney. He is a partner at the law firm Perkins Coie LLP and head of its Political Law practice. He is the general counsel for Kamala Harris's 2020 presidential campaign. He worked in the same role for Hillary Clinton's 2016 presidential campaign and for John Kerry's 2004 presidential campaign. 

... 

He served as lead counsel for Senator Al Franken in the 2008 Minnesota Senate election recount and contest, the longest recount and contest in American history.[6] Elias has testified before committees in both houses of Congress and before the Federal Election Commission on campaign finance.[7] Elias has worked on voting rights and redistricting lawsuits in Virginia, Ohio, Nevada, Minnesota, New York, Wisconsin, Texas, Florida and North Carolina.[8] 

... 

In April 2015 Hillary Clinton engaged Elias as attorney of record for her 2016 presidential campaign.[5] According to The Washington Post, in April 2016, Elias hired Fusion GPS on behalf of the Democratic National Committee and the Clinton campaign to complete the research that resulted in the Donald Trump–Russia dossier.[11] ...

Are you getting the picture? You've heard of Super Lawyers? Well, in the legal field of Democrat politics, or simply politics generally, Marc Elias is an 800 lb. gorilla.

James Baker And Michael Sussman Revisited

Jeff Carlson has a summary out of James Baker's testimony to the House. Baker, a close friend of James Comey, was General Counsel for the FBI, which is to say that he worked directly with Comey. Baker is currently the subject of a criminal leak investigation. The summary of Baker's testimony--which is mostly very self serving--doesn't contain any bombshells but, as usual, is worth reading. It is mostly concerned with Baker's interaction with Michael Sussman, which I covered extensively in two previous posts. Nevertheless, this aspect of the Russia Hoax is well worth reviewing, if only to remind ourselves of aspects that we may have forgotten:

James Baker Identifies Another Source Behind the FISA Application

It's James Baker's Turn To Throw Rosenstein Under A Bus

Here, below, are the two paragraphs of Sussman's bio from his page at Perkins Coie, the law firm where he's a partner--yes, the same law firm that represented the DNC and laundered DNC money to Glenn Simpson's Fusion GPS (that part's not in his official bio). I urge you to peruse the rest:

Michael Sussmann, formerly with the U.S. Department of Justice, is a nationally-recognized privacy, cybersecurity and national security lawyer. He is engaged on some of the most sophisticated, high-stakes matters today, such as his representation of the Democratic National Committee and Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign in their responses to Russian hacking in the 2016 presidential election. This work was detailed in the best-selling books The Apprentice (2018), The Perfect Weapon (2018), Russian Roulette (2018), and Hacks (2017).

Michael has been ranked as a “Privacy and Data Security Expert” in the Chambers Global and Chambers USA directories. He is often quoted in The New York Times, The Washington Post, The Wall Street Journal and other media. His legal work has been cited by investigative reporters in two other important books: Power Wars (2015) and Dragnet Nation (2015). He has provided Congressional testimony and litigated national security cases in federal court.

You'll see why I said in the first post "In a Hillary Clinton administration the sky would have been the limit for Sussman--or close to it," especially when you read the rest of the details of his involvement with the FBI during the 2016 campaign.