Kash Patel: Clinton Campaign Affiliates Are Trying to Bury Michael Sussmann | Kash’s Corner

1.3K

•

theepochtimes.com Kash Patel: Clinton Campaign Affiliates Are Trying to Bury Michael Sussmann | Kash’s Corner 39-49 minutes

“[Durham] now has Clinton world burying Michael Sussmann, the defendant in this case.”

Clinton campaign affiliates are throwing former Clinton campaign lawyer Michael Sussmann under the bus, says Kash Patel. And in a last-ditch effort to protect themselves, they are trying to hide evidence behind attorney-client privilege, he argues.

Kash and Jan break down special counsel John Durham’s latest filing and the significance of the flurry of responses from Clinton campaign affiliates, including former Clinton campaign chairman John Podesta, campaign manager Robby Mook, campaign lawyer Marc Elias, opposition research firm Fusion GPS, and tech executive Rodney Joffe.

According to Durham’s filing, the CIA knew in early 2017 that the Alfa Bank allegations tying Trump to Russia were likely false. At the same time, the FBI intentionally avoided coming to conclusions on the veracity of these allegations, Kash argues.

We discuss all this and more in this episode of Kash’s Corner. Below is a rush transcript of this American Thought Leaders episode from Apr 22, 2022. This transcript may not be in its final form and may be updated.

Kash Patel: Hey everybody, and welcome back to Kash’s Corner.

Jan Jekielek: So Kash, on Easter Friday, John Durham decided in the wee hours of the morning, put up a really significant filing. I mean, we jumped on it right away and that actually precipitated a whole flurry of responses to that filing. So let’s break it down. What’s going on?

Mr. Patel: Well, I think we need six straight episodes to do it, but we’ll try to get it done in one. The Friday pleading is basically the only filing from John Durham’s side of the case. It’s the United States versus Michael Sussmann.

John Durham issues is basically called a responsive pleading saying these are the reasons why all the defense’s positions on 404(b) on this type of evidence on that witness and that witness they’re all wrong, this is why I’m right. Very substantive pleading. Fast forward to this week.

In the evening hours of this week, the defense Sussmann plus a whole host of other individuals that have been named throughout this case filed 14 or 16 pleadings in the matter of 24 hours. It was very, very, very unusually and we’ll break that down and get into what the defense side’s pleadings are and how they actually used other pleadings of nonmembers that is non parties to the litigation came in and air mailed in their own pleadings.

So it’s very interesting. It’s very rare, but I think it shows one of the most significant things to date in the John Durham investigation, is that he’s got Clinton world scrambling and on the run.

Mr. Jekielek: There’s one particular sentence in here. It’s actually in parentheses bizarrely. That struck me as the sort of, kind of the critical element in this pleading. But maybe before we go there, just kind of give me an overview of-

Mr. Patel: Yeah.

Mr. Jekielek: Yeah.

Mr. Patel: There are a couple of key things that’s one of them. But some of that more housekeeping items, pretrial litigation motions in limine we’ve talked about on previous shows is John Durham wants to submit certain types of evidence against Michael Sussmann in the government’s case in chief, and there’s been back and forth litigation on it.

And what some of that type of evidence has been this argument over these things called privileged logs, which we’ll keep coming back to. What happens is we found out that John Durham has issued multiple grand jury subpoenas to many parties, not just Sussmann, but the likes of Fusion GPS, Rodney Jaffe, the tech executive and all these other folks, Marc Elias, Perkins Coie, and all these people in Clinton world that we’ve been talking about for long, who I’ve said are part of this giant criminal conspiracy.

John Durham is using that information as he sees fit to advance his indictment, which is Michael Sussmann lied to the FBI. The defense in that case has largely been well, we don’t believe he lied, but if he did it was not material. And without getting into details of law, they’re just saying they the defense for Michael Sussmann are saying, so what, that’s literally what they’re saying. Doesn’t matter.

No one cares, not material, didn’t alter the route of the investigation. John Durham saying, since you brought that up, I’m going to look at the privilege logs. And I don’t want the privilege logs because the privilege logs are just metadata that just says, had meeting, had left meeting.

So and so was in meeting. He wants the substance of the meeting. He wants the substance of the communications. And that’s what a lot of this back and forth is in the pleading John Durham saying, well, I want the communications between Michael Sussmann and Rodney Jaffe.

I want the communications between Michael Sussmann and Fusion GPS. I want the communications between Marc Elias and the Hillary Clinton campaign, because all of that shows the materiality of Michael Sussmann’s lie.

And what John Durham has requested is not everything in the whole universe of privilege, and I think we’ll lay out why later, Clinton world is over broadly using this attorney, client privilege, work product exception to hide wrongdoing.

But what I believe John Durham smartly doing is saying, we don’t want everything, I just need, you raised it, you the defense said, it’s not material. I, John Durham now have a duty to prove it is material, and this is how I’m going to do it. So we asked the judge and you’ll probably seen this phraseology in there to go ex parte in camera.

And what that means is John Durham’s like, look, judge, you are supposed to be the neutral arbiter of the law in these matters. These questions have been raised without putting them into the public domain, the public pleading sphere. You, the judge look at the substance of what I’m asking you to look at behind the privilege logs.

And then you make the call as the referee to say, well, actually this is relevant. This is domain and the prosecution should be able to lose it. And what it means is in camera just means in chambers, ex parte just means alone.

So it’d be the judge and the prosecution team going through these documents and saying, yes, no, maybe and the like. So that’s the substance of the rest of this lengthy pleading by John Durham.

Mr. Jekielek: So, I have to say this right off the bat, and I know you want to go through the initial pleading a bit more. But as you’re just speaking, I can’t help think of some of the responses to the pleading.

And just the idea that what is being stated in a number of these responses goes against what people like Sussmann have actually said under oath previously, which just trying to figure out what’s going on, is this a hail Mary plea? I just don’t know what’s going on.

Mr. Patel: I think you’re exactly right. From a defense perspective, I’ve always said the defense has overreached on this case and we’ve outlined our past shows why they’ve done that procedurally and subsequently along the way of this prosecution. Now, what has happened is, I hearken back to my time running the Russiagate investigation under then Chairman Nunes when I was a chief investigator.

And I told Devin at the time, I said, look, we are now unraveling what we thought was the biggest case of misconduct and fraud and conspiracy during a presidential election and the FBI’s use of the FISA court and it’s corruption.

And I said, Devin, what you have to do is you have to take the facts, and then since you’re in the middle of the facts, because you’re saying FBI, you messed up and you’re also saying Clinton world, you messed up by feeding them and you’re in the middle doing this trying to adjudicate the facts.

I said, let’s get their documentation so it’s not our words and then let’s step out of the middle and let them fire at each other. When they start doing that, you know you’ve won your argument, your position with the facts. And that is what John Durham has methodically done here.

He now has Clinton world burying Michael Sussmann, the defendant in this case. And we’ll walk through why with their numerous pleadings or basically missiles at Michael Sussmann’s head because they are now all literally covering their own rear end and don’t want to be charged.

And they now see how much information John Durham has, so what do they do? They bring up the last ditch effort you can only bring up in a federal criminal prosecution procedure. They’re saying, judge procedurally we have a complaint. They’re not saying the information John Durham is presenting is false.

They’re not saying the information John Durham is presenting is not relevant. They’re just saying he can’t have it because of attorney-client privilege. And I’ll tell you why that fails later on. But what I will note is during the Russiagate investigation, and this is the highlight between the difference between an Article III federal judge in the judicial branch versus an Article II investigation in Congress of the legislative branch.

When they brought up and they did, if you look at our 60 some deposition that I took of interrogated these witnesses, including Sullivan and Sussmann and Elias and Podesta, who will talk about today, they would come in and say, attorney-client privilege, nothing to see here. In Congress there’s no mechanism to force that adjudication.

Part 2: >

[Kash Patel: Clinton Campaign Affiliates Are Trying to Bury Michael Sussmann | Kash’s Corner](https://www.theepochtimes.com/kash-patel-clinton-campaign-affiliates-are-trying-to-bury-michael-sussmann-kashs-corner_4420089.html) theepochtimes.com Kash Patel: Clinton Campaign Affiliates Are Trying to Bury Michael Sussmann | Kash’s Corner 39-49 minutes “[Durham] now has Clinton world burying Michael Sussmann, the defendant in this case.” Clinton campaign affiliates are throwing former Clinton campaign lawyer Michael Sussmann under the bus, says Kash Patel. And in a last-ditch effort to protect themselves, they are trying to hide evidence behind attorney-client privilege, he argues. Kash and Jan break down special counsel John Durham’s latest filing and the significance of the flurry of responses from Clinton campaign affiliates, including former Clinton campaign chairman John Podesta, campaign manager Robby Mook, campaign lawyer Marc Elias, opposition research firm Fusion GPS, and tech executive Rodney Joffe. According to Durham’s filing, the CIA knew in early 2017 that the Alfa Bank allegations tying Trump to Russia were likely false. At the same time, the FBI intentionally avoided coming to conclusions on the veracity of these allegations, Kash argues. We discuss all this and more in this episode of Kash’s Corner. Below is a rush transcript of this American Thought Leaders episode from Apr 22, 2022. This transcript may not be in its final form and may be updated. Kash Patel: Hey everybody, and welcome back to Kash’s Corner. Jan Jekielek: So Kash, on Easter Friday, John Durham decided in the wee hours of the morning, put up a really significant filing. I mean, we jumped on it right away and that actually precipitated a whole flurry of responses to that filing. So let’s break it down. What’s going on? Mr. Patel: Well, I think we need six straight episodes to do it, but we’ll try to get it done in one. The Friday pleading is basically the only filing from John Durham’s side of the case. It’s the United States versus Michael Sussmann. John Durham issues is basically called a responsive pleading saying these are the reasons why all the defense’s positions on 404(b) on this type of evidence on that witness and that witness they’re all wrong, this is why I’m right. Very substantive pleading. Fast forward to this week. In the evening hours of this week, the defense Sussmann plus a whole host of other individuals that have been named throughout this case filed 14 or 16 pleadings in the matter of 24 hours. It was very, very, very unusually and we’ll break that down and get into what the defense side’s pleadings are and how they actually used other pleadings of nonmembers that is non parties to the litigation came in and air mailed in their own pleadings. So it’s very interesting. It’s very rare, but I think it shows one of the most significant things to date in the John Durham investigation, is that he’s got Clinton world scrambling and on the run. Mr. Jekielek: There’s one particular sentence in here. It’s actually in parentheses bizarrely. That struck me as the sort of, kind of the critical element in this pleading. But maybe before we go there, just kind of give me an overview of- Mr. Patel: Yeah. Mr. Jekielek: Yeah. Mr. Patel: There are a couple of key things that’s one of them. But some of that more housekeeping items, pretrial litigation motions in limine we’ve talked about on previous shows is John Durham wants to submit certain types of evidence against Michael Sussmann in the government’s case in chief, and there’s been back and forth litigation on it. And what some of that type of evidence has been this argument over these things called privileged logs, which we’ll keep coming back to. What happens is we found out that John Durham has issued multiple grand jury subpoenas to many parties, not just Sussmann, but the likes of Fusion GPS, Rodney Jaffe, the tech executive and all these other folks, Marc Elias, Perkins Coie, and all these people in Clinton world that we’ve been talking about for long, who I’ve said are part of this giant criminal conspiracy. John Durham is using that information as he sees fit to advance his indictment, which is Michael Sussmann lied to the FBI. The defense in that case has largely been well, we don’t believe he lied, but if he did it was not material. And without getting into details of law, they’re just saying they the defense for Michael Sussmann are saying, so what, that’s literally what they’re saying. Doesn’t matter. No one cares, not material, didn’t alter the route of the investigation. John Durham saying, since you brought that up, I’m going to look at the privilege logs. And I don’t want the privilege logs because the privilege logs are just metadata that just says, had meeting, had left meeting. So and so was in meeting. He wants the substance of the meeting. He wants the substance of the communications. And that’s what a lot of this back and forth is in the pleading John Durham saying, well, I want the communications between Michael Sussmann and Rodney Jaffe. I want the communications between Michael Sussmann and Fusion GPS. I want the communications between Marc Elias and the Hillary Clinton campaign, because all of that shows the materiality of Michael Sussmann’s lie. And what John Durham has requested is not everything in the whole universe of privilege, and I think we’ll lay out why later, Clinton world is over broadly using this attorney, client privilege, work product exception to hide wrongdoing. But what I believe John Durham smartly doing is saying, we don’t want everything, I just need, you raised it, you the defense said, it’s not material. I, John Durham now have a duty to prove it is material, and this is how I’m going to do it. So we asked the judge and you’ll probably seen this phraseology in there to go ex parte in camera. And what that means is John Durham’s like, look, judge, you are supposed to be the neutral arbiter of the law in these matters. These questions have been raised without putting them into the public domain, the public pleading sphere. You, the judge look at the substance of what I’m asking you to look at behind the privilege logs. And then you make the call as the referee to say, well, actually this is relevant. This is domain and the prosecution should be able to lose it. And what it means is in camera just means in chambers, ex parte just means alone. So it’d be the judge and the prosecution team going through these documents and saying, yes, no, maybe and the like. So that’s the substance of the rest of this lengthy pleading by John Durham. Mr. Jekielek: So, I have to say this right off the bat, and I know you want to go through the initial pleading a bit more. But as you’re just speaking, I can’t help think of some of the responses to the pleading. And just the idea that what is being stated in a number of these responses goes against what people like Sussmann have actually said under oath previously, which just trying to figure out what’s going on, is this a hail Mary plea? I just don’t know what’s going on. Mr. Patel: I think you’re exactly right. From a defense perspective, I’ve always said the defense has overreached on this case and we’ve outlined our past shows why they’ve done that procedurally and subsequently along the way of this prosecution. Now, what has happened is, I hearken back to my time running the Russiagate investigation under then Chairman Nunes when I was a chief investigator. And I told Devin at the time, I said, look, we are now unraveling what we thought was the biggest case of misconduct and fraud and conspiracy during a presidential election and the FBI’s use of the FISA court and it’s corruption. And I said, Devin, what you have to do is you have to take the facts, and then since you’re in the middle of the facts, because you’re saying FBI, you messed up and you’re also saying Clinton world, you messed up by feeding them and you’re in the middle doing this trying to adjudicate the facts. I said, let’s get their documentation so it’s not our words and then let’s step out of the middle and let them fire at each other. When they start doing that, you know you’ve won your argument, your position with the facts. And that is what John Durham has methodically done here. He now has Clinton world burying Michael Sussmann, the defendant in this case. And we’ll walk through why with their numerous pleadings or basically missiles at Michael Sussmann’s head because they are now all literally covering their own rear end and don’t want to be charged. And they now see how much information John Durham has, so what do they do? They bring up the last ditch effort you can only bring up in a federal criminal prosecution procedure. They’re saying, judge procedurally we have a complaint. They’re not saying the information John Durham is presenting is false. They’re not saying the information John Durham is presenting is not relevant. They’re just saying he can’t have it because of attorney-client privilege. And I’ll tell you why that fails later on. But what I will note is during the Russiagate investigation, and this is the highlight between the difference between an Article III federal judge in the judicial branch versus an Article II investigation in Congress of the legislative branch. When they brought up and they did, if you look at our 60 some deposition that I took of interrogated these witnesses, including Sullivan and Sussmann and Elias and Podesta, who will talk about today, they would come in and say, attorney-client privilege, nothing to see here. In Congress there’s no mechanism to force that adjudication. Part 2: >

[–] • 0 pt

Part 2: >

If they raise that you have to creatively get around it, use documentation and further your investigation, but there’s no real force mechanism, not in federal court. The power of the department of justice and the power of an Article III judge, who literally is more powerful than a president because they can overturn a president’s decision, has now been asked to decide the issue of privilege.

And I believe that this judge, because the law demands it will come down on the side of John Durham say, you basically can’t use privilege as a pretense. You can’t go out and get a relationship and then do some unlawful activity and say nothing to see here, it’s privileged. And I think that’s what they’re doing and the judge is going to see through it.

Mr. Jekielek: Let’s go back to what I was talking about earlier in Durham’s original pleading. I’m going to read the whole thing because I find there’s so many elements to this. This is on page 20, for those that have these pleadings around Durham writes.

For example, while the FBI did not reach an ultimate conclusion regarding the data’s accuracy, or whether it might have been in whole or in part genuine spoofed altered or fabricated, agency two that’s the CIA, concluded in early 2017 that Russian bank, one data and Russian phone provider one data was not technically plausible, did not withstand technical scrutiny, contained gaps, conflicted with itself and was “Was user created and not machine tool generated.”

And then there’s also the special counsel’s office has not reached a definitive conclusion in this regard. Now, Durham is saying that the CIA believed that what was being provided by Sussmann was false information essentially.

Mr. Patel: This is huge. This is massive. This is what we uncovered when we were interrogating Sussmann when I was taking his deposition under oath in Congress in December, of 2017. We knew he went to both the FBI and another government agency at the time we were limited in what we could say.

And we knew what he was doing was hawking this fake Russia bank, Alfa Bank server information amongst other things to them. What Durham John has now put in full force in a federal pleading, in a federal indictment, in a federal prosecution is he’s come out and said the CIA who Michael Sussmann went to with thumb drives and gave them this Alfa Bank information, evaluated that information and said on their own, this is basically bogus intel, and we, the CIA don’t want anything to do with it.

Now my question is that was in 2017, early 2017, after President Trump had come in. An investigation that rises to the level of the office of president United States has to, by regulation and law go to the director’s office, the Central Intelligence Agency and at the time that was Mike Pompeo.

So I have a lot of questions for why Mike Pompeo did not provide with a White House or Congress, his former committee, the house intelligence committee, which was running this investigation with that conclusion then because we did not have it then, I can say that definitively.

And either he knew about that information and sat on it or it was withheld from him, but that’s something the American public need to know right away. On the FBI part, to me that’s a little more shocking and also shows the FBI’s motives of operation for the entire Russiagate fraud that they helped perpetuate. They did the same thing.

In this case, Michael Sussmann takes its on drive to the FBI and talks to his buddy, the FBI General Counsel James Baker and gives them a bunch of information. What do they do? Per John Durham’s pleading, they do not come to a definitive conclusion as you put in there. Now as a former federal prosecutor, that’s absurd.

You, the Federal Bureau of Investigation who have been supposedly provided information about a criminal conspiracy by the president of the United States, don’t come to a conclusion. The only way that happens is if the FBI’s leadership comes in and says, don’t further that investigation.

So we can go to the FISA court and say, we’ve received information, we are evaluating it and we don’t have any fidelity on it. That is a total con job in my opinion, by the FBI. They did the same thing with the Steele dossier. Remember, Steel dossier, same characters, Sussmann, Elias, Fusion GPS, Hillary Clinton campaign, Bruce Ohr, all those guys comes in with the Steele dossier paid for by the Clinton campaign and what do they do?

They take it to the FISA court. What the FBI says to the court and what our investigation unearth was the FBI intentionally stopped short of coming to conclusions on the evidence presented by Christopher Steele so that they could go to the FISA court and say, well, we haven’t finished our assessment, but this is what we think happened judge.

We think Donald Trump is conspiring with the Russian government and his campaign is doing so, so we believe we’re in the right to get this investigation. And I asked agents of the FBI and lawyers of the FBI under oath when I interrogated them, why did you stop short?

Because I as a former national security prosecutor, would’ve forced the FBI to come to a determinative conclusion before taking it to a judge to use a secret surveillance warrant on a president in his campaign. And they had no answer for me. And if you recall the Nunes memo where we called them out on that, put on full display the FBI’s intentional shortcomings.

And I believe they’ve done exactly that in this instance. And at the time, I think it was still James Comey was still is in his director, and of course, Andy McCabe, who I believe is responsible for almost all of this along with James Comey, had to have known again, presidential investigation goes right to the top.

So the order had to have come in from somewhere to say, we are not coming to the assessment. The reason John Durham put that in there seems like a meaningless paragraph, but to me as a federal prosecutor and former public defender, it’s one of the most important paragraphs in the entire pleading. He’s saying the FBI intentionally stopped short.

And he’s also saying the CIA knew the information was bogus. So why wasn’t that information given to Congress? Why wasn’t that information provided the FISA court? Why wasn’t that information given out to the public when requested.

Mr. Jekielek: Another thing that was interesting in this pleading to me and there was some debate about this among our analysts and you and me, it turns out that Sussmann was actually hired by Rodney Jaffe.

Mr. Patel: Directly so and now it’s look, this stuff’s complicated and I probably had a different eye of looking into these things as a guy who did these prosecutions and defenses. So what you’ll see in these pleadings, not just Durham’s, but the response pleadings is you will see repeatedly over and over again, tech executive one who we believed to be Rodney Jaffe, is an individual that was a client of Michael Sussmann and Perkins Coie, and Marc Elias who are working at the behest of the DNC in Hillary Clinton campaign.

It is literally spelled out by John Durham and by the pleadings from Clinton world. So if they’re both saying it to a federal judge, are we now going to believe that he’s not a client. And I’ll we’ll get into why that’s necessary for them to say for the privilege argument that they’re making, John Durham.

He also issued a lot of nuggets of information that were not previously public how long people have been under grand jury subpoena and who still a subject of the investigation. The defense in this case said, no, no, these people can’t other folks like Jaffe and company, can’t be the subjects of the investigation because the statute of limitations has run.

John Durham comes in his pleading and says, well, thanks for raising that. You, the defense have no idea what evidence I John Durham have, and I’m going to tell you in this pleading, which he spells out that this individual, Rodney Jaffe was a subject of the investigation before the grand jury indictment, during the grand jury indictment and after the grand jury indictment.

That’s what John Durham says in the pleading to eliminate the statute of limitations argument, which a lot of our audience has been curious about. And what he’s effectively saying is, you the defense can’t tell me that the statute of limitations is over. You don’t know what evidence I have. You don’t know who else I put in the grand jury.

You don’t know what other information I have. You don’t know what other targets I have. And by the way, this guy’s still a subject just so you know. That is pretty powerful for a federal prosecutor come in and say that, you don’t do it lightly. So it was one of the startling things to me in this pleading that sort of an overlooked, but in more to come.

Mr. Jekielek: So Kash, and in this big pleading in Durham’s pleading, he also references Christopher Steele curiously. So I’m going to read this now and I’m going to substitute the references that are in the actual document with what we believe are the correct names and so forth. According to the U.S. government records and public information, Christopher Steele’s dossier included a report about Alfa Bank’s relationship with Vladimir Putin.

The relevant report dated September 14th, 2016, just five days before the defendant’s meeting with the FBI was titled Russia U.S. presidential election. Kremlin Alfa Bank group corporation. Separately in October, 2016, Christopher Steele also provided Rodney Jaffe this allegations regarding a purportedly secret server between Alfa Bank and the Trump organization to U.S. state department official at a meeting in Washington, D.C.

All of this evidence is highly probative in so far as establishes that the defendant one represented and worked for the Clinton campaign in connection with its broader opposition research efforts. Two, took steps to integrate the Alfa Bank allegations into those opposition research efforts.

Three, coordinated with Christopher Steele, Fusion GPS and Rodney Jaffe in connection with the Alfa Bank allegations. And four, carried out his September 19th, 26th meeting with the FBI in order to among other things, further the interests of the Clinton campaign with assistance from Fusion GPS.

Mr. Patel: Jan, if our audience takes away nothing else from every show we’ve ever done, these two paragraphs are the Russiagate investigation that we proved when we, Devin and I were running the Russiagate investigation in Congress. John Durham has just more succinctly than I have ever could before laid out the entire criminal conspiracy.

And here’s why/ the cast of characters and groups he just outlined in those two paragraphs, john Durham has literally proven what we have been saying this entire time. Remember our parallel efforts by the Clinton campaign first was the Steele dossier, the other was the Alfa Bank server.

And I said they were all related and occurring at the same time, by the same corrupt people, that’s exactly what John Durham just said. He said, while Christopher Steele hired by Fusion GPS, paid by Perkins Coie and Marc Elias there, who were their clients went forward with the Steele dossier information at the same time that entire cast of characters met in Washington, D.C., before the filing of the first FISA to talk about the Steele dossier and Russia Alfa Bank server.

And by the way, it happened to be the same week that Michael Sussmann, the lawyer for the Clinton campaign who was in the meeting with Fusion GPS, Christopher Steele, and others went to the FBI’s general counsel and said, here’s information from Russia Alfa Bank.

Part 3: >

Part 2: > If they raise that you have to creatively get around it, use documentation and further your investigation, but there’s no real force mechanism, not in federal court. The power of the department of justice and the power of an Article III judge, who literally is more powerful than a president because they can overturn a president’s decision, has now been asked to decide the issue of privilege. And I believe that this judge, because the law demands it will come down on the side of John Durham say, you basically can’t use privilege as a pretense. You can’t go out and get a relationship and then do some unlawful activity and say nothing to see here, it’s privileged. And I think that’s what they’re doing and the judge is going to see through it. Mr. Jekielek: Let’s go back to what I was talking about earlier in Durham’s original pleading. I’m going to read the whole thing because I find there’s so many elements to this. This is on page 20, for those that have these pleadings around Durham writes. For example, while the FBI did not reach an ultimate conclusion regarding the data’s accuracy, or whether it might have been in whole or in part genuine spoofed altered or fabricated, agency two that’s the CIA, concluded in early 2017 that Russian bank, one data and Russian phone provider one data was not technically plausible, did not withstand technical scrutiny, contained gaps, conflicted with itself and was “Was user created and not machine tool generated.” And then there’s also the special counsel’s office has not reached a definitive conclusion in this regard. Now, Durham is saying that the CIA believed that what was being provided by Sussmann was false information essentially. Mr. Patel: This is huge. This is massive. This is what we uncovered when we were interrogating Sussmann when I was taking his deposition under oath in Congress in December, of 2017. We knew he went to both the FBI and another government agency at the time we were limited in what we could say. And we knew what he was doing was hawking this fake Russia bank, Alfa Bank server information amongst other things to them. What Durham John has now put in full force in a federal pleading, in a federal indictment, in a federal prosecution is he’s come out and said the CIA who Michael Sussmann went to with thumb drives and gave them this Alfa Bank information, evaluated that information and said on their own, this is basically bogus intel, and we, the CIA don’t want anything to do with it. Now my question is that was in 2017, early 2017, after President Trump had come in. An investigation that rises to the level of the office of president United States has to, by regulation and law go to the director’s office, the Central Intelligence Agency and at the time that was Mike Pompeo. So I have a lot of questions for why Mike Pompeo did not provide with a White House or Congress, his former committee, the house intelligence committee, which was running this investigation with that conclusion then because we did not have it then, I can say that definitively. And either he knew about that information and sat on it or it was withheld from him, but that’s something the American public need to know right away. On the FBI part, to me that’s a little more shocking and also shows the FBI’s motives of operation for the entire Russiagate fraud that they helped perpetuate. They did the same thing. In this case, Michael Sussmann takes its on drive to the FBI and talks to his buddy, the FBI General Counsel James Baker and gives them a bunch of information. What do they do? Per John Durham’s pleading, they do not come to a definitive conclusion as you put in there. Now as a former federal prosecutor, that’s absurd. You, the Federal Bureau of Investigation who have been supposedly provided information about a criminal conspiracy by the president of the United States, don’t come to a conclusion. The only way that happens is if the FBI’s leadership comes in and says, don’t further that investigation. So we can go to the FISA court and say, we’ve received information, we are evaluating it and we don’t have any fidelity on it. That is a total con job in my opinion, by the FBI. They did the same thing with the Steele dossier. Remember, Steel dossier, same characters, Sussmann, Elias, Fusion GPS, Hillary Clinton campaign, Bruce Ohr, all those guys comes in with the Steele dossier paid for by the Clinton campaign and what do they do? They take it to the FISA court. What the FBI says to the court and what our investigation unearth was the FBI intentionally stopped short of coming to conclusions on the evidence presented by Christopher Steele so that they could go to the FISA court and say, well, we haven’t finished our assessment, but this is what we think happened judge. We think Donald Trump is conspiring with the Russian government and his campaign is doing so, so we believe we’re in the right to get this investigation. And I asked agents of the FBI and lawyers of the FBI under oath when I interrogated them, why did you stop short? Because I as a former national security prosecutor, would’ve forced the FBI to come to a determinative conclusion before taking it to a judge to use a secret surveillance warrant on a president in his campaign. And they had no answer for me. And if you recall the Nunes memo where we called them out on that, put on full display the FBI’s intentional shortcomings. And I believe they’ve done exactly that in this instance. And at the time, I think it was still James Comey was still is in his director, and of course, Andy McCabe, who I believe is responsible for almost all of this along with James Comey, had to have known again, presidential investigation goes right to the top. So the order had to have come in from somewhere to say, we are not coming to the assessment. The reason John Durham put that in there seems like a meaningless paragraph, but to me as a federal prosecutor and former public defender, it’s one of the most important paragraphs in the entire pleading. He’s saying the FBI intentionally stopped short. And he’s also saying the CIA knew the information was bogus. So why wasn’t that information given to Congress? Why wasn’t that information provided the FISA court? Why wasn’t that information given out to the public when requested. Mr. Jekielek: Another thing that was interesting in this pleading to me and there was some debate about this among our analysts and you and me, it turns out that Sussmann was actually hired by Rodney Jaffe. Mr. Patel: Directly so and now it’s look, this stuff’s complicated and I probably had a different eye of looking into these things as a guy who did these prosecutions and defenses. So what you’ll see in these pleadings, not just Durham’s, but the response pleadings is you will see repeatedly over and over again, tech executive one who we believed to be Rodney Jaffe, is an individual that was a client of Michael Sussmann and Perkins Coie, and Marc Elias who are working at the behest of the DNC in Hillary Clinton campaign. It is literally spelled out by John Durham and by the pleadings from Clinton world. So if they’re both saying it to a federal judge, are we now going to believe that he’s not a client. And I’ll we’ll get into why that’s necessary for them to say for the privilege argument that they’re making, John Durham. He also issued a lot of nuggets of information that were not previously public how long people have been under grand jury subpoena and who still a subject of the investigation. The defense in this case said, no, no, these people can’t other folks like Jaffe and company, can’t be the subjects of the investigation because the statute of limitations has run. John Durham comes in his pleading and says, well, thanks for raising that. You, the defense have no idea what evidence I John Durham have, and I’m going to tell you in this pleading, which he spells out that this individual, Rodney Jaffe was a subject of the investigation before the grand jury indictment, during the grand jury indictment and after the grand jury indictment. That’s what John Durham says in the pleading to eliminate the statute of limitations argument, which a lot of our audience has been curious about. And what he’s effectively saying is, you the defense can’t tell me that the statute of limitations is over. You don’t know what evidence I have. You don’t know who else I put in the grand jury. You don’t know what other information I have. You don’t know what other targets I have. And by the way, this guy’s still a subject just so you know. That is pretty powerful for a federal prosecutor come in and say that, you don’t do it lightly. So it was one of the startling things to me in this pleading that sort of an overlooked, but in more to come. Mr. Jekielek: So Kash, and in this big pleading in Durham’s pleading, he also references Christopher Steele curiously. So I’m going to read this now and I’m going to substitute the references that are in the actual document with what we believe are the correct names and so forth. According to the U.S. government records and public information, Christopher Steele’s dossier included a report about Alfa Bank’s relationship with Vladimir Putin. The relevant report dated September 14th, 2016, just five days before the defendant’s meeting with the FBI was titled Russia U.S. presidential election. Kremlin Alfa Bank group corporation. Separately in October, 2016, Christopher Steele also provided Rodney Jaffe this allegations regarding a purportedly secret server between Alfa Bank and the Trump organization to U.S. state department official at a meeting in Washington, D.C. All of this evidence is highly probative in so far as establishes that the defendant one represented and worked for the Clinton campaign in connection with its broader opposition research efforts. Two, took steps to integrate the Alfa Bank allegations into those opposition research efforts. Three, coordinated with Christopher Steele, Fusion GPS and Rodney Jaffe in connection with the Alfa Bank allegations. And four, carried out his September 19th, 26th meeting with the FBI in order to among other things, further the interests of the Clinton campaign with assistance from Fusion GPS. Mr. Patel: Jan, if our audience takes away nothing else from every show we’ve ever done, these two paragraphs are the Russiagate investigation that we proved when we, Devin and I were running the Russiagate investigation in Congress. John Durham has just more succinctly than I have ever could before laid out the entire criminal conspiracy. And here’s why/ the cast of characters and groups he just outlined in those two paragraphs, john Durham has literally proven what we have been saying this entire time. Remember our parallel efforts by the Clinton campaign first was the Steele dossier, the other was the Alfa Bank server. And I said they were all related and occurring at the same time, by the same corrupt people, that’s exactly what John Durham just said. He said, while Christopher Steele hired by Fusion GPS, paid by Perkins Coie and Marc Elias there, who were their clients went forward with the Steele dossier information at the same time that entire cast of characters met in Washington, D.C., before the filing of the first FISA to talk about the Steele dossier and Russia Alfa Bank server. And by the way, it happened to be the same week that Michael Sussmann, the lawyer for the Clinton campaign who was in the meeting with Fusion GPS, Christopher Steele, and others went to the FBI’s general counsel and said, here’s information from Russia Alfa Bank. Part 3: >

link

(post is archived)