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

1.1K

•

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 4: >

And now Clinton world is rounding the circles and saying, while we don’t disagree with the sum and substance of the scenario that John Durham has laid out, we’re hiding by procedure, it’s a pretext in my opinion. Sometimes there is a lot of valid attorney, client privilege claims to be made.

As a defense attorney, I made them frequently, and they were righteous because you need that in order for due process to actually survive in our court system. This is a political stunt. It’s a last ditch effort by them to say, don’t let the world see this.

Mr. Jekielek: It’s just kind of dawning anyway, but they’re effectively saying that Sussmann was lying, right? By saying that providing sworn testimony that this is the case and it doesn’t square with the sworn testimony from Congress that you took. Isn’t that what they’re saying?

Mr. Patel: Yeah. And to me, I think that’s exactly what they’re saying. Because they could have taken if they had the truth and the facts on their side, which I don’t think they do, they could have said he didn’t lie and these are the reasons why he didn’t lie. We were in these meetings with them, we’re going to waive privilege.

We’re going to talk about the communications that happened, where it shows Michael Sussmann went to the FBI and said X. They didn’t do any of that. They just came in with procedure and said, attorney, client privilege, nothing to see here. And talk about throwing off the American people, that’s exactly what they’re doing.

What they’re saying indirectly and I agree with you is you Michael Sussmann lied to the FBI, were making a last ditch effort to get Clinton campaign world out of there. And if I was Sussmann, I’d probably start dealing right about now.

But I think he’s too far down the rabbit hole to do that. The third declaration filed was on behalf of Marc Elias. Marc Elias was then Michael Sussmann’s partner, the chairman of the Perkins Coie political law group and head of the Clinton campaign in terms of legal positions.

And he comes in and he actually files a declaration that’s almost entirely redacted. It’s blocked. We can’t see it. So what Marc Elias does talk about that we can see is how his job was to counteract all of the statements that then candidate Trump was making about going after people and suing them for defamation, which as you fast forward turns out President Trump was right.

People were defaming him by talking about colluding with Russia, by validating the Steele dossier, by allowing the FISA court information to be put out into the ether when the FBI and everybody knew it was false. What he Marc Elias is saying is basically recycling this hot garbage in this declaration to say, well actually we were hired to do this work to counteract President Trump.

What I’m more interested in is, why is it redacted? You’re not a government official, there’s no classified information there. You didn’t have access to classified information. What have you got to hide? If you’re coming in voluntarily making a submission on behalf of supposedly your former law partner, why don’t you let the whole world see it? And he didn’t.

He blocked it. And I think there’s a reason for that because he doesn’t want the world to know that the substance, they don’t have it. They don’t have the truth, they don’t have the facts. And what they’re going for is this hard nose approach to attorney-client privilege by saying, no, no judge that was my client.

Perkins Coie did hire Fusion GPS as a client. Perkins Coie did hire Rodney Jaffe as a client. Michael Sussmann did go to these individuals and hire them as clients so attorney-client privilege must stand, but where they fail is the legality of it, which we won’t get into, it’s in John Durham’s pleading outline pretty brilliantly is that you basically can’t use attorney-client privilege to hide corrupt conduct. And that’s what they’re doing.

Mr. Jekielek: Well, and there’s this last piece that we really have to talk about, which is Fusion GPS, there’s a whole pleading for Fusion. And again, quite remarkable what they’ve got in there, we were discussing a bit earlier. Tell me what you see here.

Mr. Patel: Yeah. Look, Fusion GPS to me has always been at the center of the Russiagate scandal. Fusion GPS has identified in John Durham’s pleading as U.S. investigative firm one, quick summary was the group hired by Perkins Coie, paid for by the Hillary Clinton campaign in the DNC to go out and collect opposition research against then candidate Trump, and tie him to Russia and do the Alfa Bank nonsense.

And if you remember, Fusion GPS hired Christopher Steele who authored the Steele dossier. So they’ve been at the center of this. I deposed the heads of Fusion GPS when I was running the Russiagate investigation. And one of the questions that I asked Glenn Simpson under oath was, how long have known people like Bruce Ohr, and other folks at the FBI and what exactly were you doing?

And the reason I bring up his deposition is not necessarily for those, while it’s interesting on those points, because I believe Glenn Simpson lied about his relationship to Bruce Ohr and was caught in our deposition doing so.

But he goes through great lengths in the deposition to pat himself on the back about his investigative firm Fusion GPS, who is hired to do opposition research against Donald Trump hired by the Clinton campaign through Michael Sussmann and Marc Elias, the lawyers at Perkins Coie.

Well, everyone knows that. Why is that a big deal? Enter Fusion GPS’s lawyers in these rounds of pleadings that we’re talking about. So now Fusion GP comes in through their lawyer in assessment in case and says, we have something to say, judge give us permission to say it and the judge did and now they’ve said it.

What they are now saying completely destroys credulity. What they are saying is their lawyer has filed a pleading that says Fusion GPS was not performing opposition research. It goes back to what we were talking about earlier. It’s their attempt to hide behind privilege and bury information they don’t want out there.

Because if they can show that Fusion GPS was just doing this opposition research, apparently now they don’t do anymore according to themselves, then they want the judge to find that there’s an existing attorney, client relationship there.

And on top of that Fusion GPS was performing work as a client to Perkins Coie, therefore it was not opposition research and therefore the communications regarding the meetings that Fusion GPS had with Michael Sussmann, with Christopher Steele, with Perkins Coie and the FBI, and the media, all of that substantive information should be blocked from being able to be used by John Durham in his case in chief.

It is a complete 180 by Fusion GPS’s own legal team in a federal pleading. And I’m kind of shocked, but maybe not shocked that they did it because these guys can’t seem to see past yesterday or tomorrow.

And I just hope people go out there and maybe John Durham will go look at our deposition of Glenn Simpson, the head of Fusion GPS under oath, where I believe he says otherwise repeatedly.

Mr. Jekielek: Well, and so this is the question, right? Doesn’t this put Glenn Simpson in jeopardy to this kind of legal ploy that’s, I mean, this is the part that I’m having difficulty fathoming.

Mr. Patel: Well, I think you’re right. And I’ve always said Glenn Simpson should be charged with lying to Congress. And I’ve also said, Glenn Simpson is if not the lead conspirator in this largest scale criminal conspiracy that I call it ever effectuated.

And what John Durham puts in his pleading, or excuse me, what Fusion GPS actually puts in their pleading is they actually highlight the dates that John Durham issued grand jury subpoenas against Fusion GPS, which is shocking. As a prosecutor you never reveal that information. Grand jury information is secret, it’s to be kept confidential, and it’s never to be revealed without leave of court.

Fusion GPS on their own says we’ve been under grand jury subpoena by John Durham for over a year. And he asked us to provide responsive documents to that grand jury subpoena. Fusion GPS’s lawyers and their team took it upon themselves to say, nope, we are not going to provide you John Durham, the special counsel for the Department of Justice, with responsive documents, pursuant to a federal grand jury subpoena.

What we are going to provide you is privilege logs. Again, we’re back to this privilege log thing. And all that is a little metadata that says, meeting here on this date with so and so. Meeting here on this date with so and so. And information was passed on this date from so and so, but none of the substance of the meeting, none of the substance of the information.

So what Fusion GPS is saying is we have all that information and we are withholding it from the United States government, I think unlawfully because it’s pursuant to a grand jury subpoena and you, the judge must now say that what Fusion GPS performed and was paid millions of dollars for as opposition research is no longer opposition research, but information that was being collected in anticipation of litigation for purposes of being a client to a law firm.

This is the Daisy chain that Marc Elias is pleading. John Podesta’s pleading, Robby Mook’s pleading and Fusion GPS is pleading in the Michael Sussmann place is trying to get the judge on board with, and I think they’re going to fail at multiple points in that chain.

But fusion GPS is the, I don’t want to say it’s startling because their conduct from the has been I believe completely not only unlawful and unethical, but they’ve lied repeatedly about their dealings with Congress, with Christopher Steele, with the Democratic Party, the Clinton campaign, Marc Elias, Perkins Coie, Michael Sussmann and the like.

And a little vignette I’d like to pull from Fusion GPS’s pleading is that one of their employees they actually identified as a witness for John Durham’s case in chief. Why would Fusion GPS’s lawyers out one of their own employees as a cooperating witness for John Durham? If you recall, in our last show or the show before, we talked about John Durham had identified someone at Fusion GPS as a cooperating witness.

Mr. Jekielek: Right.

Mr. Patel: Fusion GPS pulls her name and identifies her by name and their pleading. And they take it one step further. They say this individual, and I’m not going to name her name, but it’s out there for everybody to see, this individual and her communications with tech executive, Rodney Jaffe, who we’ve talked about.

Those communications between Fusion GPS employee and Rodney Jaffe employee are an example of what should be hidden behind privilege and not unveiled, and we should not have to give that to John Durham. To me that’s it, that’s the bullseye. Why is Fusion GPS asking a federal judge to prevent the information from one of its own employees that she passed on to Rodney Jaffe, the tech executive.

Because they want to make a claim of attorney-client privilege and they want to hide more information. And I remind everyone in our audience that this is the same firm, Fusion GPS that we had to use a congressional subpoena for, to go out and prove to the world that they were paid by the Clinton campaign millions of dollars, north of 10 million and they in turn hired Christopher Steele.

And if you remember Jan, they took us to federal court to preclude the information about their banking records from ever coming out. We won that case in federal court. And what did it show? Fusion GPS paid Christopher Steele to do opposition research for the Clinton campaign to be utilized in FISA warrant against then candidate Trump and subsequently President Trump.

If they did that then and we took them to federal court and won, and we broke through their same attorney, client privilege arguments there, what are they hiding now? That’s the kicker and I believe John Durham knows the answer, and it’s not good for them.

Mr. Jekielek: Well, this has been quite the exploration of all these filings. And frankly, I’m really looking forward to what happens next. I guess it’s time for our shout out.

Mr. Patel: You’re right Jan, it’s time for this week’s shout out. And it goes to Charles Denton, who wrote a very kind and generous note to you and I about last week’s episode, operation eight- 14.

Thanks for your heartwarming words and your kind appreciation to our program. And we encourage everybody to post commentary, to participate in the live chat and to tell all your friends about Kash’s Corner. And we’ll see you next week, on Kash’s Corner

Part 4: > And now Clinton world is rounding the circles and saying, while we don’t disagree with the sum and substance of the scenario that John Durham has laid out, we’re hiding by procedure, it’s a pretext in my opinion. Sometimes there is a lot of valid attorney, client privilege claims to be made. As a defense attorney, I made them frequently, and they were righteous because you need that in order for due process to actually survive in our court system. This is a political stunt. It’s a last ditch effort by them to say, don’t let the world see this. Mr. Jekielek: It’s just kind of dawning anyway, but they’re effectively saying that Sussmann was lying, right? By saying that providing sworn testimony that this is the case and it doesn’t square with the sworn testimony from Congress that you took. Isn’t that what they’re saying? Mr. Patel: Yeah. And to me, I think that’s exactly what they’re saying. Because they could have taken if they had the truth and the facts on their side, which I don’t think they do, they could have said he didn’t lie and these are the reasons why he didn’t lie. We were in these meetings with them, we’re going to waive privilege. We’re going to talk about the communications that happened, where it shows Michael Sussmann went to the FBI and said X. They didn’t do any of that. They just came in with procedure and said, attorney, client privilege, nothing to see here. And talk about throwing off the American people, that’s exactly what they’re doing. What they’re saying indirectly and I agree with you is you Michael Sussmann lied to the FBI, were making a last ditch effort to get Clinton campaign world out of there. And if I was Sussmann, I’d probably start dealing right about now. But I think he’s too far down the rabbit hole to do that. The third declaration filed was on behalf of Marc Elias. Marc Elias was then Michael Sussmann’s partner, the chairman of the Perkins Coie political law group and head of the Clinton campaign in terms of legal positions. And he comes in and he actually files a declaration that’s almost entirely redacted. It’s blocked. We can’t see it. So what Marc Elias does talk about that we can see is how his job was to counteract all of the statements that then candidate Trump was making about going after people and suing them for defamation, which as you fast forward turns out President Trump was right. People were defaming him by talking about colluding with Russia, by validating the Steele dossier, by allowing the FISA court information to be put out into the ether when the FBI and everybody knew it was false. What he Marc Elias is saying is basically recycling this hot garbage in this declaration to say, well actually we were hired to do this work to counteract President Trump. What I’m more interested in is, why is it redacted? You’re not a government official, there’s no classified information there. You didn’t have access to classified information. What have you got to hide? If you’re coming in voluntarily making a submission on behalf of supposedly your former law partner, why don’t you let the whole world see it? And he didn’t. He blocked it. And I think there’s a reason for that because he doesn’t want the world to know that the substance, they don’t have it. They don’t have the truth, they don’t have the facts. And what they’re going for is this hard nose approach to attorney-client privilege by saying, no, no judge that was my client. Perkins Coie did hire Fusion GPS as a client. Perkins Coie did hire Rodney Jaffe as a client. Michael Sussmann did go to these individuals and hire them as clients so attorney-client privilege must stand, but where they fail is the legality of it, which we won’t get into, it’s in John Durham’s pleading outline pretty brilliantly is that you basically can’t use attorney-client privilege to hide corrupt conduct. And that’s what they’re doing. Mr. Jekielek: Well, and there’s this last piece that we really have to talk about, which is Fusion GPS, there’s a whole pleading for Fusion. And again, quite remarkable what they’ve got in there, we were discussing a bit earlier. Tell me what you see here. Mr. Patel: Yeah. Look, Fusion GPS to me has always been at the center of the Russiagate scandal. Fusion GPS has identified in John Durham’s pleading as U.S. investigative firm one, quick summary was the group hired by Perkins Coie, paid for by the Hillary Clinton campaign in the DNC to go out and collect opposition research against then candidate Trump, and tie him to Russia and do the Alfa Bank nonsense. And if you remember, Fusion GPS hired Christopher Steele who authored the Steele dossier. So they’ve been at the center of this. I deposed the heads of Fusion GPS when I was running the Russiagate investigation. And one of the questions that I asked Glenn Simpson under oath was, how long have known people like Bruce Ohr, and other folks at the FBI and what exactly were you doing? And the reason I bring up his deposition is not necessarily for those, while it’s interesting on those points, because I believe Glenn Simpson lied about his relationship to Bruce Ohr and was caught in our deposition doing so. But he goes through great lengths in the deposition to pat himself on the back about his investigative firm Fusion GPS, who is hired to do opposition research against Donald Trump hired by the Clinton campaign through Michael Sussmann and Marc Elias, the lawyers at Perkins Coie. Well, everyone knows that. Why is that a big deal? Enter Fusion GPS’s lawyers in these rounds of pleadings that we’re talking about. So now Fusion GP comes in through their lawyer in assessment in case and says, we have something to say, judge give us permission to say it and the judge did and now they’ve said it. What they are now saying completely destroys credulity. What they are saying is their lawyer has filed a pleading that says Fusion GPS was not performing opposition research. It goes back to what we were talking about earlier. It’s their attempt to hide behind privilege and bury information they don’t want out there. Because if they can show that Fusion GPS was just doing this opposition research, apparently now they don’t do anymore according to themselves, then they want the judge to find that there’s an existing attorney, client relationship there. And on top of that Fusion GPS was performing work as a client to Perkins Coie, therefore it was not opposition research and therefore the communications regarding the meetings that Fusion GPS had with Michael Sussmann, with Christopher Steele, with Perkins Coie and the FBI, and the media, all of that substantive information should be blocked from being able to be used by John Durham in his case in chief. It is a complete 180 by Fusion GPS’s own legal team in a federal pleading. And I’m kind of shocked, but maybe not shocked that they did it because these guys can’t seem to see past yesterday or tomorrow. And I just hope people go out there and maybe John Durham will go look at our deposition of Glenn Simpson, the head of Fusion GPS under oath, where I believe he says otherwise repeatedly. Mr. Jekielek: Well, and so this is the question, right? Doesn’t this put Glenn Simpson in jeopardy to this kind of legal ploy that’s, I mean, this is the part that I’m having difficulty fathoming. Mr. Patel: Well, I think you’re right. And I’ve always said Glenn Simpson should be charged with lying to Congress. And I’ve also said, Glenn Simpson is if not the lead conspirator in this largest scale criminal conspiracy that I call it ever effectuated. And what John Durham puts in his pleading, or excuse me, what Fusion GPS actually puts in their pleading is they actually highlight the dates that John Durham issued grand jury subpoenas against Fusion GPS, which is shocking. As a prosecutor you never reveal that information. Grand jury information is secret, it’s to be kept confidential, and it’s never to be revealed without leave of court. Fusion GPS on their own says we’ve been under grand jury subpoena by John Durham for over a year. And he asked us to provide responsive documents to that grand jury subpoena. Fusion GPS’s lawyers and their team took it upon themselves to say, nope, we are not going to provide you John Durham, the special counsel for the Department of Justice, with responsive documents, pursuant to a federal grand jury subpoena. What we are going to provide you is privilege logs. Again, we’re back to this privilege log thing. And all that is a little metadata that says, meeting here on this date with so and so. Meeting here on this date with so and so. And information was passed on this date from so and so, but none of the substance of the meeting, none of the substance of the information. So what Fusion GPS is saying is we have all that information and we are withholding it from the United States government, I think unlawfully because it’s pursuant to a grand jury subpoena and you, the judge must now say that what Fusion GPS performed and was paid millions of dollars for as opposition research is no longer opposition research, but information that was being collected in anticipation of litigation for purposes of being a client to a law firm. This is the Daisy chain that Marc Elias is pleading. John Podesta’s pleading, Robby Mook’s pleading and Fusion GPS is pleading in the Michael Sussmann place is trying to get the judge on board with, and I think they’re going to fail at multiple points in that chain. But fusion GPS is the, I don’t want to say it’s startling because their conduct from the has been I believe completely not only unlawful and unethical, but they’ve lied repeatedly about their dealings with Congress, with Christopher Steele, with the Democratic Party, the Clinton campaign, Marc Elias, Perkins Coie, Michael Sussmann and the like. And a little vignette I’d like to pull from Fusion GPS’s pleading is that one of their employees they actually identified as a witness for John Durham’s case in chief. Why would Fusion GPS’s lawyers out one of their own employees as a cooperating witness for John Durham? If you recall, in our last show or the show before, we talked about John Durham had identified someone at Fusion GPS as a cooperating witness. Mr. Jekielek: Right. Mr. Patel: Fusion GPS pulls her name and identifies her by name and their pleading. And they take it one step further. They say this individual, and I’m not going to name her name, but it’s out there for everybody to see, this individual and her communications with tech executive, Rodney Jaffe, who we’ve talked about. Those communications between Fusion GPS employee and Rodney Jaffe employee are an example of what should be hidden behind privilege and not unveiled, and we should not have to give that to John Durham. To me that’s it, that’s the bullseye. Why is Fusion GPS asking a federal judge to prevent the information from one of its own employees that she passed on to Rodney Jaffe, the tech executive. Because they want to make a claim of attorney-client privilege and they want to hide more information. And I remind everyone in our audience that this is the same firm, Fusion GPS that we had to use a congressional subpoena for, to go out and prove to the world that they were paid by the Clinton campaign millions of dollars, north of 10 million and they in turn hired Christopher Steele. And if you remember Jan, they took us to federal court to preclude the information about their banking records from ever coming out. We won that case in federal court. And what did it show? Fusion GPS paid Christopher Steele to do opposition research for the Clinton campaign to be utilized in FISA warrant against then candidate Trump and subsequently President Trump. If they did that then and we took them to federal court and won, and we broke through their same attorney, client privilege arguments there, what are they hiding now? That’s the kicker and I believe John Durham knows the answer, and it’s not good for them. Mr. Jekielek: Well, this has been quite the exploration of all these filings. And frankly, I’m really looking forward to what happens next. I guess it’s time for our shout out. Mr. Patel: You’re right Jan, it’s time for this week’s shout out. And it goes to Charles Denton, who wrote a very kind and generous note to you and I about last week’s episode, operation eight- 14. Thanks for your heartwarming words and your kind appreciation to our program. And we encourage everybody to post commentary, to participate in the live chat and to tell all your friends about Kash’s Corner. And we’ll see you next week, on Kash’s Corner

link

(post is archived)