Welcome • User Guide
ToS • Privacy • Canary
Donate • Bugs • License

©2025 Poal.co

138

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: >

(post is archived)

You are currently inside a comment thread.
Click here to see all the comments (3).
[–] • 0 pt

Part 3 : >

What John Durham is saying is what we’ve been saying all along. It is impossible to believe anything the Clinton world has put out regarding Russiagate and they’re denying any involvement in it. He John Durham has literally put Fusion GPS, the money, the lawyers, Christopher Steele, Rodney Jaffe, the tech executive in one meeting right before the filing of FISA and then right after that, Michael Sussmann, the lawyer who has all these clients runs to the FBI and says, I’ve got information regarding Russian collusion and Trump, to me that is the biggest thing to come from this pleading.

Mr. Jekielek: And he’s doing it as a good Samaritan.

Mr. Patel: Right. He’s doing it as a good Samaritan. And I’m going to do something I never do Jan, I’m going to now read a sentence from a pleading. The fact that FBI headquarters received on the same date, both sets of information involving the same political campaign, the Clinton campaign, the same law firm, law firm one, Perkins Coie, and the same investigative firm Fusion GPS makes UK person one Christopher Steele’s involvement in these matters relevant.

It’s also strong evidence concerning the materiality of the defendant’s alleged false statement that he was not acting on behalf of any client. That’s the case. And it’s put brilliantly in those couple of paragraphs. And I think there’s only one other matter that I’d like to highlight in this Durham motion before getting to the others.

Mr. Jekielek: Okay. Jump in.

Mr. Patel: So Jan, as we were saying, as you know and I think we’ll put up on the screen a link for our audience to go and look at all this 60, some 70 transcripts of the interrogations I took of people under oath, because it’s directly relevant to the Sussmann indictment and the cast of characters he’s talking about.

We depose Fusion GPS, and Glenn Simpson and Peter Fritz. We deposed Marc Elias. We deposed people in Clinton, world, Jake Sullivan, John Podesta, and all these people that are going to come up. So I’d like our audience to check that out at their convenience.

Because one of the things the defense in this case Sussmann’s attorney has asked is, judge, please preclude the government from introducing any Congressional testimony under oath, in the case in chief, which is shocking. Why?

They’re basically saying my client and all these witnesses we’re going to use swore under oath to statements to Hash and the investigation he was running, and those statements don’t work for our defense here so please preclude them. Basically, what they’re saying is these guys said ex on day one, when they were deposing Congress, and they’ve said, Y the opposite since.

It’s pretty shocking and what they do is they take it to the extreme. And this sort of shows you why I believe they are out of ammunition, all rounds expense as we say in DoD. They, the defense for Sussmann ask a federal court to immunize tech executive one, Rodney Jaffe, and his testimony. First of all, the law doesn’t allow that.

Only the United States government and the Department of Justice as an Article I executive authority grants immunity to witnesses and subjects in criminal proceedings. The defense never does that because they do not have the lawful right to do so. It’s the government’s decision. So why would the defense ask for something that’s unlawful?

Because one, most Americans probably don’t understand the legal gymnastics in there, but two it’s so they could go out to the media and say, this tech executive one, actually he’s got good stuff for us the defense, but he needs immunity. Why does he need immunity? What did he do wrong?

He was a client of Michael Sussmann’s. He was the guy that got access to the White House, the sensitive agreement. He was the guy that went and obtained the Alfa Bank information. He was the guy that told his team under him, even when he, Rodney Jaffe was informed that there was no information connecting Donald Trump to Russia and Alfa Bank and whatnot.

He went back to them and said, get me something that shows a narrative and an inference. Now the defense for Michael Sussmann wants Rodney Jaffe immunized, granted immunity in court so they, the defense can bring him in and have him say whatever they want to support their defense in their case for Michael Sussmann.

To me subsequently if it’s not the most important thing we’ve talked about, it’s probably the second most important thing, because now they are playing parlor tricks with the judiciary.

And John Durham responded quite succinctly saying the law doesn’t allow you to grant immunity and I judge don’t have to give anyone immunity. I don’t want to. And by the way, this guy is still a subject of my investigation so he’s not getting immunity. It’s pretty powerful.

Mr. Jekielek: No, it’s fascinating. But of course, I’m not surprised that they might want to exclude all that sworn testimony that you took and so forth, because already in these response pleadings, all these different groups are basically saying things that counter what the sworn under oath testimony said.

So this is the part that kind of blew my mind a little bit and made me think this is a hail Mary pass. And what are they actually trying to do here?

Mr. Patel: I think this is a perfect segue into the second part of the show. And yes, we have a third part, we’ll finish with a bang. But the second part of the show is to help the audience develop out all the other pleadings, not the one by John Durham, not the one by Michael Sussmann, but all the other ones.

Basically Clinton world has invited themselves to the party in federal court. And what they’ve done is the lawyers for the Hillary Clinton campaign, the lawyers for John Podesta, the lawyers for Marc Elias, the lawyers for Rodney Jaffe, the lawyers for Fusion GPS and Glenn Simpson have all come in separately and filed notices in saying, judge, we have something to say.

Normally that’s just unheard of, but in this very unique case, when this conspiracy was so big, these parties they are coming out of the wood works forcing themselves into a public pleading in court and saying, we judge have to be heard on our client’s behalf.

Some of it went to and the judge I think rightfully so gave them permission to do so. So they can’t just come in. They have to have leave of court, as we say, and the judge immediately granted them leave of court because I think he wants to adjudicate this matter properly.

So three sworn declarations come in immediately after the judge grants them permission to do so. Marc Elias, John Podesta and Robby Mook. And why are these guys providing sworn testimony in a federal criminal case when they themselves could be subjects of John Durham’s investigation.

And they’re doing so I believe because they have collectively focused their efforts not on behalf of Michael Sussmann, but to almost make Michael Sussmann the scapegoat.

Mr. Jekielek: And that’s a fascinating perspective, except it hadn’t occurred to me, but I guess that’s what happens when you run out of arguments.

Mr. Patel: No, it’s what happens when you run out of the truth. So let’s remind our audience, John Podesta, right? Chairman of the Hillary Clinton campaign in 2016, one of the biggest positions in the political landscape. Robby Mook, campaign manager for Hillary Clinton’s 2016 campaign, maybe the second biggest position in the political landscape.

These two lobbed in declarations. What that means is swore in writing under oath to a federal judge under the penalty of perjury, the following, and the sum substance of what they said was, and their pleadings are only about a page or too long is judge, Perkins Coie, our law firm for the Hillary Clinton campaign and the Democratic National Committee hired out contractors in groups as their clientele to do the work of the campaign.

Well, who are those people and why would they bring this up? Specifically Fusion GPS and Glenn Simpson, and they sub out Christopher Steele, and then Rodney Jaffe and his tech executive team, what are they doing?

They are setting up their argument, as we talked about top of the show to hide behind attorney-client privilege and work product. What they’re saying is no, no, these guys were definitely clients of ours and they were doing work that’s protected under the attorney-client privilege, I swear judge.

It’s their last ditch effort to procedurally block the substance of the information that we’re talking about and then John Durham is trying to get to, because he has seen the emails. He has seen the communications and he wants to use them in his case in chief to show that Michael Sussmann did in fact lie to the FBI.

Part 4: >