With the media filled with stories about the trial of Attorney Michael Sussmann lying to the FBI, let us consider the broader issues.

The case should be relatively simple and consists of two questions:

(1)  Did Michael Sussmann lie to the FBI when he told FBI General Counsel James Baker that he was not representing a client?

In an email to James Baker, Sussmann’s lie was memorialized …  “Jim — it’s Michael Sussmann. I have something time-sensitive (and sensitive) I need to discuss. Do you have availability for a short meeting tomorrow? I’m coming on my own — not on behalf of a client or company — want to help the Bureau. Thanks.”

In addition to his email, it appears Sussmann billed the Clinton campaign for his work on the project.

(2)  Was the lie “material” in that it influenced the FBI’s decision-making process?

There is no doubt that Sussmann’s credibility as a cybersecurity lawyer and personal standing with the FBI allowed him to get a meeting with the FBI’s top lawyer and indicated the importance of the matter to be discussed. One question that may be answered at trial begs the question, was the FBI pre-conditioned to open an investigation, and did Sussmann’s proffer provide a reason to trigger a formal investigation? The real question is one of urgency where the investigation had to be publicized before the election.

Enter the complications…

Judicial Bias?


Curiously, the Judge allowed partisan jurors who donated to Hillary Clinton and radical progressive communist democrat Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez to remain on the jury.

Presiding federal district judge Christopher Cooper, an Obama appointee acknowledged that he and Sussmann were “professional acquaintances” while at the Justice Department in the 1990s. And even more problematical is that the judge’s wife, Amy Jeffress, represented former FBI lawyer Lisa Page who was deeply involved in the hoax, along with her illicit lover, former FBI agent Peter Strzok in a civil matter.

There is also a connection with Merrick Garland...

"Dorothy Ames Jeffress, a Federal prosecutor, and Christopher Reid Cooper, a lawyer, were married yesterday afternoon at the Meridian House, a historic mansion in Washington. Judge Merrick Garland of the Federal Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit officiated, and the Rev. John Payne, a Roman Catholic priest, took part in the ceremony." <Source>

Jury Bias?


Since the trial is being held in Washington, D.C., most jurors will likely be Democrats, Hillary Clinton supporters, or people pre-conditioned by the media. Whether or not they will faithfully examine the evidence and render a just verdict is an unknown.

Judge allows Hillary, AOC donors in jury pool for ex-Clinton-lawyer’s Russia trial

"As many as three Hillary Clinton donors — including one who also supported US Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez — are among the prospective jurors for former Clinton campaign lawyer Michael Sussmann’s trial.

Special counsel John Durham’s team objected to putting one Clinton contributor on the panel after the man said he would “strive for impartiality as best I can.”

But the prosecution was overruled by Washington, DC, federal Judge Christopher Cooper, who said the man — who works in public policy for Amazon and appeared to be in his 40s — “expressed a high degree of confidence” that he could be impartial." <Source>


On Tuesday, trial in United States v. Sussmann began. Michael Sussmann’s theory of defense has major factual holes.

The Hillary Clinton campaign did not want its attorney, Michael Sussmann, to share the Alfa Bank data with the FBI, jurors were told yesterday during the defense’s opening arguments in the special counsel’s criminal case against Sussmann. But the information known to date, as well as the modus operandi of the Spygate players throughout the years they peddled the Russia-collusion hoax, render this argument laughable.

“The meeting with the FBI is the exact opposite of what the Clinton campaign would’ve wanted,” Bosworth told the jury, suggesting “the FBI quashed the news story after learning about it from Sussmann.” “The FBI meeting is something they didn’t authorize, they didn’t direct him to do, and they didn’t want him to do,” Sussmann’s lawyers argued. But once the Times was ready to publish the material, Sussmann called Baker “to help the FBI” “and warn them that a story was coming,” the defense claimed.

The evidence on all fronts suggests otherwise. First, emails exchanged between reporters and Peter Fritsch, a co-founder of the investigative research firm, Fusion GPS, that Perkins and Coie had hired on behalf of the Clinton campaign, indicate the Times was nowhere near “ready to publish the material” when Sussmann handed it off to Baker on September 19, 2016. <Source>

Sussmann-Durham trial: Marc Elias says he briefed Clinton campaign officials on Fusion GPS oppo against Trump

The former Clinton campaign lawyer says he never directed Michael Sussmann to take opposition research on Trump to the FBI

Elias went on to testify that Clinton campaign officials, including campaign manager Robby Mook, campaign chairman John Podesta, policy director Jake Sullivan — who now serves as White House National Security advisor in the Biden administration — and communications official Jennifer Palmieri, were aware of the opposition research Fusion GPS was conducting against Trump.

On Oct. 31, 2016, Hillary Clinton tweeted: "Computer scientists have apparently uncovered a covert server linking the Trump Organization to a Russian-based bank."

As for the government's argument that the data was brought to the FBI as part of an effort to create an alleged "October Surprise" ahead of the 2016 presidential election, Elias quipped: "An October surprise comes in October." Sussmann's meeting at the FBI was on Sept. 19, 2016. 

"What makes an October surprise useful is not just that it comes in October, but essentially, that it comes too late in the campaign process to un-do it," Elias said. "Usually something comes in the second half of October where the media is landing something that is both explosive and effectively too late to rebut." <Source>

How deep is the swamp where “they” all know and cover for each other?


Introducing Jake Sullivan, Hillary Clinton’s foreign policy advisor who openly promoted the Trump/Russia collusion hoax. A hoax crafted and paid for by the Hillary Clinton campaign and the Democratic National Committee in an attempt to derail Donald Trump’s candidacy for the President of the United States. Sullivan’s involvement in this corrupt hoax may likely subject him to further scrutiny by the Special Counsel, either as a witness or even as a target of the investigation. Some believe that Sullivan’s testimony before Congress may be further examined for perjury.

How many people have noticed and are concerned that the Obama/Biden regime’s National Security Advisor to President Joe Biden, Jake Sullivan, is married to Attorney General Merrick Garland’s legal counsel, Margaret Goodlander.

The issue is that Goodlander has not formally recused herself from the Durham proceedings and appears to be keeping tabs on Durham’s efforts.

This is problematic because the Attorney General controls the Special Counsel’s budget, the scope of the investigation, and the final release of the Special Counsel’s report, which can be released in a redacted format to the public.

According to Senator Chuck Grassley, the Ranking Member of the Judiciary Committee, “The Justice Department’s standing guidance calls for employees to avoid even the appearance of a conflict of interest, especially when it comes to ongoing criminal investigations.”

Will Durham do a “Mueller” to protect the DOJ and FBI?

Durham Pretends FBI Was Duped by Hillary's Lawyer Into Participating in Her 'October Surprise'

The FBI and official Washington were all-in on pretending that Donald Trump was a super-secret Russian spy when Hillary Clinton’s campaign poisoned the D.C. swamp with her 2016 campaign opposition research. The swamp was so invested in the narrative and besotted with Democratic politics that the FBI, DOJ, and even Obama’s CIA chief freely disseminated the poison to everyone. But in a Washington, D.C. courtroom, Special Counsel John Durham’s team of prosecutors seems to be giving the FBI a pass.

On the first day of the trial of Hillary’s lawyer, Michael Sussmann, the Durham team’s opening statement and its first witnesses attempted to walk a fine line to show that the Democratic National Committee lawyer used his unique position to get the FBI to investigate Trump for secretly communicating with a Russian bank to get to Putin.

Durham’s team argues that the FBI was duped into treating seriously the Trump-is-a-Russian-secret-agent-with-super-secret-ties-to-a-Moscow-bank story that the Hillary Clinton campaign lawyer brought to it. They will argue in court that if the FBI had known it was Hillary’s oppo-research, they would have dismissed it out of hand. <Source>

Bottom line…

Quite a few people believe that the Durham effort, like the Robert Mueller effort, will result in a few low-level indictments and ultimately amount to nothing. Me? There is still hope that Durham will do the right thing to hold the top officials, except for former President Biden and Hillary Clinton, responsible for their actions – at least in the Court of Public Opinion.

We shall see what we shall see.

We are so screwed.

-- steve

“Nullius in verba.”-- take nobody's word for it!

“Beware of false knowledge; it is more dangerous than ignorance.”-- George Bernard Shaw

“Progressive, liberal, Socialist, Marxist, Democratic Socialist -- they are all COMMUNISTS.”

“The key to fighting the craziness of the progressives is to hold them responsible for their actions, not their intentions.” – OCS

"The object in life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane." -- Marcus Aurelius

“A people that elect corrupt politicians, imposters, thieves, and traitors are not victims... but accomplices” -- George Orwell

“Fere libenter homines id quod volunt credunt." (The people gladly believe what they wish to.) ~Julius Caesar

“Describing the problem is quite different from knowing the solution. Except in politics." ~ OCS