Indictment Shows that John Durham Is Going After More People than Michael Sussmann

AG William Barr Appoints US Attorney to Look Into Origins ...

Let me start by acknowledging the legitimate skepticism of many commentators that any justice will come out of John Durham’s work. You have been promised the moon in the past and instead received a flaming bag of dog poop.

But let’s accept the fact that yesterday’s news that DNC lawyer Michael Sussmann was going to be indicted turned out to be true. Charlie Brown got to kick the football this time.

So what does this mean? Is it a meaningless gesture or the first domino to fall in a line of dominoes? I think this is just the first domino to fall and that others will come. I base this on what the indictment says.

If you have the time, please read the indictment (here).

Durham’s indictment of Sussmann lays out the foundation of a conspiracy. Michael Sussman was indicted for lying to the FBI about the source of information he gave the Bureau. He claimed he got it independently. He did not. It was bought and paid for by Hillary Clinton and her campaign. The indictment essentially charges Sussmann with sending the FBI on a wild goose chase:

The FBI had, in fact, initiated an investigation of these allegations in response to a meeting that MICHAEL A. SUSSMANN, the defendant herein– a lawyer at a major international law firm (“ Law Firm -1”, i.e. Perkins Coie) – requested and held with the FBI General Counsel on or about September 19, 2016 at FBI Headquarters in the District of Columbia. SUSSMANN provided to the FBI General Counsel three “ white papers” along with data files allegedly containing evidence supporting the existence of this purported secret communications channel.

During the meeting, SUSSMANN lied about the capacity in which he was
providing the allega to the FBI Specifically, SUSSMANN stated falsely that he was not doing his work on the aforementioned allegations “ any client,” which led the FBI General Counsel to understand that SUSSMANN was acting as a good citizen merely passing along information , not as a paid advocate or political operative . In fact, and as alleged in further detail below, this statement was intentionally false and misleading because, in assembling and conveying
these allegations, SUSSMANN acted on behalf of specific clients, namely, ( i ) a U.S. technology industry executive (“ Tech Executive- 1”) at a U.S. Internet company “Internet Company”) , and ( ii) the Hillary Clinton Presidential Campaign (the “Clinton Campaign”).

That “Tech Executive” and the Hillary Clinton Campaign are now possible targets. The critical question is whether or not Sussmann was acting on his own. The indictment states he was acting at the behest of the Tech Executive and Hillary. It would be prosecutorial incompetence if they had not already be interviewed and evidence collected against them.

Paragraph 6 of the indictment gives a strong indication of how Durham and this team view Sussmann’s lie:

 50,886 total views,  33 views today

This entry was posted in Larry Johnson. Bookmark the permalink.

36 Responses to Indictment Shows that John Durham Is Going After More People than Michael Sussmann

  1. Fred says:

    Is it correct to state that the 5 year statute of limitations only to individual acts and not to conspiracies or continuing offenses?

    • Larry Johnson says:

      Don’t know. Good question.
      LJ

    • Caveman says:

      My understanding is that it applies to the last act committed in furtherance of the conspiracy, which in this case would mean that Sussmann could be hit with a conspiracy charge until at least February 9, 2022 (five years from the day he met with the general counsel of the CIA and lied again).

  2. Pat Lang says:

    All
    IMO if Durham is not removed by the Biden DOJ the trail of breadcrumbs will lead to the Clinton campaign with HC as the central figure in the plot. Also, IMO the Clinton apparat was the controlling element in the war against Trump throughout his presidency.

    • JerseyJeffersonian says:

      If the Biden DOJ were to remove Mr. Durham, this would be analagous to the Nixonian removal of Archibald Cox during the Watergate scandal, but exponated to the nth power. All hell would break loose.

      Wow.

      • Societal Illusions says:

        would it really? what in the past would have raised ire and caused all hell to break loose seems to get relegated to page 11 and may be fodder for CNN or Fox for a week or two, tops.

      • Fred says:

        JerseyJeffersonian,

        “All hell would break loose.”
        Nah, they are all in on it like FBI agents rigging Whitmer’s “kidnapping” and the Enrique and the January 6th gang. Not to mention the rapist friends in the FBI who covered up for the gymnast doctor. I wonder what they are setting up for the 18th.

        • Deap says:

          “Covid” masking was a test case visually proving much of the US now suffers from the Stockholm syndrome, having been sufficiently beaten down by our deep state captors.

          • Eric says:

            Yep, it’s a lot easier to look out upon the horizon and see how many people are wearing masks, in order to gage just how much control you really have over the America people.

            You know where they have been wearing Masks for DECADES now?

            *****CHINA*******

      • Yester Vue says:

        I don’t think they can remove him. The whole “show” to me looks like they have Biden propped up as the (illegitimate through stolen election process) leader of the now-defunct and bankrupt through Trump’s EO’s…Corporate America that could literally have the light switch turned off on it now being dead…but is allowed to continue to keep bringing the rats up from the sewers. I feel the beginning when the fences went up around DC they were doing trials and charges and all that right there when we had that large gallows looking structure out front so long. I think the old US is permanently closed and DC will never again be occupied being tainted and unholy ground now. But back to this “movie”, I think really is happening. The “movie” part I mean is real…this is all too apparently scripted and arranged. This started with the totally and blatantly obviously set up to look faked inauguration! There were people’s shoes actually changing from scene to scene, and one guy’s coat gets longer and shorter depending on which camera angle you look at! Then there were the guys walking beside Gaga with a death grip on her arm the whole time, like she’s being restrained, and then look at her demeanor during the whole show. It was planted full of signs and signals that it was faked I think for the awake to see we are” watching a movie”. I personally see this all as reassurance that we are still going along right as told just not as fast as we wished it would happen so getting impatient some cry “Q is a fraud” out of exhaustion. But hilariously show back up in chat the next morning…lol

    • BP says:

      I don’t think Durham can be removed by Biden.

      • Pat Lang says:

        BP

        Why not?

        • Carl D says:

          Durham is a Special Counsel, means he’s independent from Buyden’s Dept of Injustice and Merrick Garland has no authority to remove him, which would be a clear example of obstruction of justice, something they tried to goad Trump into with Mueller while he failed to prove their baseless Russian Collusion Conspiracy Theory

      • Yester Vue says:

        I agree…I see two Governments in operation right now…kinda obviously. We have another Lincoln term underway right now I feel…

  3. Deap says:

    Let the speculation begin: who was Big Tech #1 and which University?

    Also, was this Obama administration operatives abuse of private government files what Michael Flynn tried to stop, where they managed to get Flynn fired?

    Anything less than the Martha Stewart treatment for intentionally lying to the government would be less than “equitable”. Martha got sent to the slammer for being devious about the truth, but no real smoking gun – more circumstantial evidence of lying in her case.

    Sussman was knowingly and blatantly lying for purposeful intent. Did he really think he would get a pass by later admitting to the “government” that he had not been truthful?

    What is that Millennial cop out- Far better to ask for forgiveness after the commission of a dastardly deed, than ask for permission to commit the act upfront?

  4. Kathy says:

    “But it begs the question, is the FBI really so stupid and gullible that they would blindly accept bullshit without checking it out first?”

    The FBI was in on it.

  5. Speculator says:

    Maybe the Internet Exec is Eric Schmidt, ex-CEO of Google. Eric was exchanging email with Clinton’s staff, which came out as partcof the DNC or Podesta email dump and was speculated to be interested in a position with Clinton’s presidency, and Google’s venture capital group invested in CrowdStrike.

    • Deap says:

      Sussman was apparently a link to using CROWDSTRIKE in the alleged investigation of the DNC “hack”, when the FBI refused to do their own independent investigation but took CROWDSTRIKE’S admitted vague conclusions as the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.

      While actively discrediting any possible like to a possible Seth Rich download, instead of a Russian “hack”. And the media started parroting any attack on CROWDSTRIKE was a debunked conspiracy theory, to the point of no longer even mentioning CROWDSTIKE’s name.

      Particularly when reporting on the Vindemann associated “whistleblower”attack on Trump’s Ukraine phone call. That was the dog that did not bark in my mind – the media collectively running cover from even any mention of the name CROWDSTRIKE, other than referencing this element of the Trump phone call only as a “debunked conspiracy theory”.

      I always assumed Vindeman’s alarm was not over any Ukraine policy issues, but the fact Trump was zeroing in on CROWDSTRIKE.

  6. Matthew says:

    I think Mr. Sussman will watch Clint Eastwood’s “Richard Jewel” with all new eyes.

  7. Chris says:

    Others have identified the most likely candidate for Tech Executive 1 as Rodney Joffe.

    https://twitter.com/FOOL_NELSON/status/1438862409381339136

  8. Joseppie says:

    The university in question, I believe, is Indiana University. Jean Camp and her team of researchers there were the first to “uncover” the connection between Trump Tower and Alfa bank. I believe the Alfa Bank queries to be CIA caused/initiated/fabricated. Camo was a staunch Hillary supporter. She also received a multi-million dollar grant from the Obama administration in 2012

    • Joseppie says:

      Camp, not camo

    • Deap says:

      Obama also gave Univ of Chicago money I believe to develop the equivalent of a “social profiling” search of the global internet, with a dash board feature visually giving the ranking of each person according to any particular set of search criteria.

  9. Deap says:

    Materially delaying the Durham investigation was just one more “Covid” advantage handed to the Democrat party. Durham admitted had to delay depositions, conduct them less efficiently by video, or wait until they could be done live and face to face.

    “Covid” as a gift to the Democrats was a thousand times better than Lil’ Abner’s legendary shmoo.

  10. Deap says:

    Just the News exposes the three-legged stool Hilary Clinton concocted to take down Trump, as well as deflecting her and her husband’s own complicity with Russia:

    (1) the fake Russian dossier; (2) the fake Alfa Bank link; and (3) the abuse of FISA courts and the deep state against Trump

    https://justthenews.com/accountability/russia-and-ukraine-scandals/new-durham-indictment-exposes-second-leg-hillary

  11. Deap says:

    Perhaps had Sussman told them upfront this was a staged Clinton operation, the deep state investigative outcome would not have found in Trump’s favor. Missed opportunity, Sussman. Did Sussman not yet know how corrupt the FBI had become?

    Still want to know why there is a new DNC honcho law firm Brownstein, Farber, Hyatt and Shreck and why they have a major branch in a small, relatively isolated coastal California community, far from either DC or Sacramento.

  12. Fred says:

    Why is John Sullivan still employed as National Security Advisor since he helped push this criminal conspiracy while working for Hillary’s campaign?

    • JerseyJeffersonian says:

      Well, Fred, since you posed the question in that fashion, I think your answer is quite close to hand.

      He is a man of proven “loyalty to the cause”, and of no discernable integrity, so he’s going to be an integral part of the Biden regime, naturally.

      “National” Security Advisor…as if. Now that’s a risible notion; as a Deep State Playah, his loyalty is never going to be to the Republic and the Constitution.

  13. TTG says:

    The DOJ has Sussman by the short and curlies. He lied to the FBI. Rather stupidly, I might add. He should have relied on the reputation of the DNS researchers to bolster his clearly political reasons for approaching the FBI in the first place. And how he thought he could hide his strong and active ties to the Clinton Campaign is beyond me. I would think the FBI would dismiss whatever he had to say on that basis alone.

    From the initial Slate article from 31 October 2016: “Some of the most trusted DNS specialists—an elite group of malware hunters, who work for private contractors—have access to nearly comprehensive logs of communication between servers. They work in close concert with internet service providers, the networks through which most of us connect to the internet, and the ones that are most vulnerable to massive attacks. To extend the traffic metaphor, these scientists have cameras posted on the internet’s stoplights and overpasses. They are entrusted with something close to a complete record of all the servers of the world connecting with one another.”

    So who were some of the researchers involved before Sussman and the Clinton team took this and ran with it.

    – Paul Vixie, one of the world’s foremost experts in DNS, founded Farsight Security, Inc., San Matteo, CA along with Paul Mockapetris, the inventor of DNS. His company runs DNSDB, a passive DNS historical search capability database that provides a fact-based view of the configuration of the global Internet infrastructure. DNSDB leverages Farsight’s Security Information Exchange (SIE) data-sharing platform and is engineered and operated by leading DNS experts.

    – Christopher Davis is a Canadian who runs the cybersecurity firm HYAS InfoSec Inc. He’s also an expert in DNS and cybersecurity.

    – Richard Clayton, a cybersecurity researcher at Cambridge University. He specializes in cybercrime and traceability.

    – L. Jean Camp of Indiana University was a part of a small computer group which was involved in analysis of various DNS logs, making a relation between Trump Organization and Alfa Bank. She has published the details of her finding at her website, including a graph which shows the timeline of the connections made between the two parties. She also advocated against the subpoena filed by Alfa Bank requiring to identify the security researchers, who initially found the logs. In November 2020, the Indiana Court quashed the subpoena filed by Alfa Bank resulting in the identities of the researchers being kept a secret.

    – Tea Leaves posted his initial analysis on Reddit. I haven’t a clue who he is, but he seems to know most of the named researchers involved.

    The data collected by these experts was/is available publicly. It does not explain why servers from the Trump Organization, Alfa Bank and the DeVos family were connecting in the way they did, but IMO they raised legitimate observations and questions that remain unanswered. But again from the Slate article: “What the scientists amassed wasn’t a smoking gun. It’s a suggestive body of evidence that doesn’t absolutely preclude alternative explanations.” I doubt the FBI would get any further in explaining these connections.

    Here are two accounts of the unanswered questions. The first is from Camp’s website and the second is from a hactivist Facebook page.

    http://www.ljean.com/NetworkRecords/README.txt
    https://www.facebook.com/AnonymousJester/posts/1785766091697168

  14. Jim says:

    Crossfire Kool-ade still being poured and drunk

    Who is actually supervising Durham, is it Garland, and if so, doesn’t he have a conflict of interest; and if so, then who is?

    While still AG, Barr gave Durham authority to investigate 2016 election matters and all things Crossfire Hurricane, which as we now know, included Razor, directed at Gen. Flynn.

    Do we know who is actually supervising Durham, viz. Crossfire Hurricane?

    AG Garland was on the “en banc” DC Circuit panel that failed to tell Emmett Sullivan — that judge — to dismiss the case against Flynn.

    Judge Garland was among those voting last year [I believe 8-2] that kept the Flynn case “going” despite the DOJ saying: nothing to see here, or more accurately, similar to what Durham uncovered against various and sundry DOJ/FBI charlatans — under the official Sussmann indictment. The DOJ had zero evidence to prosecute Flynn and said the case should never have been brought.

    Garland, for your ears: the US DOJ said there is no evidence against Flynn and the case should never have been brought against the general, did you hear that? Did you read that prior to voting with crony colleagues? And if you did, then: now is the time to explain yourself! Start talking!

    It seems to me Garland has an inherent Conflict of Interest, in all things Crossfire Hurricane.

    And therefore must recuse himself from supervising Durham.

    Put another way: Garland showed bias [to put in mildly] against Flynn; and so has a conflict of interest.

    Try to find any information on: proof, one way or the other, on who is actually supervising Durham, viz. Crossfire Hurricane. Can’t find it myself. At least not yet.

    The very few things I came across just assume this is so, as in Politico, and Breitbart, for example — assuming Garland supervising Durham, without any sources.

    And those ‘news’ report say . . .— without having asked the DOJ for an official anything–. . . just refer to: reportedly Garland will not over rule Durham as that would require a report to Congress and political firestorm and blah blah blah blah blah.

    Perhaps Garland is keeping his nose out of it simply because it is convenient for him — for folks to believe he is “in charge” of supervising Durham, when in fact he may not be, as he has an inherent conflict of interest.

    Who is actually supervising Durham?

    If it’s Garland, then he is conflicted and won’t step in to stop any potential future prosecutions.

    When a big fish . . . a big fat if, this is true. . . when and if a big fish gets indicted, perhaps them we may know who is really supervising Durham.

    And if Garland is the one to try and stop a big fish from facing justice, grab the popcorn.

    Sessions was recused for no rational reason, owing to the narratives created of which Garland actually believed in.

    This entire dimension of this ongoing corruption is getting hardly any notice.

    Where is the Scum Sally Yates when ya really need her?

    Imagine: she had been on the short list to be Biden’s AG.

    After the election, Barr waited until after election, to tell the world that he’d appointed Durham as the SP.

    The hissing we heard at the time was the sound of the air going out of Yates’ chances of ever becoming the AG.

    The only difference between Yates and Garland is that Garland had his chance, farther down the road, than Yates, to come clean on Crossfire Hurricane.

    Instead, Garland failed, Garland failed and failed to stop the political lynching of a United States Lt. General.

    Garland is complicit in the scheme to politically castrate Trump, and destroy his presidency when it had only just began.

    Perhaps Garland is himself now castrated from doing anything in the way of “supervising” Durham.

    Were I Sussmann’s lawyer, I would write a letter to Garland, share it with the NYTimes, and demand to know who is supervising Durham. And if it turns out not to be Garland, then who is? And if it turns out to be “I dunno” — then on this his lawyer could get the case thrown out against Sussmann. Since the law requires someone to be supervising the SP.

    But his lawyers already shown their cards, when [[[[ they argued in a statement Thursday that politics infected the decision to charge Sussmann.

    “Michael Sussmann was indicted today because of politics, not facts,” said defense attorneys Sean Berkowitz and Michael Bosworth. “This case represents the opposite of everything the Department of Justice is supposed to stand for. Mr. Sussmann will fight this baseless and politically inspired prosecution.”]]]]

    https://www.politico.com/news/2021/09/17/durham-prosecution-legal-512525

    Translation: Berkowitz and Bosworth believe as Garland believe and Yates, they all claim Crossfire Hurricane actually amounted to something; and they believe, or at least are claiming, irrespective if they actually believe this, that, ipso facto: investigation of Trump campaign was legitimate and lawful and etc. etc. etc.

    They’ve all boxed themselves into a losing hand; however, there is no expectation on my part, at this time, that whichever “judge” hears this case will not also have drunk the Crossfire Kool-ade.

    The is what corruption looks like.
    -30-

    • Deap says:

      Background and lines of authority for the “independent counsel”. Good questions raised, but this article admits there are no perfect answers.

      If the current AG must recuse due to conflicts of interests, then authority devolves to an Acting or Deputy AG.

      https://sgp.fas.org/crs/misc/special.pdf

      • Jim says:

        No perfect solution. . . . What?

        CBS is in error. the “no perfect solution” according to the DOJ is precisely related to:
        1] striking “a balance between independence [of the special prosecutor] and
        2] accountability [via AG, as the appointer of SP and the SP supervisor] in certain sensitive investigations.”

        “These regulations seek to strike a balance between independence and accountability in certain sensitive investigations, recognizing that there is no perfect solution to the problem. The balance struck is one of day-to-day independence, with a Special Counsel appointed to investigate” and “Nevertheless, it is intended that ultimate responsibility for the matter and how it is handled will continue to rest with the Attorney General (or the Acting Attorney General if the Attorney General is personally recused in the matter);”

        The CBS version/interpretation, or narrative [propaganda version], is both erroneous and misleading, viz. “no perfect solution.”

        CBS claimed: “While the current regulations are generally regarded as an alternative for investigation that would avoid potential conflicts or appearance thereof that may arise as a matter of the executive branch investigating its own officials, DOJ has acknowledged that ‘there is no perfect solution’ to achieving that goal.”

        The CBS propaganda notwithstanding, the “goal” is actually striking “a balance” in terms of function and role — SP does day to day on his or her own; the AG ultimately owns it and supervises it.

        The CBS reference to “that goal” is not the goal the DOJ actually talks about — function and role. [CBS just made that part up, out of thin air.]

        CBS took the liberty to be incoherent.

        The CBS reference, erroneously, is to RECUSAL of the AG to appoint and/or supervise the SP, claiming, falsely: “While the current regulations are generally regarded as an alternative for investigation that would avoid potential conflicts or appearance thereof that may arise as a matter of the executive branch investigating its own officials, DOJ has acknowledged that ‘there is no perfect solution’ to achieving that goal.”

        If the AG must recuse, then, there are three more who posses authority to be the “acting AG”:
        1] Deputy AG
        2] Associate AG
        3] Solicitor General

        See the DOJ organizational chart for reference, at:

        https://www.justice.gov/agencies/chart

        And if all four are conflicted, as appears the case, at least to me [having had their fingers in the Crossfire Hurricane cookie jar]; then: the president could appoint an Acting AG? [the Biden nomination for solicitor general was actually part of the Mueller SP “team”; and she served as Biden’s interim solicitor general until August and is now waiting senate confirmation].

        But how does that work — Biden appointing an acting AG —if Garland is already the AG? Answer: that can’t work, obviously.

        The CBS thus far has shown no interest that I have been able to find to look at the Garland et al. conflicts of interest involving who is supervising the SP Durham.

        When the CBS wrote the above, that is erroneous related to the “no perfect solution” stuff — that false ‘news’ was intentionally taken out of context. . . this was written by CBS in the context of the events of May 2017 — the AG Sessions recusal [ despite him having no conflict of interest] and the concocted, fabricated “necessity” of DAG Rosenstein to appoint and supervise SP Mueller.

        This May 11 2017 CBS narrative engineering, published by CBS right when Rosenstein, May 2017, was being put in charge of appointing and then “supervising” Mueller as SC. That is why CBS wrote that up, at that time.

        Where is this level of scrutiny/interest on the question of Garland’s actual conflict of interest [and the potential “acting AGs to supervise SP Durham — and their conflicts of interest?]?

        Sessions had no conflict; and yet this was written, by CBS: so as to make it seem natural Rosenstein, the DAG, be “acting” AG to appoint and supervise Mueller.

        When Barr took office, he immediately ended the Mueller corruption, and ended and disbanded Mueller and SP team.

        This is exactly what happened, otherwise Mueller would still be on the job.

        Barr invoked this: [[The Special Counsel shall not be subject to the day-to-day supervision of any official of the Department. However, the Attorney General may request that the Special Counsel provide an explanation for any investigative or prosecutorial step, and may after review conclude that the action is so inappropriate or unwarranted under established
        Departmental practices that it should not be pursued. In conducting that review, the Attorney General will give great weight to the views of the Special Counsel. If the Attorney General concludes that a proposed action by a Special Counsel should not be pursued, the Attorney General shall notify Congress as specified in Sec. 600.9(a)(3).”

        And Barr invoked this: [[The Special Counsel may be disciplined or removed from office only by the personal action of the Attorney General. The Attorney General may remove a Special Counsel for misconduct, dereliction of duty, incapacity, conflict of interest, or for other good cause, including violation of Departmental policies. ”

        This is what all the hooting and hollering was about circa 2019 when Barr kicked Mueller to the curb.

        Mueller was finally being supervised, and it turns out Mueller was derelict in his duty, and there was “good cause” for him to be fired. However, his firing was cloaked in a face saving way — and this is why Mueller had no choice but to make a fool of himself before Congress. . . otherwise everyone would have known he was fired for good cause, which he was, but he also got to save face, by losing face in front of Congress.

        PS
        These are the actual SP regs/policy of which CBS intentionally made a mess of and confused the public about, circa May 2017

        https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-1999-07-09/html/99-17327.htm

        -30-

Comments are closed.