The FBI had a “secure work environment” operated by Michael Sussmann at the Perkins Coie law firm

Michael Sussmann Photo Perkins Coie

By Robert Willmann

According to U.S. Representative Matt Gaetz (Repub. Florida), he and Representative Jim Jordan (Repub. Ohio) inquired of the Perkins Coie law firm in Washington DC whether the FBI had some type of office at the law firm itself. Gaetz says that attorneys for Perkins Coie sent a letter to him and Jordan admitting that the FBI had a “secure work environment” at the law firm going back to 2012. Apparently it still exists. Furthermore, Gaetz said that the FBI workspace was operated (or overseen) for some period of time by — drum roll — attorney Michael Sussmann, who was found not guilty yesterday (31 May 2022) by a jury of making a false statement to the FBI in a prosecution brought by special counsel John Durham regarding the 2016 presidential campaign.

This obviously raises numerous questions. Did John Durham know about the little satellite FBI office at the Perkins Coie law firm with which Sussmann, while at Perkins Coie, had some sort of association? And so on.

What do you say, Christopher Wray?

This entry was posted in Current Affairs, government, Justice, Policy, Politics, Russiagate and tagged , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

64 Responses to The FBI had a “secure work environment” operated by Michael Sussmann at the Perkins Coie law firm

  1. Fred says:


    FBI Director Wray did not answer “No” because of the ‘standard’ line about we can’t talk about ongoing trials. Which is a crock of crap. The only standard seems to be that the FBI is now the official federal police force of the Democratic Party.

  2. TTG says:

    If the FBI maintained a workspace in a Perkins Coie office, they also have to explain why there was such a delay in informing the DNC and DCCC of the Russians in their computer networks rather than the months of ineffective phone calls before any action was taken. It obviously was a limited relationship involving that workspace.

    I know of one FBI office that is colocated with commercial entities. I worked with them 20 years ago. “The National Cyber Forensics & Training Alliance, located in Pittsburgh, consists of experts from industry, academia, and the FBI, who work side by side to share and analyze information on the latest and most significant cyber threats.” The SAC was very proud of his partnerships with commercial entities. Maybe we’ll find out if this is a more widespread practice.

    • Fred says:

      LOL the FBI didn’t protect the DNC’s servers. That line is still funny years later. Why are you still covering for the corrupt DNC framing of Trump, or do you still want to tell us it was the Russians?

      • TTG says:


        Trump had nothing to do with the DNC hack. Where did you hear that line?

        • Fred says:


          You are right in the most narrow sense; but Perkins Coie, of which Sussman was a partner, sure helped in framing Trump, or did you miss that part about Mr. Willmann’s posts?

  3. Lars says:

    When you find conspiracies everywhere, it is not surprising that one is found regarding this issue. Several legal experts have stated that Durham had a very weak case and the results seem to verify that. It has even been stated that it was an act of desperation, since Durham had not found much of anything. As I learned a long time ago, the entire multi billion legal industry is based on two small words: It depends. Besides that, I would be rather careful using Gaetz and Jordan as sources. They both have some credibility issues.

    • notfakebot says:

      Gaetz and Jordan are morons of the Swalwall variety, but the facts are clear. Sussman was in the paid service of the DNC. He went to the FBI as a supposedly concerned citizen, explicitly telling the FBI he was NOT doing so on the behalf of the Hillary campaign. In fact, Sussman’s law firm billed Hillary’s campaign for the time he spent in that meeting with the FBI. He told them there was evidence that Trump’s business organization had secret communications with the Russian government.

      More to the point, Trump never had a secret channel of communication with Russia. This was a fabrication that originated with the Hillary Clinton campaign. Sussman was Hillary’s go-between to the FBI so they could put forward the lie that Trump was in cahoots with Russia. It takes a damn fool not to realize that.

      We can say it’s no big deal, like the jury foreman did. Waste of time I think he called it. I guess by that same measure we can also say that whole thing with Senator McCarthy and the Red Scare was no big deal either. It must be open season in Washington to concoct great big lies and smear your opponents as enemies of the state. Both Republicans and Democrats have gotten quite good at this. Trump with his 2020 election rigging lies and Hillary with her 2016 Russian collusion lies, with each half of the country too blind to see beyond what their party tells them.

      If things go on like this, I’d start praying for America to remain a country in our lifetimes. America is now 244 years old. There’s a theory that empires average an age of 250 years.

  4. Babeltuap says:

    The Palace never faults the Palace. Nothing was ever going to manifest from this investigation. Subpoenas should have been issued from day one for all suspects. That did not happen so here we are; statute of limitations. You can pan for gold, get the gold but unfortunately it must be thrown back in the river. You panned during off hours so no gold for you. Good day SIR!

    All that can be said is we know that they know that we know. Stalin had the same protocol and it’s fine. Just don’t forget to waive and smile as you pass by him. He is ok with it.

  5. notfakebot says:


    One of these days there will be a movie called “The Limited Relationship and the Orange Messiah.”

    Mr. Willmann,

    Thanks for keeping us abreast, but I expect Wray to pucker up and I still can’t make out whether Durham is one of Washington’s more honest men.

  6. TV says:

    The FBI is throughly politicized as is the DOJ – arms of the Democrat-media party.
    Where are all those “dedicated brave” field agents; speaking out?
    Hiding under their desks, counting their pension dollars.
    The saving grace is the organization’s incompetence – with dimwits like Strozk in charge.
    Meanwhile agents are hunting for Biden’s granddaughter’s diary and Chinese agents have free run.

    • Babeltuap says:


      It’s beyond politics. There is no more politics inside the Palace. It is defended right or wrong against all intruders. We have two siblings who cashed in on Ukraine; Hunter and Pelosi’s son for starters. Nobody will say or do anything about it. They could put a litter of cats in a paper bag and stake them into a large fire ant hill for fun on Tik Tok. It does not matter anymore. This is where we are and this is where we will remain until the walls are breached.

  7. Jose says:

    “Great is truth, but still greater, from a practical point of view, is silence about truth.”
    ― Aldous Huxley, Brave New World

    To replace Fidelity, Bravery, Integrity as the new motto of the FBI.

  8. Walrus says:

    Col. Lang, some years ago during the Trump Presidency, you asked the question: “where is their operations room?” This was in response to the obvious coordination of the clintonista conspiracy cabal.

    Well, now you have your answer….

    • Pat Lang says:

      I think I concluded then that it was at Ft Brooklyn. Looks like Hilly is dead meat in politics. Wonder what she did to Mook to make him do this.

  9. blue peacock says:

    The reality is that our law enforcement is as corrupt as any banana republic. It is just that we have no qualms about using our military power to browbeat other lesser strong nations under the rubric of “human rights” and other such euphemisms for “shut-up and do as I say not do as I do”.

  10. JK/AR says:

    Well, all the “unmaskings” had to have had someplace where there was easy access.

    A branch office seems to me, would’ve been mighty convenient.

    (See [FISA] Judge Collyer’s findings.)

    • Al says:

      You musta missed this, Trump’s DOJ investigated the “unmasking” and found nothing wrong, then deep sixed their report. Report has now been FOIed.

      ‘Unmasking’ probe concludes without ‘finding any substantive wrongdoing’: report released via FOI

      ‘Unmasking’ probe concludes without ‘finding any substantive … › policy › national-security › 52092…
      Oct 13, 2020 — The federal prosecutor Attorney General William Barr tapped to investigate whether Obama administration officials improperly requested the …

      ‘Unmasking’ inquiry ordered by Barr finds no wrongdoing by … › us-news › oct › william…
      Oct 14, 2020 — A federal prosecutor handpicked by the attorney general, William Barr, to investigate whether Obama administration officials had mishandled …

  11. Al says:

    “According to Matt Gaetz…”, I stopped reading right there! lol lol lol

    • Deap says:

      Why? Gaetz has proven himself to be a straight shooter, regardless of the organized attacks against him.

  12. Pat Lang says:

    We will see if Durham does better in the Eastern District of Virginia where the jury selection pool extends from Alexandria to Richmond. Very different thing.

    • JK/AR says:

      Thank you Sir. I’d about lost interest in following along with the Good Ship Lollipop Adventures.

      But. So long as there’s a hope “whatever” isn’t going into a DC jury room for “deliberations” there’s a hope. A small font hope but I’ll take what I can get at this point.

  13. The following might be of interest:

    What the Hell Has Happened to the FBI? by Andrew McCarthy

    [FBI Washington Field Office SAC Tim] Thibault’s public commentary takes aim at
    the Trump administration,
    the Justice Department under then-attorney general Bill Barr,
    the American South, and
    the Catholic Church…

    As echoed by our editorial today on the Michael Sussmann acquittal,
    it is disheartening to watch, day after day,
    how infection by partisan politics has degraded a great American institution.

  14. Deap says:

    This is another Democrat Party honcho law firm, “Brownstein” that has moved well beyond their original K Street footprint, even to my small coastal city in California.

    They need to be watched too – or did they simply take advantage of the Great Covid Workspace Dislocation, and are now simply billing and phoning in their Democrat Party lobbying work from sunny California?

    Might also explain why our small local airport suddenly now has direct flights to the California state Capitol in Sacramento.

  15. Deap says:

    Was this cozy relationship inserting direct access to federal government property (data, etc) into a clearly partisan-supporting private law firm physical plant part of what Micheal Flynn was protesting?

    Those very protests that got Flynn both fired, and also earned Obama’s long standing wrath and warnings to Trump?

    How did government security track the security of access to this data at this far flung private location?

    Did they use the same crack government security forces that missed Hilary Clinton’s home email system located unsecured hall closet, while holding classified government data?

    (Just asking for a friend, as they say.)

    • Bill Roche says:

      The FIB missed nothing. They used no “crack” secty force b/c it wasn’t necessary. We have come to the point where the FIB and the DOIJ are working for the socialist. They are agents to that agenda and don’t care if you don’t like it. All is out in the open. There is no recourse save one. A few months ago I opined that Durham would come to nothing. I said the entire justice system has b/c unjust and wondered if Durham himself was just another “front” man. Anyone w/a brain knew what was being done in the summer of ’16 starting w/Clinton and Comey. Detailed and accurate explanations and time lines were prepared and presented again and again and nothing happened to a single participant in the entire scheme. RINO’s, Socialists, and make believe judges contrived to not see or not do, anything. Well here we are. Now what?!

  16. mcohen says:

    Great stuff.Best entertainment ever.Better than tv.Just a pity hunter s thompson is not around to write it up.
    Instead we get hunter biden and his fake debauch

    A quote from the great hunter s favourite

    20. “There are times, however, and this is one of them when even being right feels wrong. What do you say, for instance, about a generation that has been taught that rain is poison and sex is death? If making love might be fatal and if a cool spring breeze on any summer afternoon can turn a crystal blue lake into a puddle of black poison right in front of your eyes, there is not much left except TV and relentless masturbation. It’s a strange world. Some people get rich and others eat shit and die.”

    • Barbara Ann says:


      I enjoyed The Rum Diary. My copy had been the subject of some sort of printing error. Instead of a rectangle the book was a slightly uneven quadrilateral and the entire text was offset diagonally in such a way that it almost ran off the pages. For a while I thought it was a deliberate gimmick. Hunter S. is probably giggling somewhere at the latest news involving the romantic duo from the screen version.

      • mcohen says:


        My favourite is “fear and loathing in las vegas”.
        You sure it was the book that and not the g and t

  17. Al says:

    Prior to Sussman’s “lie” to the FBI, both the FBI and other DoJ staff were aware that he was working for the Clinton campaign. This fact was established in the trial via both documents and testimony.
    Perjury and false statement cases are generally only brought when the evidence of deception is overwhelming. The cases most often turn on whether the deception was meaningful, material to an actual case. In this case the evidence that Sussmann deceived anyone was extremely thin. The argument that the deception was material to anything was even weaker.
    Durham’s probe has gone on more than a year longer than the Mueller probe it was purportedly investigating. And it’s biggest “get” was this absurd indictment that was ignominiously tossed very quickly. This was never a true investigation or prosecution. It was always a political assignment created by Bill Barr for the benefit of Donald Trump. Corrupt from the first moment, fruit of the poison conspiracy tree.

    Many of those commenting on here need to get out of the depths of conspiracy trees and see the actual forest.

    • JK/AR says:

      Well Al

      If one’s partner in a crime’s interests align with the offered allegation, it’s almost a certainty in a conspiracy one partner will go to great lengths to make it so.

      (And why not when partners wash each others backsides?!!)

      “The glory which is built upon a lie soon becomes a most unpleasant incumbrance. … How easy it is to make people believe a lie, and how hard it is to undo that work again!”

      Mark Twain

      • Al says:

        Surely if alive today Twain would be addressing that comment to the Trumpites peddling them “big steal” lie!

    • Deap says:

      The extremely advantageous two year “covid interregnum” materially delayed the Durham investigation. The investigation has not dragged on; it was intentionally sabotaged.

      Go low and go slow is the best way to build this case – even with occasional court set-backs. Politics follow culture, so this slow unwinding of facts on the ground is changing culture. Along with exposing the partisan flaws in our judicial system – elections do have consequences along with the executive power to appoint the federal judiciary.

      Covid advantage delaying Durham investigation: awarded 100% to Democrats in the short term (politics); disadvantage to Democrats in the long term (culture).

      • JK/AR says:

        Ah yes Deap. the “covid interregnum.”

        How anyone could fail to take that into account makes whatever ‘counters the the narrative’ almost seem to be willful ignorance? Or, to borrow a concept I’ve seen here – different context of course – Ineffective counter-battery artillery use?

        (I’ve actually a personal “experience” that, were the describing of the tale not so long and convoluted, I could, I think provide a near perfect example of “events during the interregnum” that proved out ‘it was a thing.’

        Suffice to say the tale involved myself and a dispute with a major cellphone carrier which ending in arbitration (always always keep “your” dates, times, and duration of ‘calls for service’ simultaneously recorded to another means [and emailed ‘chat conversation transcripts’ in your inbox) – in my experience – surely helpful.

        (So unlike the bureau’s “Form-302” system!)

        “Muzak” during brief elevator rides aren’t so bad but apparently when an ‘arbitrator’ is forced to listen to a sound-tracked one hundred twenty-two minutes of flute solo which only ends with an abrupt, and a very apparent ‘hang-up’ on the servicer end – Well, arbitrators seem to develop a certain animus against eg Verizon.

    • Bill Roche says:

      How did the assignment of Durham by Barr benefit Trump? How was Durham’s proof of Sussman’s lie to the FIB any less certain then Flynns? So there is no conspiracy? Whew, I feel better already. In what part of the forest do you live?

  18. TV says:

    Christopher Wray?
    Still protecting the swamp – and still smirking.

    • Bill Roche says:

      Wray would say “I don’t have to answer to anyone. I’ll do what I’ll do and if anyone doesn’t like it the FIB will accuse them of lying”. When the FIB wants to ruin you for lying (see Flynn) it will, and when it doesn’t (see Sussman), it won’t. There is no need to disguise this show trial. Stalin w/b proud. Get the right “judge”, jury, and a sympathetic press and your in like “Flynn”. We are left w/3 choices; fight, divide, or enslavement. We need to choose.

      • jim ticehurst says:

        Yes We Need To Choose..Pilgrims…Once Again…Full Circle
        For The Nation….SST..When Those in Power..Abuse the Power..The Trust..So They can Hold Power…Taxation Without Representation..Self Servants..NOT Public Servants..Corruption..Abuse..Disgrace..Betrayal..Vanity..

        Let this Matter Be Resolved..By The Will of the People.and…
        By The Grace of God..

  19. SRW says:

    Why Bill Barr, who appointed John Durham as Special Prosecutor, is one of worst Attorney Generals in history

    “Are you one of those old-fashioned geezers who thinks a prosecutor’s job is to win convictions? Were you under the impression that Special Counsel John Durham brought an exceptionally weak false statements case against attorney Michael Sussmann and then fell right on his ass as predicted when the jury took just six hours to acquit?
    Au contraire, mon frère! It’s “far more important” for the US government to spend upwards of $4 million slagging Hillary Clinton and pretending that she was somehow responsible for the FBI investigating the Trump campaign’s ties to Russia.
    Yet here’s former Attorney General Bill Barr claiming that a prosecutor’s actual job is to say nasty things about people charged with no crime. Weird, huh?……
    But what can you expect from a guy who got the AG job by writing a mash note expounding his on theories unlimited presidential power; lied about the Mueller Report; ratf*cked the prosecution of Michael Flynn; undercut line prosecutors’ sentencing recommendation for Roger Stone; tried to Saturday Night Massacre the SDNY in an apparent attempt to protect Rudy Giuliani; dispatched riot police to American cities based on nonsensical claims about Antifa supersoldiers flying around the country wreaking havoc; flogged preposterous lies about rampant election fraud and the dangers of mail-in ballots; and even took the Fox airways to whine about a “jihad” on hydroxychloroquine by evil Democrats bent on depriving COVID patients of totally ineffective treatments.”

    • Leith says:

      Wasn’t Barr also the guy who allowed Epstein to be ‘offed’ instead of testifying about his good buddies partaking in teenage booty?

      • Fred says:

        Surprising that a Supreme Court decision can be leaked but not the list of Epstein and Maxwell’s clientele.

    • Deap says:

      Explain why the Durham case against Sussman was weaker than the “lying to the DOJ case against Martha Stewart who did have to spend time in the slammer.

      Jury nullification was in play in this current case outcome, not lack of facts or culpability. We have a younger generation today now filling jury boxes who play by their own rules and make stuff up as they go along. This was OJ Simpson redux. Jury did not like the charges for their own personal reasons, so they subverted their own oath when sworn into this task.

      They reached their verdict well outside their duty as jurors, jury instructions, void dire pledges or case outlines. This puts all of us in peril so mocking this case outcome is very short-sighted.

      I suspect there was also a breach of confidentiality from a pre-verdict juror to the ears of Hilary Clinton, that allowed her to march with a gloating smile in a Memorial Day parade, dressed in red white and blue. She knew. Just like she knew enough to tell Biden to never, never, never concede until the last vote was “counted”.

  20. Al says:

    Excerpt from Lawfare Blog:
    … The Alfa Bank story was never a big part of L’Affaire Russe. Yes, there was a flurry of press investigation of it in the month before the election, but major press outlets treated it cautiously, as the gravamen of the allegations—that there was some secret link between Trump and Russia through a Russian bank—couldn’t be substantiated. Lawfare, for its part, wrote almost nothing about the matter as part of our extensive coverage of Trump-Russia ties. The reason, quite simply, was that the allegations never made a great deal of sense. For those who need a refresher, the basic issue was that some computer researchers noted what the Senate Intelligence Committee later described as “unusual internet activity connecting two servers registered to Alfa Bank, a Russian financial institution, with an email domain associated with the Trump Organization.” The researchers’ hypothesis was that this activity might suggest a secret line of communication between the bank and Trumpworld.

    It didn’t, as the FBI later discerned. The whole thing had an innocuous explanation. As the inspector general put it, “The FBI investigated whether there were cyber links between the Trump Organization and Alfa Bank, but had concluded by early February 2017 that there were no such links.”

    The problem was that when Sussmann brought the matter to Baker, according to prosecutors, he told Baker he was doing so not on behalf of any client but on his own behalf in an effort to help the FBI. In fact, Durham charged, Sussmann had two clients: the Hillary Clinton campaign, which Sussmann was also helping shop the story to the press, and a technology executive named Rodney Joffe, who had generated the Alfa Bank data in the first instance.

    The case’s deficiencies were, broadly speaking, two-fold:

    First, it simply is not clear to me—after considering all of the evidence—that Sussmann was actually lying to Baker.

    To be clear, I do not doubt that Sussmann said to Baker what Durham charged him with saying. The defense made much of Baker’s inconsistent memory of and inconsistent statements about the meeting; fair enough. That is the defense’s job, and Baker’s memory has, indeed, changed over the years and over his many interviews on the subject with Durham and others. Given Baker’s centrality to the case, that fact alone might convince a reasonable juror to acquit—a point the defense emphasized in its closing argument. Remember, after all, that the entire case hinges on a single brief meeting between the two men, a meeting at which nobody took notes and to which there are no other witnesses.

    That said, the late emergence of the text exchange between Baker and Sussmann several weeks ago in which they arranged the meeting in the first place significantly corroborates Baker’s current certainty that Sussmann told him specifically that he was coming to the FBI on his own and not on behalf of either the Clinton campaign or on behalf of Joffe.

    “Jim,” Sussmann texted, “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.”

    This text emerged, significantly, after the indictment—that is, after Baker had recalled that Sussmann told him the same thing at the meeting itself. So the text exchange bolsters confidence in Baker’s otherwise-shaky memory.

    That said, it is a far cry from establishing that Sussmann lied. Because while there is no doubt that Sussmann had both the Clinton campaign and Joffe as clients, and while there is no doubt either that he was working with both to get the Alfa Bank story to the press, after two weeks of testimony, it is not clear—at least not to me—that Sussmann was, in fact, visiting Baker on behalf of either of them.

    The prosecution sought to use Sussmann’s law firm billing records to show that the entire Alfa Bank project was conducted on behalf of the Clinton campaign. But both the general counsel of the campaign (Marc Elias) and the campaign manager (Robby Mook) specifically denied that the campaign had dispatched Sussmann to the FBI or authorized him to bring the Alfa Bank matter to law enforcement. Both, in fact, cast doubt on whether it was in the campaign’s interest for him to involve the FBI. Elias testified that he thought going to the FBI might slow down getting the story in the press. And Mook testified that the campaign deeply distrusted the FBI and would not have wanted it involved. The evidence that Sussmann approached Baker on Joffe’s behalf was scant as well.

    Indeed, following the trial, it seemed—at least to me—as though the best explanation for Sussmann’s behavior was a rather simple one: Yes, Sussmann was working with the campaign and Joffe and the dreaded Fusion GPS—the investigative firm responsible for commissioning the so-called Steele Dossier—to get the Alfa Bank story to the press. But he was sufficiently alarmed by the Alfa Bank data that he decided along the way that he needed to let the FBI know as well.

    Sussmann’s clients knew about these plans; he did not go to law enforcement behind their backs. Joffe knew of his plans and Elias testified that Sussmann notified him too, though probably after the fact. But he also did not go to Baker pursuant to their instructions or in furtherance of their interests. So he told Baker that he was there on his own, not on behalf of any client.

    I emerged from the trial not just believing that a reasonable doubt existed as to whether Sussmann lied but believing that this story, and not that Sussmann was lying, was the most likely explanation for his conduct. The FBI, the defense showed, knew that Sussmann had clients associated with the Democratic Party and records showed that he was reasonably candid about his clients and their involvement in the matter in a variety of other contexts. My best sense of the evidence, taken as a whole, is that Sussmann was trying to distinguish between his clients’ interests, which were to develop the story and get it in the press, and his own desire to get the matter in front of the FBI. There’s a difference between having clients and doing something on behalf of those clients. Durham certainly proved beyond a reasonable doubt that Sussmann had clients, a fact Sussmann never denied. But the prosecution seemed to regard this as all it needed to prove. It wasn’t.

    Whether I’m right about my reading of the evidence or not, this was simply not a case that in the normal course of business, federal prosecutors would bring. Sussmann brought the FBI a tip—one that didn’t pan out, but that there is no reason in the world to believe he did not think was a serious matter. Durham indicted him not for the falsity of the tip but for the supposed falsity of ancillary comments. It simply isn’t clear that Sussmann was actually lying about those.

    It also isn’t clear that any of it made the slightest bit of difference. A lie has to be “material” to be a crime under the law. And the prosecution spent a lot of energy trying to show that Sussmann’s supposed lie was actually material—that is, that it could have made a difference to the FBI’s handling of the matter. And yes, it is clear that Baker took the matter seriously because he took Sussmann seriously. There is no reason to doubt him when he says he might have taken him less seriously had he known that Sussmann had client interests in the matter and was representing the Clinton campaign.

    But the truth of the matter is that, according to the evidence presented at trial, the FBI’s investigation of the Alfa Bank issue was pretty cursory. A bunch of the line agents who conducted it didn’t know where the information had come from. And the whole matter was dismissed rather quickly anyway. While some agents testified that it would have mattered to them if they had known that the information came from campaign opposition research, they also said that they would have performed exactly the same technical analysis had they known. While this may not make the matter immaterial as a matter of law, it just wasn’t reasonable for Durham to expect a jury to convict on this basis. If you have to spend hours and hours trying to persuade a jury that something matters, it’s because its importance is less than obvious.

    • Barbara Ann says:

      Lawfare are correct, it probably wasn’t reasonable for Durham to expect a jury to convict in this inherently weak case. So why bring it to court? Is Durham 1) a Deep State sell out just running down the clock & going through the motions or 2) is he using this case as a stalking horse to get Joffe identified and more importantly the work he was doing, where he was doing it and when. A reminder of section 23e from the indictment:

      From in or about July 2016 through at least in or about February 2017, however, Originator-1, Researcher-1, and Researcher-2 also exploited Internet Company­’ s data and other data to assist Tech Executive- 1 [Joffe] in his efforts to conduct research concerning Trump’s potential ties to Russia, including the Russian Bank-1 allegations that SUSSMANN would later convey to the FBI

      Joffe was doing DNS work for the EOP and the time span in the indictment seems deliberately included to point the finger at Obama. A longish but excellent article arguing the “operations room” was in Obama’s EOP:

    • JK/AR says:

      What Al, Were you hiding under q rock or something?!!!

      “[B]ut major press outlets treated it cautiously. ..”

      Video at 11

      “Whether I’m right about my reading of the evidence or not, this was simply not a case that in the normal course of business, federal prosecutors would bring.”

      Well Al you are right about that. If it ain’t got something to do with charging the Trump Cohort it ain’t “normal business.”

      And how about the Lawfare Group’s butthurt back when Schiff first mentioned “the anonymous source [Eric Ciamello – Cc’d onto email exchanges between Victoria Nuland and Geoffrey Pyatt : Maidan Ukraine] will testify!” [Vindman we should recall was Ciamello’s ‘go-between’ and because Vindman was set to publicly testify alongside Fiona Hill &c were ‘the source’ to actually testify – as initially Schiff insisted ‘the source’ would – Lawfare then stepped in saying, [paraphrased] “Hole your horses there Congressman Schiff, if the (hold on a minute … cough cough … that’s better) anonymous source Ciamello is forced to testify it will [definitely / jkar] go haywire.”

      Long story short – We got Ciamello’s “story” from Vindman (but we did get the [very slight] pleasure of watching one of the few times Schiff squirmed when NBC’s MTP Chuck Todd showed video of Schiff’s “changing his tune” so to speak).

      To be cont.

      • Al says:

        The “kitchen sink” you’re throwing in here has a drain plugged with sludge!

        • JK/AR says:


          Can’t be helped at the moment. A big bunch of stuff I researched (all and each and every IG report, C-Spanned Congressional testimony transcript, publicly released FISC/FISA findings, etc) mostly all went to “other places” for individual use[s] and it’s taking me awhile to contact parties from whom, originally, I’d requested un-credited anonymity there-of. – I do have a great big bunch of stuff unused – on remote flashdrives – Yourself is ‘unrecognized’ around these parts to me but just cursorarily examining your choice of subject/content I figure you to have an agenda – Feel free to correct me if I’m in error.

          In “real life” my *name is out there Wiki-Leaked but I’d prefer some comfortable level of obscurity remain to me where I am. [Reasons]

          At the courthouse I’m registered as “Independent” and I don’t contribute to either party. I am fond of my state’s current governor but don’t think I can vote for whom looks to be in the offing. At the state and local levels I vote individuals (for now – mostly people I grew up around or, their children [in one case now, a grandson!).

          As you may’ve surmised by my ‘handle’ the AR bit has some significance – if you are indeed new to these parts that bit likely ain’t what you might at first think. Way back in prehistory when the term ‘zipcode’ was first coming into vogue, the post office was also beavering away to standardize abbreviations for the fifty states – that’s the AR. (I commented a few times on the Colonel’s older blog SST but didn’t recall how I id’d myself then and so to distinguish myself from the blog-plethora of JKs cups running overeth …

          Some years ago an acquaintance, aware I knew a fellow by the name of Levon Helm, emailed me a link to a post written by a guy who I’ve sort of paid attention to since – I’ve linked that blog here once before (thinking at the time I’d only commented a sole time; looks to be twice I now realize).

          The point of that being, this ‘Mark Stoler’ guy [if that’s his “real” name!] this being the Internet after all. Anyway his “thinking on this, our mutual subject” [yours & mine Al] seems to have more in common with mine than his is likely to have in common with yours.

          But, in the interests of “saving time/typestrokes” [arthritic fingers] I’ll hazard placing a couple of posts of Mr. Stoler’s onto here for your immediate benefit at which point you decide whether we can mutually benefit by bookmarking this post to carry on on later or, forget about it as pointless. Your ante.

          (I’d just mention the one thing about Mr. Stoler’s mentioning NRO below – I “only mostly” read former federal prosecutor A. McCarthy’s stuff; The greater part of NRO’s stuff is as I “enjoy” televised media – I do not. My personal opinion is … Well the book Hate Inc. by Matt Taibbi (if Al you’re familiar with the tome, televised newsmedia is unhealthy to human mental/emotional wellbeing)


          Optional reading:

          As I’ve typed Al, if you wish to carry forward simply bookmark this post – as I will for now, and re-check from time to time or – advise me “It’s pointless” at which point you can go back to cheerleading for Lawfare and I can go back to whatever it is I’d rather be doing.

          Colonel Lang though I have to say Al, keeps a good house and good company around. One thing I will mention though is if, any of his guests begins to look squirrelly – problematic to non-hillbillys … …

          Well. If Colonel Lang decides he needs a vocation other’n writing books and hosting a blog I reckon him taking up pest-control would be a natural fit.

          Later Al. Perhaps

  21. Al says:

    Your kitchen sink drain not only plugged, but now you got sludge pouring all over your floor.

    • Leith says:

      Al –

      You’ve thrown in a few kitchen sinks here your own self. Me too.

      JK seems to me is a good man, even if he does like those ugly black plastic piece-of-sh!t rifles. Maybe someday he’ll see the light.

  22. JK/AR says:

    Seems to me Al, pointless?

    (Actually Leith … sssh don’t tell anybody. Anyway the only semi [rifle] I own is a .22 – however I really don’t have an issue with most anybody having ’em. I do know a bunch of people, men and women who do have ’em but in my experience the rifles don’t seem uhmmm … particularly utilitarian I suppose to me. On the subject of magazines, wwhen I’m participating on “the range” I see almost 90% of the time the owners only carrying around 10 packs, though I’m reliably informed when the rifles are “set-in-place” for home defense, those’re generally loaded bigtime. Just personally speaking seems to me a big ol’ long mag sticking out and two more longer ends making three ends of unwieldy contact points (bumping into eg, door frames, furniture etc and in the dark!) poor tactics. But my main point stands – I don’t see the platform as “scary” as politicians &c seem to.

    Now I will admit to the convenience of EDC being a semi handgun in .380 – I’ve mentioned arthritic fingers? – and I know where there’s a semi in .22 (for keeping in practice – ammo nowadays is expensive!) but where “my home-defense” is concerned there’s a wheelgun in .38 (and a 90K lumens flashlight!) near to hand. For the snakes I more often than I’d really prefer running – figuratively speaking – across, an 8″ barreled and loaded with rat-shot .22 wheelgun is quite frequently holstered to my belt.

    I do know where there’s three other rifles – all bolt-actions.

    But that’s just me. Remember Leith, Mums the word. I got a reputation I need to keep shiny!)

    • Leith says:

      JK –

      Rat-shot is good for home defense against two-legged snakes. Unless of course you are expecting a zombie invasion? I used to use it with the FN 9mm I bought in a pawnshop 60 years ago for ten bucks. It was damned old back then but still serviceable. But I haven’t fired it in over 40 years, so I hide it in a stash in the boat shed. If the governor ever comes up with a buyback program it might turn out to have been a good investment.

      I hope at least one of the three bolt actions you mention is a Winchester Model 70. It was good enough for your fellow Arkansan when he dinged hundreds of VC/NVA with it. Never met him myself, but he had a wide reputation throughout the Corps. Gunny One-Shot they used to call him. I can’t believe that Canadian beat his record. Match-grade ammo and space-age optics probably?

      But you ought to get rid of that 19 shot 22. Good for a carnival shooting gallery maybe.

      • JK/AR says:

        That’s actually what it is Leith, in .270.

        Too much sentimentality wrapped up in the .22, that plus its dependability and being able to handle just about anything I’ve ever fed it, including those *freak so-called .22 sniper rounds (just gotta hold the bolt closed and then manually extract).

        Arkies you gotta be aware of Leith are known world wide for having holey pockets (sometimes even wholly bottomless) thus a place to keep cartridges from losing themselves.

        Plus I’m thinking it’s highly likely we got more numerous squirrels around here than you probably have in your neck of the woods. If you’ve ever seen pictures of a Arkie out squirrel hunting and wondered, “What’s that five gallon bucket for?” Well, that’s it, carrying the squirrels home so Ma can get on to finishing up making that batch of dumplings.

        And Leith, you’d for sure understand why the larger number if the recipe calls for sparrows. Mmm mmm!

        • Leith says:

          JK –

          You might be right about the five gallon bucket. But you are trying to pull my leg with that fancy yarn about the sparrows. You wouldn’t do that would you? I know darn well you must have dove and quail there.

          Or Pheasants? Cousin Dickie and I used to knock them down with rocks back when we were knee high to a sparrow. Took them home in wheelbarrows to Grandma for pan roasting.

          • Al says:

            Well now, JK and Leith are talking some sense!

            As a many decades (until 2011) upland bird and waterfowl hunter in northern Michigan and Iowa, I carried many fine shotguns. Ruffed Grouse and woodcock my favorite chase through the woods and ALWAYS with a well trained lab.
            Preferred Brownings (16 ga O/U and BPS pumps), as they had the safety right there on the top to be seen and ready for the thumb. Also, the wood grain on Brownings delightful. Did a bit of deer hunting with a sportified German Mauser, 30-06, but not nearly as enjoyable hunting as with a lab in the fall woods.

            I’ve often noted that the Feds only allow waterfowl hunting with 3 shell max shotguns. Also, steel shot rather than lead. Seems the 2A crowd should be screaming about than! Quite an infringement, wouldn’t you say?

            Must be ducks are to be more protected than school kids and grocery shoppers!

          • Fred says:


            Where in the Constitution does the federal government gain the power to regulate ammunition capacity of firearms? Those restrictions you are so gleeful about are creations of administrative law. The 5th circuit court of appeals finally took issue with the uncostitutionality of administrative law in their recent decision:

            I’m sure there are more such cases to come.

          • JK/AR says:

            No no no Leith, not at all where the sparrows are concerned. Especially so back when I was a mere “youf” and MaMaw (Mom’s Mom) had a two story “well-house” – now this was back in the days of privies and coal oil in the evenings – likely won’t believe this either but, the nearest paved road was 18 miles away (*Somehow made the best Christmases remembering cherished) and me either uhm … “directed to” either clear sparrows outta the well-house or churn butter so what you reckon I figured my being most suited to?

            (Personally although I got some satisfaction drenching my sisters and girl-cousins from a cow teat I never could get whatever the attraction – supposedly – was to be derived by churning butter. [Maybe I was an undiagnosed ADHD hillbilly youf?] … … But then again then, finger arthritis wasn’t something I was personally prophesying my way.)

            We did have quail and dove around then but at the time dove was “adulated” (mostly Cumberland Presbyterian ‘Yellow Rag Boys’ heritage in these parts:


            And quail kept the hawks from the guineas and chickens).

            – Lord Lord what a Grace it is to find myself memorying my so long ago youth! –

            Nowadays all the main roads are paved and rather than keeping guineas around people spread [poison] tick pellets! (No more moving the privys though, which I guess … then again the Sears catalogue never again being a sufficient alternative to Pornhub.)

            Civilization does indeed proceed in fits & starts.

            Pheasants? Grouse?

            “I think” grouse were at one time native to around here [Al, Leith] but not no more – Then again back then we didn’t have armadillos either. So far as pheasant is concerned I never heard tell of that sort at all.

            True, when I was in my early to mid-teens some number of ‘furriners’ mixed some bird dogs into our – my elders – well-stocked store of coon/bear/panther [yes yes I know AG&F says unequivocally “There never existed a panther in Arkansas!” – To which my 13 year old self says “Well examine these 60 year old plaster-of-paris paw casts I personally poured and convince me otherwise!” Plus what my Mom’s kin to this day …

            But what the heck Al, Leith,

            I’m informed – whether “reliably” I don’t know anymore – as to what I’m expected to believe in.

            I’m thinking I’ve gone severely “off track” (and totally lost ya’ll Al, Leith) but sometimes it seems to be as “our betters” prefer.

            Over & Out!

          • Leith says:

            JK –

            Interesting link to the Arkansas Peace Society. Thanks.

  23. Al says:

    “Gleeful”? where did you come up with that from my posting?
    I just stated the fact that Fed’s restrict firearms magazine capacity to 3 rounds when hunting migratory waterfowl. You doubt that “fact”?

    • Al says:

      as noted in your Court of Appeals case, “… the Fifth Circuit opinion presents a novel interpretation of Supreme Court precedent that seemingly was previously well-settled. The case is significant as it breaks new ground. However, the opinion’s applicability to other agencies is unknown at this point, as is the question of its possible extension or adoption beyond the Fifth Circuit.”

      Will it hold enough water for a duck to swim in?

      • Fred says:


        The quote you provide is from the law journal’s conclusion, not the Court’s decision. Please feel free to quote the section of the constitution which gives the power to the Federal government to create a law or regulation, enforce said regulation, and adjudicate it. I’ll wait.

  24. KjHeart says:

    Jury Nullification;

    The Sussman trial will be the example of this in future law school textbooks

    Found a comic that made me smile a little about this×750-1.jpeg

    As to the Sussman Trial

    a LOT of facts get on the record there (that were not disputed in any way by the defense)

    I am still reeling from the information that Perkins Coie had their own private FBI in their office – just reeling

    I also saw that Sussman had his own ID to get past FBI security

    the whole ‘I am just a concerned citizen’ story fall flat (IMO) at the trial and becomes ‘null and void’ in the face of his personal ID to and the designated office space for the Feds in the law firm..

    While there is nothing illegal about having the FBI parked at your office (many corporations have to work closely with the feds) the close relationship means that the whole’ I am just a concerned random citizen’ story is just that, a story.

    More and more being revealed
    Soon, my own ‘shocked face’ is going to look just like Durham’s

Comments are closed.