Is There Anything More Annoying Than Europeans Complaining About America?
Of Course, We Should've Expected the GOP to Muck This Up
Trump Reveals Hilarious Reason for Why Marjorie Taylor Greene Turned on Him
Why This CNN Contributor's Take on Trump's Oil Tanker Seizure Was a Little...
Clown Nose Comes Off As Jon Stewart Wins a Journalism Prize, and The...
Tokyo Tucker
Newsom’s Memoir: Another Step in His 2028 Self-Promotion Tour
Trump Can't Insult Reporters When They Go After Him?
GAO Provides Yet More Evidence for Why Enhanced Obamacare Subsidies Must Expire
Student Loan Forgiveness: A Band-Aid on a Trillion-Dollar Wound
The Muslim Brotherhood Terrorist Organization
Congress Should End Brazen Disregard for Student Privacy, Parental Rights
College Football Leadership: A Study in Narcissism
Treasury Sanctions Evaders in Venezuela’s Oil Sector
Georgia Men Filed Over 2,500 Unemployment Claims in $17M Unemployment Fraud Scheme
Tipsheet

Trump Finally Has His Answer on 'Where's Durham?'

AP Photo/Bob Child, File

The New York Times reported on Wednesday night that John Durham has informed the Department of Justice he will ask a grand jury to indict Michael Sussmann over his making a false statement to the FBI. The report cites "people familiar with the matter." Durham was assigned by then Attorney General Bill Barr in 2019 to investigate. Last December, Attorney General Barr elevated Durham's status to Special Counsel. 

Advertisement

As the report noted about Sussmann:

Any indictment of the lawyer — Michael Sussmann, a former federal prosecutor and now a partner at the Perkins Coie law firm, and who represented the Democratic National Committee on issues related to Russia’s 2016 hacking of its servers — is likely to attract significant political attention.

Donald J. Trump and his supporters have long accused Democrats and Perkins Coie — whose political law group, a division separate from Mr. Sussmann’s, represented the party and the Hillary Clinton campaign — of seeking to stoke unfair suspicions about Mr. Trump’s purported ties to Russia.

The case against Mr. Sussmann centers on the question of who his client was when he conveyed certain suspicions about Mr. Trump and Russia to the F.B.I. in September 2016. Among other things, investigators have examined whether Mr. Sussmann was secretly working for the Clinton campaign — which he denies.

There's also an explanation about the incident in question:

The accusation against Mr. Sussmann focuses on a meeting he had on Sept. 19, 2016, with James A. Baker, who was the F.B.I.’s top lawyer at the time, according to the people familiar with the matter. They spoke on condition of anonymity.

...

At the meeting, Mr. Sussmann relayed data and analysis from cybersecurity researchers who thought that odd internet data might be evidence of a covert communications channel between computer servers associated with the Trump Organization and with Alfa Bank, a Kremlin-linked Russian financial institution.

The F.B.I. eventually decided those concerns had no merit. The special counsel who later took over the Russia investigation, Robert S. Mueller III, ignored the matter in his final report.

Mr. Sussmann’s lawyers have told the Justice Department that he sought the meeting because he and the cybersecurity researchers believed that The New York Times was on the verge of publishing an article about the Alfa Bank data and he wanted to give the F.B.I. a heads-up. (In fact, The Times was not ready to run that article, but published one mentioning Alfa Bank six weeks later.)

Mr. Durham has been using a grand jury to examine the Alfa Bank episode and appeared to be hunting for any evidence that the data had been cherry-picked or the analysis of it knowingly skewed, The New Yorker and other outlets have reported. To date, there has been no public sign that he has found any such evidence.

But Mr. Durham did apparently find an inconsistency: Mr. Baker, the former F.B.I. lawyer, is said to have told investigators that he recalled Mr. Sussmann saying that he was not meeting him on behalf of any client. But in a deposition before Congress in 2017, Mr. Sussmann testified that he sought the meeting on behalf of an unnamed client who was a cybersecurity expert and had helped analyze the data.

Moreover, internal billing records Mr. Durham is said to have obtained from Perkins Coie are said to show that when Mr. Sussmann logged certain hours as working on the Alfa Bank matter — though not the meeting with Mr. Baker — he billed the time to Mrs. Clinton’s 2016 campaign.

Another partner at Perkins Coie, Marc Elias, was then serving as the general counsel for the Clinton campaign. Mr. Elias, who did not respond to inquiries, left Perkins Coie last month.

Advertisement

What is particularly telling is that even Sussmann's lawyers, Sean M. Berkowitz and Michael S. Bosworth of Latham & Watkins acknowledged they expect him to be indicted, but deny he made any false statement:

“Mr. Sussmann has committed no crime,” they said. “Any prosecution here would be baseless, unprecedented and an unwarranted deviation from the apolitical and principled way in which the Department of Justice is supposed to do its work. We are confident that if Mr. Sussmann is charged, he will prevail at trial and vindicate his good name.”

A spokesperson for Attorney General Merrick Garland did not comment for the report, and neither did Durham. 

Due to statutes of limitations, Durham has a deadline of bringing a charge in the next few days. Perhaps former President Donald Trump may now have his answer when it comes to all the times he's asked "Where's Durham?"

Join the conversation as a VIP Member

Recommended

Trending on Townhall Videos

Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement