Hillary Clinton campaign worked to engineer Russian collusion hoax
You should be angry.
After nearly five years of hinting at and later accusing Republican presidential candidate and then President Donald J. Trump of “collusion” with the Russians, Special Counsel John Durham’s indictment of former Perkins Cole lawyer/partner Michael Sussmann finally reveals how devious, how utterly corrupt Hillary Clinton and her sycophants and apologists in the press really were and continue to be.
Perkins Cole, you should know, is the powerful and influential 1,200-lawyer law firm that has represented the Clintons and the Democratic National Committee for many years.
Mr. Sussmann’s indictment uncovers the amoral Hillary Clinton campaign for the sewer it was and would have been as a presidential administration. In collusion with eager office seekers such as Mr. Sussmann and many others, the Hillary Clinton campaign packaged and paid for not only the phony and finally — to use one of the Democrats’ favorite words — debunked Steele dossier that CBS, NBC, CNN, MSNBC, ABC, the Washington Post and The New York Times relied on to tarnish Mr. Trump before and during his entire presidency, but also the whole “Russia Collusion” story as well.
Anyone who has read the official indictment of Michael Sussman — a former prosecutor who worked for the Democratic National Committee, the Hillary Clinton campaign and Fusion GPS — cannot now pretend that they didn’t know that the entire “Russian Collusion” charge was a hoax made up and perpetrated by Mrs. Clinton’s campaign to cast aspersion on and sully the name and candidacy of Donald Trump.
It was — to borrow another overused term Democrats love throwing out — worse than Watergate.
Way worse, in that Mrs. Clinton had the willing acquiescence of the FBI and various intelligence agencies deep within the Obama administration. In fact, the entire Clinton (“I’m With Her!”) 2016 presidential campaign could be called Watergate 2.0.
The only difference is that her minions did everything electronically. No need to send in the Plumbers. The Hillary campaign had their cybersecurity experts working virtually, online.
If you haven’t read the entire 27-pages indictment (I have), let me enlighten you with some of its allegations and facts. Most of the following is taken directly from the Department of Justice indictment of Michael Sussmann.
“Tech Executive-1,” “Internet Company-3” and “Originator-1,” all remain unnamed but are apparently known by Mr. Durham. Here are excerpts.
“In or about early August 2016, Tech Executive-1 called an individual at Internet Company-3. During the call, Tech Executive-1 instructed the individual to task Internet Company-3 employees to search for any Internet date reflecting potential connections or communications between Trump or his associates and Russia.
“In connection with this tasking, Tech Executive-1 later stated that he was working with someone who had close ties to the Democratic Party and to Hillary Clinton.
“The aforementioned individual and other personnel at Internet Company-3 were uncomfortable regarding this tasking from Tech Executive-1 because they believed that using the companies’ data in this manner was inappropriate. They complied with the tasking, however, because Tech Executive-1 was a powerful figure at both companies.
“In connection with this tasking, and as alleged in further detail below, Tech Executive-1’s goal was to support an ‘inference’ and ‘narrative’ regarding Trump that would please certain ‘VIPs.’ Moreover, and as alleged below, Tech Executive-1 provided information that he gathered through these interactions to his lawyer, SUSSMANN, so that SUSSMANN could assist in drafting the disseminating materials to the media and the FBI.”
Despite a thorough search, the team at Internet Company-3 was unable to find a “money flow” between the Trump campaign and a Russian bank (Alfa), so someone called “Originator-1” came up with, let’s call it Plan B. Originator-1 suggests that although no Russian connection had been found, they could make one up that could pass the plausibility threshold. “It would be possible,” Originator-1 explained, “to fill out a sales form on two websites, faking the other company’s email address in each form,” and thereby cause them “to appear to communicate with each other.” Originator-1 then concluded: “If Tech Executive-1 can take the *inference* we gain through this team exercise … then work to develop even an inference may be worthwhile.”
“Let’s for a moment think of the best-case scenario,” he continued, “where we are able to show (somehow) that DNS [Director of National Security] communication exists between Trump and Russia. How do we plan to defend against the criticism that this is not spoofed traffic we are observing? There is no answer to that. Let’s assume again they (investigative reporters and security experts) are not smart enough to refute our ‘best case’ scenario.”
Tech Executive-1 interrupts: “You do realize,” he says, “that we will have to expose every trick we have in our bag to even make a very weak association? Let’s all reflect upon that for a moment. Sorry folks, but unless we get combined net flow and DNS traffic collected at critical points between suspect organizations, we cannot technically make any claims that would fly public scrutiny. The only thing that drives us at this point is that we just do not like Trump. This will not fly in the eyes of public scrutiny. Folks, I am afraid we have tunnel vision. Time to regroup?”
Despite the aforementioned views that the Russian Bank Data and allegations were a “red herring” that should be ignored, “SUSSMANN, Tech Executive-1, Originator-1, and the University-1 researchers began to draft, review, and revise a ‘white paper’ summarizing the Russian Bank-1 allegations that SUSSMANN would later provide to the FBI.”
Mr. Durham’s indictment cites that: “SUSSMANN continued to bill time on these matters to the Clinton Campaign.”
As Mr. Sussmann and his team were preparing (and billing time for) creating a “white paper,” Tech Executive-1 sought his team’s] views as to whether the paper’s allegations would be “plausible” to “security experts,” even if the allegations were not demonstrably true.
“Please read as if you had no prior knowledge or involvement,” said Tech Executive-1, “and you were handed this document as a security expert (NOT a DNS expert) and were asked: ‘Is this plausible as an explanation?’ NOT to be able to say that this is, without doubt, fact, but to merely be plausible. Do NOT spend more than a short while on this (If you spend more than an hour you have failed the assignment). Hopefully less.:)”
Later, the team leader brags about the white paper having “smartly” avoided discussing weaknesses or “holes” in the paper’s hypothesis: “A DNS expert would poke several holes to this hypothesis (primarily around visibility, about which very smartly you do not talk about). That being said, I do not think even the top security (non-DNS) researchers can refute your statements. Nice!”
More from the indictment: “In the days following SUSSMANN’s meeting with the FBI General Counsel, and as a result of that meeting, the FBI opened an investigation of the Russian Bank-1 allegations. SUSSMANN’s false statement to the FBI General Counsel was material to that investigation because, among other reasons, it was relevant to the FBI whether the conveyor of these allegations (SUSSMANN) was providing them as an ordinary citizen merely passing along information, or whether he was instead doing so as a paid advocate for clients with a political or business agenda. Had SUSSMANN truthfully disclosed that he was representing specific clients, it might have prompted the FBI General Counsel to ask SUSSMANN for the identity of such clients, which, in turn might have prompted further questions. In addition, absent SUSSMANN’s false statement, the FBI might have taken additional or more incremental steps before opening and/or closing an investigation.”
So, the indictment concludes: “On or about September 19, 2016, within the District of Columbia, MICHAEL A. SUSSMANN, the defendant, did willfully and knowingly make a materially false, fictitious, and fraudulent statement or representation in a matter before the jurisdiction of the executive branch of the Government of the United States, to wit, on or about September 19, 2016, the defendant stated to the General Counsel of the FBI that he was not acting on behalf of any client in conveying particular allegations concerning a Presidential candidate, when in truth, and in fact, and as the defendant well knew, he was acting on behalf of specific clients, namely Tech Executive-1 and the Clinton Campaign (in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 1001 9a0 920)”
Signed by JOHN H. DURHAM, Special Counsel, U.S. Department of Justice
My takeaway is this: Even Democrats should be shocked, ashamed and unnerved by these events. That they’re not tells me all I need to know about how corrupt things are in our nation’s capital. That it works that way because there is just too much easy money available to those who gain power. To get in power and on that lucrative gravy train, apparently men and women with the highest and most impressive credentials are willing to steal, lie and cheat their way to the top.
Maybe it’s always been that way, but I do remember that when Harry Truman left the White House after his presidency, he drove himself and his wife back to Independence, Mo., in his own car.
He apparently failed to enrich himself in Washington, D.C.
I can’t imagine that happening today.
James Buckley is a longtime Montecito resident. He welcomes questions or comments at firstname.lastname@example.org.