That’s stretching the definition of “material,” in my opinion. The FBI should always be skeptical and should always look closely. Whether the guy is representing a client or not.
In that case Durham is super fucked and he knows it.
Bill Priestap’s notes are probably inadmissible as hearsay, but Durham will probably try to get them in for the “said not doing this for any client” line. However, if that gets in the very next line of notes read, “Represents DNC, Clinton Foundation, etc.”
That’s very possible. In general, a lot of legal experts seem to think that Durham’s case against Sussman is weak. But the nature of what Durham is saying is pretty clearly as I’ve described it, FWIW.
Doesn’t the FBI do any sort of cursory background check on their informants? Seems like a brief Google search would have shown them that this guy had connections to the Clinton campaign. If he lied about whether he was working for them on that particular day, it’s a crime, but it seems implausible that it was material, insofar as it would have been gross incompetence for the FBI to fully rely on that statement when evaluating the plausibility of the allegations.
Sussmann and Baker knew each other, used to work together, and had mutual friends. Some rando informant doesn’t get a meeting with the general counsel of the FBI.
I can’t remember when I first met Michael, but he and I both worked in the criminal division together at the Department of Justice, and we knew each other there and then had mutual friends. And so we have just, our paths have crossed repeatedly over the years.
From: https://www.justsecurity.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/08/10.3.18-BakerRedacted.pdf
In general, witnesses are unreliable and not terribly useful in a court. Their primary function is as a conduit to hard evidence - spreadsheets, emails, texts, etc.
I’m sure that they do perform some checks on people but, in general, it probably doesn’t matter too much. If someone can successfully bring them evidence or give them sufficiently detailed information on where to find evidence, such that they can get a warrant, and that all pans out then so be it. If nothing pans out then the person who came to them puts themselves at risk of being prosecuted for false criminal reports, has their prosecution deal vacated, or otherwise gets screwed by their failure - and that probably discourages nearly everyone who doesn’t have something from trying to pitch information to them.
Reliability usually only matters in court. Probably, most informants aren’t reliable enough to be good in court so they’re not used for that purpose. Most informants are crooks, trying to negotiate a deal to get out of something.
The person who shows up in court if, say, you got a spreadsheet from a company, would be a third party accountant or something along those lines.
QFT.
Seriously, I think that law enforcement would always assume that an informant had some sort of axe to grind. That’s a big reason, probably the biggest reason, that people turn in other people to law enforcement. I would suppose that neutral concerned citizens are the exception, not the rule.
My concern about this bullshit investigation is the chilling effect it would have on the prosecution of white collar crime, which relies heavily on information provided by adversaries……competitors, short-sellers, burned investors. Because there is nothing wrong with reporting suspected wrongdoing to law enforcement, even if you don’t like the person you’re reporting.
You shouldn’t make up stuff, and that should be prosecuted….but that’s not what happened here. You don’t have an obligation to conduct your own investigation if you believe your suspicions are plausible, that’s why we have law enforcement.
But the gaslighters would have us believe that you need to establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt before you launch an investigation, which is flat out wrong.
And of course, only when the target of the investigation is a Republican. If it was a Democrat, than throw everything against the wall and see what comes down the flagpole.
It’s easy as a fish in the sea off a duck’s back!
It’s part of the reason why tip lines are so difficult-you have thousands of bits of possible evidence and they have to eliminate them all, no matter what.
Every time I see John Durham’s picture in the news, I think he looks like Cthulhu.
Yeah I see it.
I don’t see the resemblance at all.
One evokes a primal fear, a horror beyond all understanding, one that transcends time and space and leaves your mind an empty screaming shell.
The other is just Cthulhu
ETA: suddenly I’m in the mood for calamari.
Text message makes case ‘materially’ worse for Clinton lawyer Michael Sussmann | The Hill
Per Durham’s latest filing, when Sussman set up the meeting with Baker, he texted him the following:
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.
This tends to undercut Sussman’s claims that he did not tell Baker that he was not representing anyone. (It’s not completely clear why the text itself is not part of the indictment, but it’s possible that it was not discovered until after the SOL had passed.)
And Sussman’s current claim that he was not in fact acting on behalf of a client is undercut by the fact that he explicitly said the opposite, in testimony to Congress (See page 65).
So it would all hinge on materiality. I don’t know much about that, and I suppose it would come down to people who are experts in FBI procedures. But here too, I would think that Sussman’s argument is undercut, because if he believed the issue was immaterial then he wouldn’t have felt the need to lie about it. ISTM the only motivation for him doing that is that he thought Baker would be less interested in hearing his story and seeing his data if he was coming on behalf of a client.
I think you are confused about what Sussmann is claiming. Can you cite these claims?
This is pretty well known. A sample cite from Durham’s Sussmann indictment is a bizarre coda for DOJ’s Russia investigation (msnbc.com)
The case is equally weak on the merits. Although making false statements to an FBI agent is a serious crime, the government must be able to prove each and every element of the offense. Here, at least two of the five elements cannot be met.
First, Sussmann maintains that he did not make the statement.
You’re not quoting Sussmann (or his lawyers) there.
MSNBC should be a reputable enough source. And as I said, it’s pretty well known to anyone following the story.
And after posting the posts above, it occured to me to search this thread, and in post #180 you yourself pretty clearly understood that whether or not Sussman had made that claim was a central point of contention, and in contrast to your stance now.
Bottom line is that this does not merit further discussion.
I guess not. If, “Sussmann’s claims,” now means, “Something someone else wrote,” clear communication will likely be impossible.
I’d agree that this makes Sussman look pretty suspicious (though, I mean “suspicious” purely in terms of Durham’s specific charge against him).
That said, he’ll almost certainly argue that if you’re being paid to investigate a guy for scandal and, among those materials, you find an honest to gosh crime - then you’re compelled to go to the FBI. He can be working for Clinton five ways to Sunday and still be writing Baker because he felt like it was the right thing to do and not because he was ordered.
Durham has not, I don’t believe, presented evidence that Sussman was directed to report to the FBI. Minus that, he’s still liable to lose the case, regardless of how suspicious Sussman might look.