The Witness List for the Michael Sussmann Trial

According to the transcript for the pre-trial hearing yesterday, here is the status of the witness lists. The most interesting one, to me, is Michael Horowitz, who presumably will testify that Rodney Joffe shared a worthwhile tip on the same terms that Sussmann attempted to do with James Baker.


  • Trisha Anderson: Yes, for 30 minutes
  • Apple custodian: stipulation
  • Manos Antonakakis: “Possibly yes” for less than an hour of testimony
  • James Baker: Yes, for several hours
  • Special Agent Batty: Unclear
  • Mr. Chadason: Under a half hour
  • David Dagon: Likely no (possibly on rebuttal)
  • Mr. DeJong (who pulled data for Joffe): Probably yes, for half hour
  • Marc Elias: Possibly yes, for 45 minutes
  • Robby Mook: Yes, for 30 to 45 minutes
  • Special Agent Gaynor (on the course of the investigation): Yes, 30 to 45 minutes
  • Mr.Grasso (Special Agent whom Joffe provided a piece of the Alfa Bank allegations to): Yes, a half hour
  • Special Agent Heide (one of the case agents on the investigation): Yes, a couple of hours
  • Special Agent Hellman (who first analyzed the allegations): About half an hour
  • Agent Martin (expert): Under half an hour
  • Steven M: Unlikely to call in case in chief
  • Mr. Novick (CEO of one of Joffe’s companies): 45 minutes to an hour
  • Kevin P (CIA meeting): 30 minutes
  • Bill Prestap: 30 minutes
  • Ms. Sands (one of case agents): a couple of hours
  • Special Agent Schaaf: Unlikely on case in chief
  • Laura Seago: Perhaps an hour
  • Mr. McMahon (former DNC employe, had lunch immediately before Sussmann’s meeting with Baker): under 15 minutes
  • Perkins Coie billing department
  • Debbie Fine (Clinton lawyer who participated in daily Fusion GPS meetings): An hour or less
  • Not looking to put one of their own agents on the stand

Defense (may change in light of Prosecution decisions):

  • Steven M: May call
  • Marc Elias
  • Ben Gessford (LYNC messages involving Clinton hacks): 30 minutes
  • Marc Giardina (who wanted to open investigation in response to Slate article)
  • Tasha Gauhar: Under 30 minutes
  • Not Shawn Henry
  • Michael Horowitz: Referrals to law enforcement
  • Eric Lichtblau: An hour or so (concern about limits of privilege)
  • Mary McCord
  • Jonathan Moffa (as to Sussmann’s credibility)
  • Scott Schools (possible stip): 15 minutes
  • Character witnesses

Update: I had accidentally left Priestap out.

Update: I also accidentally left out McCord and Moffa.

18 replies
  1. Silly but True says:

    Sussmann’s getting into origins of Durhams’s initial involvement through the OIG Mid-Year report implicating Baker in wrongdoing.

    This gets to one of my pet theories on Sussmann case as reason why it’s disassociated from rest of Durham’s “joint venture” or not charged as “conspiracy” is because this was a case Baker threw as bone to get out of trouble.

    Rather than Baker being part of the “joint venture” as a bud whom Sussmann and Joffe had on speed dial who would be happy to take a meeting based on an email, Baker gets to tell DoJ he was victimized by a crime.

    Sussmann case may have been Baker’s get out of jail card.

    This is the association to Horowitz being a defense witness to “Referrals to law enforcement.” One such referral was Baker, first investigated by Durham prior to Durham becoming Special Counsel.

    Baker is not an unbiased individual, but was rather implicated himself by Horowitz in some pretty bad wrongdoing.

      • Silly but True says:

        That’s been part of the problem in Sussman case: who’s the bad actor?

        I have no idea but unfortunately the cynic in me says: everyone. Trump, Joffe, Sussmann, Baker, Durham and Horowitz all have some funny business to their names.

        I’ve tried to not let the relentless war on DoJ/FBI credibility last six years take its toll, so I’m still viewing Baker as the most credible witness in this affair.

        Unfortunately for Sussmann though is that the music just stopped and he’s the only one of the lot currently without a chair in this game.

        • Silly but True says:

          I think Sussmann needs to maintain non combative relationship with Horowitz and use Horowitz to hammer Baker’s credibility.

            • Silly but True says:

              Lol! Well, what a choice Sussmann is left with.

              Hammer the guy accusing you of lying or hammer the guy accusing the guy accusing you of lying but who also sicc’ed the Special Counsel on you?

  2. WilliamOckham says:

    I was about to post a long question about Priestap not being included before the update that says he is included.

  3. WilliamOckham says:

    Durham expects Baker to testify for hours about a 30-minute meeting he doesn’t remember. I guess he’ll ask him about his HJC testimony too. There’s not even that many exhibits that Baker can speak to, as far as I can tell. I’m really curious why Durham thinks it’ll take him that long to testify.

      • Rugger9 says:

        Do they have to account for anticipated cross-examinations for the time references? That would cover Baker’s schedule I think.

      • BobCon says:

        I’m curious how all this looks to a jury. I’d think the farther Durham goes in the weeds the more likely the jury starts wondering what Durham is hiding.

        I guess if you don’t have anything it’s better to throw a Hail Mary than not, but it seems like it’s also increasing the chances of a pick six or a strip sack fumble getting returned for a TD.

        • Silly but says:

          It seems like Durham’s holy grail would be getting Manos Antonakakis‘ motives in front of jury. Not sure if Antonakakis’ emails are fair game; these would be at least the one Durham included in Sussmann’s indictment.

  4. greenbird says:

    i have the sussman docket before me, showing only PACER for the 5-9 hearing transcript.
    i’ll make a text doc to substitute for RECAP pdf for now so i can keep up.

Comments are closed.