The FBI Believed Michael Sussmann Was Working for the DNC … Until Andrew DeFilippis Coached Them to Believe Otherwise

Thanks to those who’ve donated to help defray the costs of trial transcripts. Your generosity has funded the expected costs of transcripts. But if you appreciate the kind of coverage no one else is offering, we’re still happy to accept donations. This coverage reflects the culmination of eight months work. 

There’s accumulating evidence that at least some people — including some key decision-makers — believed the FBI believed that the Alfa Bank tip came from the DNC — and that Andrew DeFilippis has engaged in a lot of coaching to try to make that evidence go away.

The first time FBI Agent Ryan Gaynor testified to John Durham about the investigation into the Alfa Bank anomaly in October 2020, he told prosecutors that the DNC was the source of the allegation.

Q. Okay. So in your first meeting with the government, you — this is October of 2020, correct?

A. Yes.

Q. You told them multiple times that you believed that the Democratic National Committee was the source of the allegations of connections between Alfa-Bank and Russia, correct?

A. Correct, which was wrong.

Q. Okay. But you said that you thought the Democratic party itself was who provided the information, correct?

A. I did say that in the meeting.

That’s even what he has written down in a briefing document he kept in Fall 2016.

At the end of that October 2020 interview, prosecutors threatened Gaynor with prosecution.

His more recent testimony, starting for the first time on May 13, was that Sussmann was representing himself. The reason he now remembers that to be true goes to the heart of Durham’s materiality: it would have mattered if Sussmann was representing the DNC, so he must have been representing himself.

Q. Okay. I want to ask you, first, about testimony that you gave today where you said that when Mr. Moffa told you that Mr. Sussmann was a DNC attorney, you said, “I understood that to mean that he had been affiliated with the Democratic party but that he had come representing himself on the Alfa-Bank allegations.” Do you remember giving that testimony?

A. That was my take-away.

Q. And you gave that testimony that I just read?

A. Yes; that he was a DNC attorney, but that my take-away from that discussion was that he wasn’t there representing the DNC.

Q. When you were asked, “When Mr. Moffa said Mr. Sussmann was an attorney for the DNC, what impression did you come away with?” what did you understand that to mean? And your answer was: “I understood that to mean that he had been affiliated with the Democratic party, but that he had come representing himself,” right?

A. So he’s affiliated with the Democratic party because he was a DNC attorney.

Q. And your impression was he had come representing himself?

A. My take-away from that meeting, what I recall, is that I did not believe that he was there representing the DNC specifically because, had he been, that would have been information that would have impacted it.

This is a tautology: If Sussmann had been representing the DNC it would have mattered so it must be the case that Gaynor believed he was not representing the DNC. It also happens to be the central argument of DeFilippis’ materiality claim.

Meanwhile, Scott Hellman — Durham’s star cyber witness — received a text from his boss, Nate Batty (with whom he compared notes before his first interview with Durham), referring to the white paper as a “DNC report” on September 21, 2016, two days after Jim Baker received the materials.

Michael Sussmann lawyer Sean Berkowitz asked Hellman about that the other day. At first, Hellman expressed surprise about that text.

Q. All right. And then, with respect to Stranahan, he asks you and Nate to write a report about the — write a summary of the DNC report. Correct? That’s what it says?

A. That’s what it says in this chat, yes.

Q. And did you understand, sir, that the information had come from a DNC, meaning Democratic National Committee, source?

A. I did not understand that, no.

Q. Did you know what Nate Batty knew about it?

A. I don’t think he knew anything about it.

Q. Did you call up Tim and say, what a second. This is a DNC report? That’s political motivation.

A. No.

Q. Didn’t do anything or it didn’t occur to you?

A. The first time I saw this was two years ago when I was being interviewed by Mr. DeFilippis, and I don’t recall ever seeing it. I never had any recollection of this information coming from the DNC. I don’t remember DNC being a part of anything that we read or discussed.

Q. Okay. When you say, the first time you saw it was two years ago when you met with Mr. DeFilippis, that’s not accurate. Right? You saw it on September 21st, 2016. Correct?

A. It’s in there. I don’t have any memory of seeing it.

Later in Berkowitz’ cross-examination he returned to the text. He asked how it could be that a white paper from a DNC lawyer could be referred to as a DNC report.

Q. And although you were surprised to see it today, it appears that at least somebody, such as Mr. Batty was aware and you were aware that somebody was calling this white paper a DNC report. Correct?

A. I was not aware that anybody was calling it a DNC report, and I don’t believe Mr. Batty knew that either.

Q. But you saw the link message. Right?

A. I did see the link message, yes.

Berkowitz asked Hellman how it could be that he would see a reference to a DNC report and not take from that it was a DNC report. Hellman describes “the only explanation that … was discussed” — which is that it was a typo.

Q. What’s your explanation for it?

A. I have no recollection of seeing that link message. And there is — have absolutely no belief that either me or Agent Batty knew where that data was coming from, let alone that it was coming from DNC. The only explanation that popped or was discussed was that it could have been a typo and somebody was trying to refer to DNS instead of DNC.

Q. So you think it was a typo?

A. I don’t know.

Q. When you said the only one suggesting it — isn’t it true that it was Mr. DeFilippis that suggested to you that it might have been a typo recently?

A. That’s correct.

Q. Okay. You didn’t think that at the time. Right?

A. I did not. I had never seen it or had any memory of seeing it ever before it was put in front of me.

With some prodding, Hellman admitted that when he referred to “discussing explanations,” he meant doing so with Andrew DeFilippis. This exchange was, quite literally, Berkowitz eliciting Hellman to provide an answer that DeFilippis thought up — one necessary to sustain DeFilippis’ narrative — without, at first, admitting it was DeFilippis’ opinion of what the truth must be.

So after DeFilippis threatened Gaynor with prosecution, he came to remember something other than what the note, tying the white paper to DNC lawyer Michael Sussmann, that he used to “refresh his memory” said.

And when faced with the possibility, two years or maybe six after the fact, that Scott Hellman’s epically shitty analysis of the white paper could have been influenced by being told that it was a DNC white paper, Hellman offered up the explanation that DeFilippis offered him.

At least twice, then, under coaching from Durham’s lead prosecutor, key witnesses have come to believe something other than what the documentary evidence suggests.

The fact that DeFilippis has twice coached witnesses to deny any understanding at FBI that this was a DNC tip — whether it was a DNC tip or not — is really telling. That’s because DeFilippis has to try to pitch a nearly unsustainable position: how his single witness to Sussmann’s alleged crime, Jim Baker, can in 2016 have told Bill Priestap the following:

Q. I think you testified yesterday that by this time you were at least generally aware that Mr. Sussmann represented the DNC in connection with hacks; is that right?

A. That’s correct.

Q. And what, if anything, did you say to Mr. Priestap about that?

A. I think I told him like, okay, this is who Michael is. He’s represented the Democratic party in the Russian hack that we were also investigating and/or the Hillary Clinton Campaign. So just, again, to orient Bill to who Michael was. I mean, that’s a serious credential in terms of being a cyber security expert. And then to explain: But in this case he said he’s not appearing on behalf of them. In this case he’s coming in as a good citizen.

And then, in 2018, have told Jim Jordan the following:

Q. Mr. Jordan then says: “And he was representing a client when he brought this information to you or just out of the goodness of his heart? Someone gave it to him and he brought it to you?”

A. In that first interaction, I don’t remember him specifically saying that he was acting on behalf of a particular client.

Q. Did you know at the time that he was representing the DNC in the Clinton campaign?

A. I can’t remember. I had learned that at some point. I don’t, as I said — as I think I n said last time, I don’t specifically remember when I learned that — excuse me — so I don’t know that I had that in my head when he showed up in my office. I just can’t remember.

Q. Did you learn that shortly thereafter if you didn’t know it at the time?

And then testify last week this way.

Q. Okay. Number two, did you know on the September 19th, 2016 meeting that Mr. Sussmann had been representing Hillary For America’s campaign and the DNC in connection with the hack investigation. Did you know that on September 19th when he met with you?

A. Sitting here today, I think the answer is, yes, I did know that by that point in time.

Q. I’ve written down, “yes, DNC and HFA and hack”. I want to be really clear. You’re not saying that he said that in the meeting. correct?

A. Correct.

Q. And you’re not saying he said he was there on behalf of them? You’re just saying that in your mind you knew that he had been acting as a lawyer for those two entities in connection with the hack. Correct?

It’s not just a question of whether Baker will be a credible witness, though his wildly changing claims about the DNC are among the reasons why his testimony is not credible.

It’s also that Durham wants to point to Sussmann’s failure, a year earlier in a Congressional hearing, to offer up his ties with the Democrats as proof he was lying. But Durham is treating Baker’s failure to do so in the same situation as an innocent mistake. For his single witness to be credible, DeFilippis has to find a way to excuse Baker’s failure to offer that up in a far more direct question while pointing to Sussmann’s failure to offer it up as proof of guilt.

He has to do so to defend his prosecutorial decisions, too. Given how much stake DeFilippis has placed on Baker sharing with Priestap that he knew Sussmann represented the Democrats, it makes it far less credible that Baker didn’t knowingly lie to Jordan. Especially given the way Baker responded to a Berkowitz question, suggesting that perhaps he hadn’t been truthful with Jordan, but instead was “careful.”

Q. And when you gave voluntary information to Congress, you understood that you were under oath?

A. I don’t think I was under oath, but I understood that it’s a crime to make false statements to Congress.

Q. So you tried to be as careful as you could. Correct?

A. I tried to be as careful as I could in that environment, yes, sir.

Q. You tried to be as truthful as you could?

A. (No response)

Q. Tried to be as truthful as you could?

A. Yes, sir.

Sussmann’s team is going to argue that there are a long list of people against whom there is far better evidence for false statements or perjury charges than him, with the single difference being that the other people were willing to tell the storytale DeFilippis is using prosecutorial resources to tell. And the first person on that list — it makes me sick to my stomach to say — is Jim Baker.

Finally, it’s a matter of materiality. DeFilippis has to find a way for it to be the case that his single witness knew when he met with Sussmann that Sussmann was a DNC lawyer (because Bill Priestap’s notes reflect that), but didn’t view that to be material to everything that happened next.

And the only way to sustain that rickety narrative is to ensure that no one else — not even the people using documentary proof reflecting a belief that this was a DNC report to refresh faded memories — understood that the white paper came from the DNC.

Thus far, Sussmann’s cross-examination has elicited evidence that at least three witnesses changed their testimony after interviews with DeFilippis, adopting a “memory” that conflicts with the documentary record with regards to whether the FBI believed the white paper to be associated with the DNC.


Scene-Setter for the Sussmann Trial, Part One: The Elements of the Offense

Scene-Setter for the Sussmann Trial, Part Two: The Witnesses

The Founding Fantasy of Durham’s Prosecution of Michael Sussmann: Hillary’s Successful October Surprise

With a Much-Anticipated Fusion GPS Witness, Andrew DeFilippis Bangs the Table

John Durham’s Lies with Metadata

emptywheel’s Continuing Obsession with Sticky Notes, Michael Sussmann Trial Edition

Brittain Shaw’s Privileged Attempt to Misrepresent Eric Lichtblau’s Privilege

The Methodology of Andrew DeFilippis’ Elaborate Plot to Break Judge Cooper’s Rules

Jim Baker’s Tweet and the Recidivist Foreign Influence Cheater

That Clinton Tweet Could Lead To a Mistrial (or Reversal on Appeal)

John Durham Is Prosecuting Michael Sussmann for Sharing a Tip on Now-Sanctioned Alfa Bank

Apprehension and Dread with Bates Stamps: The Case of Jim Baker’s Missing Jencks Production

Technical Exhibits, Michael Sussmann Trial

Jim Baker’s “Doctored” Memory Forgot the Meeting He Had Immediately After His Michael Sussmann Meeting

75 replies
  1. rgt says:

    Thank you for this work, Marcy. I am excited when I see you have posted another installment — and So looking forward to the (hoped for and by your analysis predictable) denoument for Durham, who has acted shabbily as Barr’s attack dog.

  2. Alan says:

    This is a total s**t show. When this trial is over, I hope someone at the DOJ has the fortitude to fire all these prosecutors and explain why.

    • bmaz says:

      Yeah, that is not going to happen. The most that will is the SC office is shut down. Does nobody pay attention here?

      • ThomasH says:

        I always appreciate your keeping all of us, the IANAL and those that jump to foolish conclusions crowd, on the straight and narrow Bmaz! I understand what you say above, but I do wonder if there can/will be any sort of effort to at least make sure this abuse of the SCO doesn’t happen again? IG investigation?

        • Vthestate says:

          ‘ I do wonder if there can/will be any sort of effort to at least make sure this abuse ‘ The best chance of reducing abuse and corruption are publicity and public shame. After the antic of many of our most corrupt and blatant public trust manipulators….they get fame and fortune at the Hoover Institute and/or are now pundits.

      • Pete T says:

        And when (if) that happens where do you suppose they end up? Where does Durham end up in a Garland DOJ?

        • Scott Johnson says:

          Excluding special prosecutors and their staff, the POTUS is generally assumed to be entitled to have his appointees working as US Attorneys, with Trump’s crew offering their resignations (most of them, anyway) as is customary upon a change of administration. If the SC office does go away, I can’t imagine Durham or DeFilippis being asked to stick around.

            • Silly but True says:

              Remember DeFilippis has done a bang up job. He was lead prosecutor for Reality Winner. He was the lead prosecutor in James Bradley ISIS Death Penalty f’k up — but apparently dodged the misconduct stink in that one.

              He’s leading Danchenko.

              DeFilippis seems to be case of failing up ever more extravagantly.

      • Charles R. Conway says:

        I’m paying attention; but is Judge Cooper, or, ultimately, the jury paying attention?
        Does Judge Cooper go out on a limb, and direct a NG verdict, or a JNOV after the jury’s verdict? Does inertia take this to SCOTUS after verdict & appeals, without an acquittal?

        • Anathema Device says:

          “is Judge Cooper, or, ultimately, the jury paying attention?”

          Berkowitz will make damn sure they know what’s going on in his summation, I’m 100% certain.

    • Njrun says:

      Durham and his team have committed an exponential amount of crimes of lying, suborning perjury, and not be forthright about motivations than are alleged in the indictment.

      The whole trial is a black eye for the FBI. We’re led to believe that they aren’t interested in investigating national security crimes if the allegations are brought to them by a political figure. If Trump shot someone on 5th Avenue, and they got the tip from a Democratic operative, they’d say, “nothing to see here, might be political.”

      That’s staggeringly stupid and corrupt policing.

      • bmaz says:

        Prosecutors pull all this in pretty much every trial, so let’s not hyperventilate too much. It is merely a matter of degree. And the court has sanctioned most all of it.

        • Ginevra diBenci says:

          Yes and yes. Support your local trial attorney! And don’t fall for calumny about “trial lawyer greed” used as a political weapon. Without defense attorneys our rights would be a memory.

  3. Thomas says:

    Durham and DeFillipis are concocting an elaborate fraud. It has to be clear to at least a majority of the jury that they are doing what they accuse Sussman, Elias, GPS Fusion and Clinton of doing.

    But if it isn’t obvious from this bit of shenanigans, then what about the techs who ARE DNS experts and still stand by their analysis?

    Having the techs testify has to be the coup de grace for this strained crackpot conspiracy theory.

    Look at the non-experts at the FBI who can’t justify how or why they “debunked” the hard evidence that a server at the Trump Organization WAS communicating with the server of a sanctioned Russian bank.

    Now look at the experts whose work was just tossed aside by the FBI non-experts for no good reason.

    If Durham had a factual, unambiguous case that the tech evidence was a concocted fraud, then he might have a chance of persuading people that Sussman was just a sneaky political operative who was trying to smear honest, upright, upstanding and noble statesmen, Donald Trump. (LMAO, and if we could all ignore everything else we know about Trump)
    It’s ALL wackadoodle.

    In my view, the FBI non-experts didn’t look at the evidence, but dismissed it BECAUSE it came from the “DNC attorney.” So it couldn’t possibly be material that they “didn’t know.” They dismissed factual evidence of a link between Trump and the Russians because they knew it came from a DNC attorney.

    Durham is attempting to reverse engineer the opposite of reality with willing partisan liars who are pretending to tell the truth while lying.
    I hope that the rightwing canard, perjury trap, becomes a reality for them, because Durham is walking them into it.

    • bmaz says:

      Lol, are you in the room with the jury? No? Then do not assume what they know or see. You think you know jack by being ultra informed here. The jury sees something different.

        • Alan Charbonneau says:

          As Wowbagger the Infinitely Prolonged once said, “A man can dream, can’t he?”

    • Scott Johnson says:

      Perjury traps appear to be the specialty of special prosecutors and counsels, GOP ones in particular.

      I seriously could see Durham turning around and indicting a Baker or someone else, especially should they lose this case and need another drumhead trial to keep the frothers frothing, and Baker (or another witness) is deemed to have failed Durham under cross-examination.

      I, however, certainly don’t see any line US Attorneys seeking an indictment against any of them based on the same facts should they sing in precisely the way Durham wants and thus avoid the special prosecutor’s wrath, even though there still is the existence of contradictory testimony offered under oath. For numerous reasons.

    • Jimmy Anderson says:

      I’m probably wrong, as I’m neither a lawyer not a tech expert, but I have been closely following Marcy’s excellent analysis… But isn’t this the wrong way around?
      “Look at the non-experts at the FBI who can’t justify how or why they “debunked” the hard evidence that a server at the Trump Organization WAS communicating with the server of a sanctioned Russian bank.”

      Didn’t the data that was introduced to the FBI by Sussman show that it was an Alfa Bank entity consistently trying to contact a TrumpoCo server?
      Wasn’t that why the initial FBI investigation was (significantly) categorised as an Alfa Bank investigation?

  4. Silly but True says:

    This all reinforces the oddness of the entirety of FBI activity associated to Alfa.

    Were the FBI and DoJ more serious about this, a more typical timeline would have been:

    Sept. 18 & 19, 2016: Sussmann (allegedly) lies to Baker.

    Within month at latest, by October, both Sussmann and Baker should have been interviewed by a pair of FBI Special Agents about Sept. 18 communications (emails, calls, and texts) and Sept. 19 meeting, along with complete details of whatever information was turned over from Sussmann to Baker. These interviews of FBI of Sussmann and Baker should have been taped per FBI current long-standing guidelines (ideally) but at least memorialized in 302s.

    Baker should have resigned by November , 2016, about a year and a half earlier than he actually did.

    Any indictment of Sussmann then should have followed before the year, by August 2017.

    This would have minimized any issues with peoples’ memories, either simply forgetting because it’s been so long since the alleged crime occurred, or trying to engineer reconstructed memories to fit certain theories that have developed or been engineered in subsequent years.

  5. harpie says:

    We’ve got to have a good name for this “tale DeFilippis is using prosecutorial resources to tell”.

    • Hoping4Better_Times says:

      Harpie, you reminded me of a quote from MacBeth-
      “It is a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.”

    • pdaly says:

      a ‘DeFilippis philippic’
      It has a nice ring to it, and it indicates the goal of DeFilippis, but it neglects the ‘coaching a witness’ and/or the ‘flipping witness(es)’ memory’ aspect.

      Will keep thinking.

  6. Doctor My Eyes says:

    The tireless efforts of the lying liars is impressive and exhausting. I’m continually amazed at the fraudulent schemes grifters and cheaters dream up. Surely the starting point of all this is not a belief or suspicion, but rather a question: what can we cook up that makes the Russia investigation look like a hoax? When his work is done here, Durham could make a buck or two creating telephone scams to bilk the elderly out of their savings. I feel certain the SC team could come up with something more creative than the Nigerian Prince scam.

  7. John Paul Jones says:

    “storytale”. Typo for fairytale?

    And OT, if I may? It occurs to me that the Joffe request for relief (and the reply to Durham) is an attempt to get at least some of Joffe’s potential testimony into the public record (and in front of the judge). It’s also a shot across the bow to Durham: if you charge me, this is some of the defense you will face, i.e., we believe we have clear documentary proof that you are making s**t up.

    • Ginevra diBenci says:

      I thought storytale was a coinage, not a mistake. As in, a story the prosecutor wants the jury to perceive as fact, but which has no more factual basis than a fairytale.

      But I’ll let Dr. W correct me, if necessary. I hope I’m right because it has stuck in my head, and when a coinage is sticky that means it has a future.

  8. Cosmo Le Cat says:

    (If I may quote John Lennon) Question for Mr. Durham and Mr. DeFillipis: “How do you sleep?”

  9. harpie says:

    I’ll bet JORDAN the HARRASSER interrupted Baker in his 2018 testimony
    where Baker says “excuse me”:

    Q. Did you know at the time that he was representing the DNC in the Clinton campaign?
    A. I can’t remember. I had learned that at some point. I don’t, as I said — as I think I n said last time, I don’t specifically remember when I learned that — excuse me — so I don’t know that I had that in my head when he showed up in my office. I just can’t remember.
    Q. Did you learn that shortly thereafter if you didn’t know it at the time?

    I don’t know anything about possible probable connections between JORDAN the HARRASSER and his “Freedom Caucus” and DURHAM and his BADGERERS.

  10. UKStephen says:

    Britannia waves the rules (about Royal Yacht polluting a harbor or a waist is a terrible thing to mind. Is there a name for this kind of word play. Something I’ve always wondered about!

  11. James Luther says:

    One of the few open questions left in my mind pertains to the following exchange between Mike Conaway (R-Texas) and Sussmann in in Congressional investigation [p65 of the transcript]:

    Q: … When you decided to engage the two principles, one, Mr Baker in September, and the general counsel of [redacted] in December, you were doing that on your own volition, based on information another client provided you. Is that correct?

    A: No

    Q: So what was – so did your client direct you to have these conversations?

    A: Yes

    Elsewhere in the testimony, Sussman states that this client had retained him prior to his engagement with the DNC, confirms that this client is NOT FusionGPS/Simpson/Fritsch, but otherwise understandably declines to identify the client. In fact, I suspect that a primary motivation in this prosecution is simply to uncover clues as to the identity of this unknown client.

    • Silly but True says:

      Rodney Joffe: they already know Joffe was Sussmann’s “other” client (besides HFA).

  12. Jeff E. says:

    I struggle to fathom how Durham’s team could honestly believe in the alleged crime as charged. Where are the limits of prosecutorial discretion? Is it possible for Durham’s team to fail so badly that it puts their own legal careers at risk? I would imagine that everyone at FBI is now aware of how Durham’s abuses put agents at personal legal risk. Why would anyone at FBI cooperate with him in any future prosecutions? I am imagining future depositions, where the stock answer would be “in view of the information you have selected for my review, and without a complete review of all of the information available on this topic, it may be more likely than not that …”. Does Durham’s credibility matter in that community going forward?

    [Welcome back to emptywheel. Please use the same username each time you comment so that community members get to know you. This is your third username although a variant of the previous two you’ve used before. Please stick with it; you can see the challenge as there’s another “Jeff” in this same thread. /~Rayne]

    • Silly but True says:

      John Durham is 72, already some 10 years past the federal service sweet spot of 62 (the average federal service retirement age in 2018 was 61.8).

      His 2017 US Atty appointment was practically going to be his final service, and likely would have ended in 2020 but for seeing Special Counsel investigation through.

      It’s not likely there’s any steam in the engine whenever Durham finally finishes this current investigation, maybe by 2082 for his 132nd birthday.

    • Silly but True says:

      There’s never going to be an agent who ever refuses a Special Counsel assignment; career agents live for these kinds of investigations.

      And unfortunately, even that conclusion would likely be enough to open up a preliminary investigation or expand a preliminary investigation into a full one, so even an agent just phoning it in like this isn’t likely to seriously obstruct anything.

    • emptywheel says:

      I don’t think they have to believe it. The right wing is accruing power by telling compelling stories that break down people’s grasp on rationality.

      That’s the business DeFilippis is in.

  13. Jeff says:

    At what point does Cooper do something about all the perjury going on in his courtroom? I realize he’s got a trial to get finished, but at some point it would seem appropriate for him to raise this issue. Or is this something judges just expect from law enforcement witnesses?

    [Welcome back to emptywheel. Please use a more differentiated username when you comment next as we have several community members named “Jeff” or “Jeffrey.” This is a SECOND REQUEST — you’ve posted here as “Jeff” and “Adam” and been cautioned about sockpuppeting as well as using a more differentiated name. Thanks. /~Rayne]

    • Scott Johnson says:

      Perjury by witnesses, generally, is something for prosecutors to deal with, not judges. And whoever is the finder of fact (the jury most of the time in a criminal trial, assuming the judge doesn’t go to a directed verdict) is free to disregard or discount any testimony they decide is untrustworthy or suspicious.

      • RJames says:

        Thank you for your comment. I think because the jury appears to be playing a passive role during this part of the trial, it is easy forget they have agency of their own. I know I do.

        • bmaz says:

          Quick reminder, unless you can see the jury every minute of the trial, you have no idea what they are doing or thinking.

  14. earlofhuntingdon says:

    If I recall correctly, Sussman and Baker were still friends at this point. Both were senior lawyers inside the Beltway, meaning they were well-connected to the legal grapevines that are its lifeblood. Each would have known a lot about the other without having to be told, and personal shorthand would have been the order of the day.

    • AndTheSlithyToves says:

      I often think about the fact that Mueller and Barr were also such good pals before Trump.

  15. Dopey-o says:

    I see references to the white paper which Joffe prepared, but i would like to read it myself. From Marcy’s writing, I see Alfa Bank performing 2,800 DNS lookups of of the Trump-associated mail server, and no Trump-email lookups of Alfa Bank. But lots of references to “communications between Alfa Bank and a Trump mail server.” Confusing.

    Is this white paper available anywhere?

  16. greenbird says:

    160920 Batty Lync DX-509 SCO-6310 3500

    is the name of the cloud entry with the text, but i’m editing my file copy to be ‘160921’ which is the date of the text referred to. gee, this is getting to be a lot of fun! (for us, but not Sussman)

  17. harpie says:

    Schools scared to death.
    The truth is, one education under desks,
    Stooped low from bullets;
    That plunge when we ask
    Where our children
    Shall live
    & how
    & if

    It takes a monster to kill children. But to watch monsters kill children again and again and do nothing isn’t just insanity—it’s inhumanity.

    The truth is, one nation under guns.

    What might we be if only we tried.
    What might we become if only we’d listen.
    5:49 PM · May 24, 2022

  18. Tom says:

    OT but hard not to think think that if young white men were bursting into schools and supermarkets handing out copies of “The 1619 Project” or literature describing Critical Race Theory, Republican politicians would quickly find the political will and means to put a stop to it.

  19. greenbird says:

    i am so glad i finally got Day 6 Morning Session.
    “Mr. Berkowitz: Nothing further.”

    … suspenseful pause …
    … tomorrow read along with marcy’s comment-along thread …
    … 3:01 – two players, one dartboard.

  20. tinao says:

    I will apologize up front here for being totally off topic, but I would like to share the letter I just wrote to the turtle and urge others to send him your thoughts too!

    Mr McConnel,
    I am writing to you to ask you and your party to spare our great nation and PLEASE get back on track to do what is right for OUR whole country. Your obvious disregard for American life will no longer hold. The bottom has fallen out when all of OUR children have been put at risk by your party. Your done grim reaping you bastard. Legislation will get passed, despite you if you can’t bring yourself to do the right thing.
    You have no idea what real power is. It is love, so I will make this last plea to you to get on the boat that sails not only in this life, but for eternity. History shows that empires crumble into dust when corruption holds.
    I do have sumpin else i wrote, but only if it’s okay with yinz guys. : – )

    • tinao says:

      I’m guessing I’m good to go here…
      I’d just like to say to those who still have a mind of their own…I want a real America, an I think it is pretty clear to ALL of us who is trying to keep us alive and truly free and who could give a flying fuck whether you live well or die.
      I’m a nurse and when I take care of you I do not ask if you are a Democrat or a Republican. I care for a human being. My understanding is all life is precious. I would ask all, are you protecting democracy and life or just your own beliefs? America was founded on a plurality of beliefs. If only our whole and real history was taught in school, says a daughter of a teacher!
      By the way, to those who believe that life begins at conception, I would like to ask you in front of all, why don’t you want to take care of those precious fetuses after they are born? Hmmm? I would think you would fight just as vociferously for that life once it is born, but not so much huh? A small tithe you won’t afford? Are you masochist or what?

      • Rayne says:

        If you thought you were off-topic with the previous comment, that last graf is definitely a road too far for this thread.

  21. tinao says:

    In Mary’s memory, I’d just like to say to the people of Kentucky that if you can’t vote mcconnel out your children could be next. That poor excuse for a human being is the most responsible for sensible legislation not getting past! He as the leader of the republican party, lets face it it wasn’t trump, has clung to power at the expense of the majority of us.

Comments are closed.