Durham Russiagategate Indictment: Perkins Coie Lawyer Michael Sussmann

link

Perkins Coie is, inter alia, a Democrat lawfare--and dirty tricks--outfit:

   In painstaking detail, Durham laid out in the indictment Thursday how Democrat superlawyer Michael Sussmann used Clinton campaign funds to construct a now-debunked memo and other evidence alleging that computer communications between a server at the Alfa Bank in Russia and the Trump Tower in New York might be a secret backdoor communication system for Trump and Vladimir Putin to hijack the 2016 election.
   Sussmann delivered the package in mid-September 2016 — just weeks before Election Day as Trump and Clinton were locked in a tight race — to then-FBI General Counsel James Baker, even after the team of computer experts warned the theory was a "red-herring," according to the indictment.
   And then Sussmann falsely told Baker, the prosecutors alleged, he was providing the information to the FBI solely as a good citizen, and not on behalf of any client.
   In fact, Sussmann was working on behalf of a tech executive and the Clinton campaign and charged nearly all the work on the Alfa Bank narrative to the Democratic presidential campaign, including his meeting with Baker, the indictment stated.
   The alleged lying, Durham argued, deceived the FBI into thinking the allegations were coming from a neutral source — Sussmann had been a cybersecurity expert — and not an election-motivated client.
   "In truth, and in fact, and as Sussmann well knew, Sussmann had acted on behalf of and in coordination with two specific clients of the law firm: tech executive 1 and the Clinton campaign in assembling and conveying these allegations," the grand jury indictment charged.

So part of the reason Sussman was caught is that he charged his dirty-tricks work to the Clinton campaign... I find that hilarious. You'd think that someone who'd interfere with an American presidential election would at least do it out of conviction... 

   I'm old enough to remember when the Democrats were the good--or, at least, less-bad--guys.

   Imagine the press this would be getting if the tables were turned. And it seems that most of my Democratic friends tune out when Russiagategate does manage to break through the MSM force field of silence. That's understandable, but irresponsible. I wonder whether the true horror of the situation will ever dawn on them: Trump and the Pubs were probably the better choice--or at least the less-bad one--even in '16. Though Trump's actions after his loss in '20 change the picture significantly. OTOH, he may well have been right yet again--the election may well have been stolen. Not by the Venezuelan KGB or whatever--but by the almost-certainly-illegal re-writing of election laws by Democrat judges etc. Without those misdeeds, Trump's freakout might never have happened. Of course we might respond that it revealed propensities that make him unfit for the office even if they never manifested themselves. There are obvious responses, but they don't clearly beat that objection. It's not clear to me which side of that debate wins.