Russia Drops Evidence Proving Big-Pharma & the DNC are Attacking the World with Covid & Monkeypox!!!

Russia Drops Evidence Proving Big-Pharma & the DNC are Attacking the World with Covid & Monkeypox!!!

SonOfEnos – August 5th, 2022

Russia is producing evidence that they’ve recovered from US Biolabs in Ukraine, and from around the world that proves Big Pharma and the Democrat National Committee are attacking the entire world with the Covid-19 and Monkeypox BIOWEAPONS they developed. This is a crime in progress and Putin’s dropping the hammer, KABOOM!!!

This channel is only able to continue thanks to your contributions. I’t entire viewer supported. Here’s the link if you can contribute to help keep me going https://givesendgo.com/sonofenos

Thank you

#WeAreWinning

SourceSouth Australian Gov Criminal Organisation

The Worldwide Revolution Begins as Russia Fingers Biden & DNC For Bio-weapons War Crimes

The Worldwide Revolution Begins as Russia Fingers Biden & DNC For Bio-weapons War Crimes

SonOfEnos – July 9th, 2022

The Liberal World Order’s nonsensical tyranny is being greeted by a mass international Patriot uprising from everyday people who have had enough of this despotic insanity. And it’s a freaking beautiful thing to see.

Ukraine continues to reveal how depraved they truly are, as Russia is pointing the finger and providing evidence that the Biden Crime Family and the Democratic National Committee have been developing bioweapons for years. They may even be responsible for the Ebola outbreak that began in Sierra Leone which killed approximately 11k people.

The official numbers coming out of Canada and the laboratory examination of the strange white blood clot formations that have been recovered from the arteries of deceased jab victims prove that the so-called “Covid-19 Vaccine” was designed to kill. Justice will not be denied and everyone who’s had a hand in this will have a date with the hangman.

This channel is entirely viewer supported, and it’s only by your generosity that allows it to continue. Here’s the link if you’d like to help keep this channel going https://givesendgo.com/sonofenos

SourceSouth Australian Gov Criminal Organisation

Trial Docs: Sussmann Edited FBI Press Release About DNC Hack Because It ‘Undermined’ The DNC’s Narrative

Trial Docs: Sussmann Edited FBI Press Release About DNC Hack Because It ‘Undermined’ The DNC’s Narrative

Documents released during Michael Sussmann’s federal trial show the FBI solicited advice from Hillary Clinton’s lawyer on a press release describing the intelligence agency’s awareness of the Democratic National Committee hack in 2016.

The original press release sent over to Sussmann by Jim Trainor, the assistant director of the FBI’s Cyber Division, noted that the FBI was aware of “a possible cyber intrusion involving the DCCC,” or the Democratic National Campaign Committee, via “recent media reporting.”

“Michael – our press office is once again getting a ton of calls on the DCCC matter. A draft response is provided below. Wanted to get your thoughts on this prior to sending out,” Trainor wrote.

In his reply, Sussmann asked the FBI to change the first line of the press release to reflect the DNC’s messaging on the hack. He explained that he preferred a more definitive statement that made clear “the FBI is aware of the cyber intrusion involving the DCCC that has been reported in the media.”

“The draft you sent says only that the FBI is aware of media reports; it does not say that the FBI is aware of the intrusion that the DCCC reported. Indeed, it refers only to a ‘possible’ cyber intrusion and in that way undermines what the DCCC said in its statement (or at least calls into question what the DCCC said),” Sussman wrote. “The other implication in your statement that could benefit from updating is that the FBI, just now, is looking into the nature and scope of the DCCC matter. In fact, the FBI has been aware of the DCCC intrusion for some time, and even (previously) received network indicators from the DCCC (i.e., from CrowdStrike).”

Trainor accepted the suggestions with minor protest and agreed to send out Sussmann’s manipulated version of the press release soon.

“Mike – I am fine with the below suggestions. We try to really limit what we see and not acknowledging too much but the below edits are fine and we will send out,” Trainor wrote.

After just one day of deliberations, a D.C.-based federal jury found Sussmann not guilty. During the trial, however, key information further implicating the Democrat party’s efforts to destroy the Trump campaign surfaced and confirmed what outlets such as The Federalist have long reported.

As Federalist Senior Legal Correspondent Margot Cleveland wrote in her analysis of the trial, “United States v. Sussmann exposed that Hillary Clinton holds full responsibility for the Russia collusion hoax.”

Not only did Clinton’s former campaign manager Robby Mook testify that the failed presidential candidate personally endorsed parroting the Alfa Bank narrative to anyone in the media who would listen but, as Cleveland noted, “The Sussmann prosecution also dispatched the lingering claims that a secret communication channel between Trump and Russia truly existed as “‘5150,’ or delusional, talk.”

“Even the acquittal of Sussmann will not erase these facts. So for all posterity, Clinton’s fingerprints will be seen covering the worst political scandal of our country’s history,” Cleveland wrote.


Jordan Boyd is a staff writer at The Federalist and co-producer of The Federalist Radio Hour. Her work has also been featured in The Daily Wire and Fox News. Jordan graduated from Baylor University where she majored in political science and minored in journalism. Follow her on Twitter @jordanboydtx.

Source

Court Agrees To Let Spygate Cabal Hide Some Of Their Emails From The Grand Jury

Court Agrees To Let Spygate Cabal Hide Some Of Their Emails From The Grand Jury

Tech executive Rodney Joffe may assert attorney-client privilege for communications he had with employees of Fusion GPS because those communications furthered Joffe and the Clinton campaign’s common interest, a federal judge presiding over the criminal case against Michael Sussmann ruled yesterday. Prosecutors will now be greatly limited in the material they may elicit from one of the two witnesses granted immunity in exchange for their testimony against Sussmann.

Sussmann, whose trial in a D.C. federal court on a false statement charge is set to begin on Monday, scored a victory Thursday when presiding judge Christopher Cooper rejected Special Counsel John Durham’s attempts to present the jury copies of emails previously withheld by Joffe, the Clinton campaign, and the Democratic National Committee as privileged. The ruling came in response to Durham’s motion to compel Fusion GPS to provide the court, for in camera review, 38 emails the investigative research firm withheld from the grand jury based on the Clinton campaign’s claim of attorney-client privilege and work-product privilege. The latter protects notes, memoranda, and other communications capturing the mental impressions of an attorney, or those helping an attorney prepare for litigation.

Of the 38 emails, the court held that the Clinton campaign “had no valid basis to withhold 22 of” them. Those emails, the court concluded, did not concern legal advice but involved Fusion GPS employees’ interactions “with the press as part of an affirmative media relations effort by the Clinton Campaign.” “That effort,” the court noted, “included pitching certain stories, providing information on background, and answering reporters’ questions.”

Among the emails related to the “ordinary media-relations work” undertaken on behalf of the Clinton campaign were “internal Fusion GPS discussions about the underlying data and emails circulating draft versions of one of the background white papers that was ultimately provided to the press and the FBI.” Because those emails were not written in anticipation of litigation, but instead related “solely to disseminating the information they and others had gathered,” the court held the emails were not protected by either attorney-client privilege or work-product privilege.

Although the court held those 22 emails and the related attachments were not protected by attorney-client privilege, Judge Cooper nonetheless concluded that the special counsel’s office waited too long to file its motion to compel. “As a matter of principle,” the court explained, it would not “put Mr. Sussmann in the position of having to evaluate the documents, and any implications they might have on his trial strategy, at this late date.” Accordingly, the court held, “the government will not be permitted to introduce the emails and attachments that the Court has ruled are not subject to privilege.”

In reaching this conclusion, Judge Cooper noted that the emails did not appear “particularly revelatory,” suggesting there will be little harm to the special counsel’s case against Sussmann from the court’s ruling that the emails will be inadmissible at trial. And beyond the Sussmann case, the court’s ruling inures to the special counsel’s benefit because it establishes a precedent for Durham’s team to seek access to other communications withheld based on the Clinton campaign’s claims of attorney-client privilege. In total, there were nearly 1,500 other documents Fusion GPS withheld as privileged that the special counsel’s office may move to compel the production of as part of future grand jury proceedings or trials.

While that aspect of yesterday’s ruling proves positive for the broader special counsel’s investigation, the court’s conclusion that 16 of the 38 other emails remain privileged creates larger problems for Durham’s team. Eight of those emails also involved internal communications among Fusion GPS employees, the court noted, but because the court was “unable to tell from the emails or the surrounding circumstances whether they were prepared for a purpose other than assisting Perkins Coie in providing legal advice to the Clinton Campaign in anticipation of litigation,” the court deferred to claims by Fusion GPS’s attorney Joshua Levy and Clinton campaign attorney Marc Elias that the emails related to legal advice.

Given that Elias maintained all the emails were protected by attorney-client privilege, the court’s unquestioningly accepting his word seems strange. And if a court applies the same standard to assess whether the remaining approximately 1,500 emails are privileged, the special counsel’s office may face challenges obtaining much that matters.

But it was the court’s ruling concerning the final eight emails that has the most immediate effect on the special counsel’s office, namely its prosecution of Sussmann for allegedly lying to former FBI General Counsel James Baker. The last eight emails, with attachments, consisted of two email chains initiated by Joffe to both Sussman and Fusion GPS employee Laura Seago. In opposing disclosure of the email threads, Joffe asserted that “the purpose of the [] communications at issue was to obtain [Fusion’s] assistance in cybersecurity and technical matters to allow Mr. Sussmann to provide [Mr. Joffe] competent, informed legal advice.”

The court held that Joffe’s communications to Sussmann were protected by attorney-client privilege even though the emails included a non-lawyer, Seago, because attorney-client privilege extends to communications by third parties that an attorney hires to facilitate “the effective consultation between the client and the lawyer.” In reaching this conclusion, the court reasoned that Seago’s “involvement related to the technical analysis of the data, which would naturally inform Mr. Sussmann’s advice to his client about the data.”

The court, however, ignored the fact that Fusion GPS, for whom Seago worked, was hired by Perkins Coie to assist the Clinton campaign and the DNC, not Joffe. And Joffe did not pay for Fusion GPS’s services, nor did Perkins Coie charge Joffe. Further, as the special counsel noted in its briefing of the issue, “Perkins Coie also had no agreement, contract, or other arrangement reflecting that Fusion GPS was providing services specifically to aid Perkins Coie’s legal representation of [Joffe].”

Nonetheless, the court held the email threads between Joffe, Sussmann, and Seago were protected by attorney-client privilege based on case law holding communications that further “a common interest” are protected. What the court didn’t say, though, but what must be true under privilege law and “the common interest rule” is that the court believed the communications furthered a common goal of Joffe and the Clinton campaign.

“The joint defense privilege,” or “the common interest rule,” is “an extension of the attorney-client privilege that protects from forced disclosure communications between two or more parties and/or their respective counsel if they are participating in a joint defense agreement.” The common interest rule “protects communications between the parties where they ‘are part of an on-going and joint effort to set up a common defense strategy’ in connection with actual or prospective litigation.” That rule applies to communications subject to the attorney-client privilege, including communications with technical experts retained to assist in the legal defense.

In this case, as prosecutors stressed in their briefing, there was no “formal or informal legal relationship” between Joffe and the DNC and the Clinton campaign. Case law holds, however, that the “parties need not agree in writing to pursue a common interest; the doctrine permits an exchange of confidential information when the parties have clearly and specifically agreed in some manner to pool information for a common goal.” But “without a written agreement, the party’s burden of proving that a statement was made in the common interest will undoubtedly be more difficult.”

Yet, even without a written agreement, the court found a “common interest” existed to protect Joffe’s communications with Fusion GPS’s Seago, who was hired by Elias to provide legal support to the Clinton campaign. And what was that “common interest?”

According to Joffe, he hired “Sussmann to assist him in a specific legal matter – namely, to advise him how to share sensitive information concerning an extremely litigious Presidential candidate with either investigative journalists or Government agencies without revealing his identity and exposing himself to potential liability, frivolous litigation, and/or threats of violence and/or harassment.”

So, in concluding a “common interest” existed between Joffe and the Clinton campaign, the court implicitly also found “the parties have clearly and specifically agreed in some manner to pool information for a common goal,” here the goal of feeding the press and the government the Alfa Bank hoax.

The end results then are that the special counsel’s office cannot compel Fusion GPS to turn over the eight emails between Joffe, Sussmann, and Seago. But yesterday’s holding has broader consequences for the trial because, in closing its 11-page opinion, the court noted that it “will apply the principles set forth above to any assertions of privilege during witness testimony at trial.”

That means if prosecutors seek to elicit testimony from Seago, or any other employee of Fusion GPS for that matter, on various communications with Joffe, the court could rule the questions out of bounds based on attorney-client privilege. Given that the special counsel was forced to provide Seago with immunity to obtain her testimony at Sussmann’s trial, the court’s ruling yesterday represents a setback to Durham’s case.

Durham does have a few options, including asking the appellate court to resolve the issue of privilege before the trial starts. Prosecutors may instead decide to push forward and play any claim of privilege by Seago on the stand to their advantage, using it as further evidence that Sussmann was representing Joffe and the Clinton campaign when he presented Baker with the Alfa Bank material. They may also point to the “common interest” underlying the privilege analysis as proof that yes, there was a joint venture between the Clinton campaign, Joffe, and others, sufficient to overcome the defendant’s hearsay objections to other evidence.

Whether yesterday’s ruling represents an overall loss to Sussmann or the special counsel is yet to be seen, but what is clear is that it is another damning indictment of Hillary Clinton.


Margot Cleveland is The Federalist’s senior legal correspondent. She is also a contributor to National Review Online, the Washington Examiner, Aleteia, and Townhall.com, and has been published in the Wall Street Journal and USA Today. Cleveland is a lawyer and a graduate of the Notre Dame Law School, where she earned the Hoynes Prize—the law school’s highest honor. She later served for nearly 25 years as a permanent law clerk for a federal appellate judge on the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals. Cleveland is a former full-time university faculty member and now teaches as an adjunct from time to time. As a stay-at-home homeschooling mom of a young son with cystic fibrosis, Cleveland frequently writes on cultural issues related to parenting and special-needs children. Cleveland is on Twitter at @ProfMJCleveland. The views expressed here are those of Cleveland in her private capacity.

Source

Emails Surface More Evidence Hillary Clinton Paid For Anti-Trump Disinformation Operation

Emails Surface More Evidence Hillary Clinton Paid For Anti-Trump Disinformation Operation

Evidence continues to mount that the Hillary Clinton campaign paid former MI6 agent Christopher Steele to launder fraudulent opposition research through U.S. intelligence agencies.

Newly published internal emails reveal that before Fusion GPS hired Steele on behalf of the Clinton campaign to dig up dirt on Donald Trump, the opposition-research firm began peddling several of the same Russia collusion lies that the former MI6 agent would later detail in the Steele dossier. This fact highlights a significant aspect of the Spygate scandal that deserves further focus and condemnation: Democrats’ outrageous exploitation of intelligence credentials and connections to launder scurrilous accusations against a political enemy.

Since early 2018, when the then-Chair of the House Intelligence Committee Devin Nunes exposed in a four-page memorandum evidence that the Department of Justice (DOJ) and the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) had abused the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act during the 2016 presidential election cycle, Americans open to reality have been slowly learning of the breadth of the Spygate scandal.

Attention during this time rightly focused first on FISA abuse and the FBI’s use of unverified “intel” to obtain a court order to surveil former Trump campaign advisor Carter Page. As the scandal continued to unravel, the categories of impropriety multiplied, from deep-staters illegally leaking to the media to build the collusion narrative and later to force the appointment of a special counsel, to the selection of the “right people” in the form of rabid partisans to staff the Crossfire Hurricane team.

Another underlying aspect of the scandal only became clear recently with the prosecution of former Clinton campaign attorney Michael Sussmann. Proceedings in Special Counsel John Durham’s false statement criminal case against Sussmann reveal Democrats paid credentialed individuals connected to U.S. intelligence agencies to pass, to both the press and the government, invented evidence of Trump colluding with Russia.

Sussmann, who previously worked for the DOJ, represents one such connected individual whose credentials served to hide the Clinton campaign’s responsibility for creating the Russia-collusion disinformation. Over the last several months, filings in the special counsel’s criminal case against Sussmann have exposed how he played his relationships with FBI and CIA agents to score meetings to pass on data and “white papers” related to the Alfa Bank and Yota phone Russia hoaxes, while hiding their origins.

Now, a batch of emails between Fusion GPS and journalists made public earlier this week in the Sussmann case after the special counsel’s office inadvertently filed them on the public docket suggest Steele was paid for the same reason: his credentials and connections would hide the political nature of the hit.

Those emails reveal that the month before Fusion GPS hired Steele, it had begun spinning the tale that the Trump campaign-connected Carter Page served Russian interests. In mid-May 2016, Fusion GPS’s Jake Berkowitz emailed Slate reporter Franklin Foer about Page. The note, which includes several links with prefatory sentences about Page, reads as a collaborative effort to investigate the Trump advisor.

Peter Fritsch, the co-founder of Fusion GPS, also joined in the email thread. It continued a few days later, with Berkowitz sharing with Fritsch and Foer his latest “research” on Page. That email included a couple of names of “former partners” of Page and a link to a Medium.com article critical of Page. The Medium article also attacked Trump’s then-volunteer campaign advisor George Papadopoulos, whom the FBI would later claim prompted the launching of Crossfire Hurricane when Papadopoulos supposedly bragged that the Russians had dirt on Hillary.

The Fusion GPS researchers continued to share the results of their probe into Page with Foer. Berkowitz on May 19, 2016 told his Fusion GPS boss and the reporter that “some Merrill bond issuances during Page’s tenure” at the investment banking firm of Merrill Lynch involved some “interesting characters,” including Alfa Bank and its founders. To that email, Foer responded that he is “going to do some work on Rick Burt,” whom he bets “does some work for the Russians.” Foer would then claim in a follow-up email that Burt was on the Alfa Bank board.

Foer incorporated the early research he exchanged with Fusion GPS in his Slate piece, “Vladimir Putin has a Plan for Destroying the West—and It Looks a Lot Like Donald Trump,” which cast Page, Papadopoulos, and the Alfa-Bank-connected Burt as Russian-compromised associates of Trump. Foer was also the “journalist” who ran the Alfa Bank tale at Slate just two weeks before the presidential election. Emails exchanged in late June between Fritsch and Foer also show Fusion GPS focusing on Sergei Millian, with Fritsch declaring that Millian is “clearly kgb.”

Fusion GPS continued to exchange emails over the next three months with Foer and other Democrat scribes, such as the Washington Post’s Tom Hamburger and Mark Hosenball from Reuters. Millian was a subject of a July 24, 2016 email sent by Fusion GPS’s other founder, Glenn Simpson, to Hamburger. In that late-July email, Simpson provided the Post’s “journalist” three email addresses for Millian, suggesting a push by Fusion GPS to have reporters focus on Millian as part of the Russia-collusion hoax.

These emails prove significant much beyond exposing the symbiotic relationship that existed between the Clinton-funded Fusion GPS and the unpaid propagandists in the press. That’s because the timing and targets of the communications indicate Democrats paid for Steele to stamp their opposition research with an MI6 imprimatur.

The law firm of Perkins Coie first hired Fusion GPS in April 2016 to conduct opposition research on Trump on behalf of the Clinton campaign and the Democratic National Committee. But Fusion GPS did not retain Steele until June 2016, with Steele’s initial memorandum being first dated June 20, 2016. By then, however, Fusion GPS had already targeted Page and highlighted Alfa Bank as suspect. Fusion GPS’s communications with the press pre-Steele also focused on Page’s role as an advisor for the Trump campaign and various connections to Alfa Bank.

Steele’s dossier would later seemingly confirm Fusion GPS’s framing of Page as a Russian agent based on the numerous lies Steele’s “primary sub-source,” Igor Danchenko, fed the former MI6 agent. Among his other lies, Danchenko, who is currently under indictment for making false statements to the FBI, falsely claimed that Millian had provided detailed intel related to the Trump campaign and Page.

While Steele did not name Danchenko or Millian in his memoranda, his dossier not only identified Page but framed Page as a Russian agent. The Steele dossier then served as the basis for the FBI to obtain a FISA court order to surveil Page, and in turn, the Trump campaign.

The DOJ’s Office of Inspector General has already excoriated the DOJ and FBI agents involved in obtaining FISA surveillance orders for Page for misconduct, but the blame extends further to the FISA court. It issued the unconstitutional surveillance orders based on Steele’s work as a former MI6 agent.

No wonder Fusion GPS paid Steele. They needed his credential as an MI6 agent to provide gravitas to their opposition research and to hide the Clinton-campaign roots of the attacks on Trump. The Clinton campaign also needed Steele to exploit his government contacts, which the former spy did by passing the dossier off to his handler, his pal Bruce Ohr, and later the U.S. State Department. Steele thus served as a facade for Democrats’ attempt to frame Trump as a Russian patsy.

The email dump earlier this week, which represents but a fraction of “the hundreds” of emails between Fusion GPS and reporters, further reveals this reality by showing that Fusion GPS already had the storyline it paid Steele to compile well in hand before they retained the former MI6 agent. The same could be said for the journalists.


Margot Cleveland is The Federalist’s senior legal correspondent. She is also a contributor to National Review Online, the Washington Examiner, Aleteia, and Townhall.com, and has been published in the Wall Street Journal and USA Today. Cleveland is a lawyer and a graduate of the Notre Dame Law School, where she earned the Hoynes Prize—the law school’s highest honor. She later served for nearly 25 years as a permanent law clerk for a federal appellate judge on the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals. Cleveland is a former full-time university faculty member and now teaches as an adjunct from time to time. As a stay-at-home homeschooling mom of a young son with cystic fibrosis, Cleveland frequently writes on cultural issues related to parenting and special-needs children. Cleveland is on Twitter at @ProfMJCleveland. The views expressed here are those of Cleveland in her private capacity.

Source

Letter: No, Hillary Clinton Can’t Try To Hide 2016 Oppo Research From The Special Counsel

Letter: No, Hillary Clinton Can’t Try To Hide 2016 Oppo Research From The Special Counsel

The Hillary Clinton campaign and Democratic National Committee’s claims of attorney-client privilege in the Michael Sussmann criminal case may constitute a breach of the settlement agreements they entered with the Federal Election Commission, according to a letter sent to Special Counsel John Durham’s office on Friday.

That letter, obtained first by The Federalist, followed the flurry of motions to intervene filed in the special counsel’s pending false statement case against Sussmann. Hillary for America, the DNC, tech executive Rodney Joffe, Sussmann’s former law firm of Perkins and Coie, and the investigative firm Fusion GPS all filed motions last week asking the court for permission to argue against disclosing documents to the special counsel based on their claims of attorney-client privilege.

The special counsel’s office had previously filed a motion arguing that the court should review 38 documents withheld in response to grand jury subpoenas to assess whether the secreted material truly qualified as protected by attorney-client privilege. The day after Sussmann responded to that motion, opposing any such in camera review by the judge, his fellow Spygate hoaxers sought to join in Sussmann’s efforts to keep the documents concealed.

After the Hillary for America and the DNC’s motions to intervene hit the Sussmann docket, The Coolidge Reagan Foundation penned a three-page letter to Durham and Assistant Special Counsel Jonathan Algor. That letter alerted the special counsel’s office to key facts about the FEC’s recent decision to fine the political groups in relation to a complaint the foundation had filed with the FEC. That complaint charged Hillary for America and the DNC with using the “law firm, Perkins Coie, to hire and funnel over $1 million to ‘outside research firms’ such as Fusion GPS ‘to perform potentially sensitive, controversial, or politically embarrassing’ opposition research into Donald Trump.”

The FEC complaint, filed in 2018, alleged that “the research was not ‘for the purpose of assisting Perkins Coie in providing legal advice,’” but to further the “political and campaign-related goals” of the organizations. The foundation also claimed in its FEC complaint that because the work was not “for the purpose of providing legal advice or assisting with impending or potential litigation, it was not covered by attorney-client, work-product, or other privileges.”

Significantly, as the foundation noted in its April 22, 2022 letter to the special counsel’s office, the FEC had “found probable cause to believe” the political organizations had misreported the purpose of certain disbursements. The FEC reached that conclusion based on a memorandum prepared by the FEC’s Office of General Counsel, but under controlling regulations that memorandum “will not be made public for another week,” the letter explained.

Foundation counsel Dan Backer added that while the memorandum is not yet public, the special counsel’s office would likely be able to obtain it directly from the FEC. That memorandum also will provide Durham’s team further details on the FEC’s investigation and fact-finding that may be useful to the special counsel in the Sussmann litigation, noted the letter.

In Friday’s letter, Backer also highlighted Hillary for America and the DNC’s commitment in their settlement agreement with the FEC to “not further contest the Commission’s finding of probable cause to believe” that the political organizations had “falsely reported their payments through Perkins Coie to Fusion GPS as being for legal services.” In contrast, in the Sussmann case, Hillary for America and the DNC “are nevertheless asserting materials generated by Fusion GPS and provided to Perkins Coie are protected by attorney-client privilege and work-product doctrine,” the letter stressed.

“The Government should not permit HFA and the DNC to adopt conflicting positions in different proceedings, depending on the federal agency against which they are litigating,” the foundation’s letter concluded, suggesting the trial court may find those breaches of the settlement agreement “material in ruling on any privilege claims.”

Whether the special counsel will follow the foundation’s suggestion and obtain the memorandum prepared by the FEC’s Office of General Counsel before the judge in the Sussmann case rules on the Clinton campaign and the DNC’s assertions of attorney-client privilege is yet to be seen. But what is clear is that the special counsel’s office intends to ensure the jury knows that both the Clinton campaign and the DNC believe communications relevant to Sussmann’s efforts to peddle the Alfa Bank hoax are protected by attorney-client privilege.

On Friday we also learned just how the special counsel hopes to do that—by having representatives of both the Clinton campaign and DNC testify at trial. That revelation appeared in a response brief Sussmann’s attorneys filed last week, wherein the defense team noted that they had just learned that the special counsel had issued trial subpoenas to both the Clinton campaign and the DNC. According to Sussmann’s legal team, the special counsel requested “the testimony of witnesses” from those political organizations “regarding the assertion of attorney-client privilege in front of the jury.”

Sussmann is now also seeking to exclude that testimony and claims that both the Clinton campaign and the DNC will likewise seek to quash the subpoenas.

The irony in all of this, of course, is that the more Sussmann, the Clinton campaign, and the DNC hide behind the claims of attorney-client privilege, the more it appears that, yes, Sussmann pushed the Alfa Bank hoax, including during his meeting with FBI General Counsel James Baker, on behalf of the Clinton campaign. The FEC’s conclusion that probable cause existed to support the finding that the Clinton campaign and DNC had falsely reported fees paid to Fusion GPS as legal fees only further supports that conclusion.

The question Friday’s letter to the special counsel’s office raises, however, is whether the Clinton campaign and the DNC’s settlement agreement with the FEC, in fact, forecloses their claims of privilege in the Sussmann case. Backer believes it does, telling The Federalist, “The Clinton Campaign and the DNC want to have their cake and eat it too, but they cannot simultaneously say they won’t contest the reasoning behind the FEC fine and settlement agreement and also run to federal court and say, ‘No, no, no, everything we do is privileged.’”

That, however, is precisely what Hillary for America and DNC are doing, leading one to wonder if the real issue in play is not attorney-client privilege, but the privilege of being a Democrat.


Margot Cleveland is The Federalist’s senior legal correspondent. She is also a contributor to National Review Online, the Washington Examiner, Aleteia, and Townhall.com, and has been published in the Wall Street Journal and USA Today. Cleveland is a lawyer and a graduate of the Notre Dame Law School, where she earned the Hoynes Prize—the law school’s highest honor. She later served for nearly 25 years as a permanent law clerk for a federal appellate judge on the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals. Cleveland is a former full-time university faculty member and now teaches as an adjunct from time to time. As a stay-at-home homeschooling mom of a young son with cystic fibrosis, Cleveland frequently writes on cultural issues related to parenting and special-needs children. Cleveland is on Twitter at @ProfMJCleveland. The views expressed here are those of Cleveland in her private capacity.

Source

Federal Judge Refuses To Toss Russiagate Charges Against Former Clinton/DNC Lawyer

Federal Judge Refuses To Toss Russiagate Charges Against Former Clinton/DNC Lawyer

A federal judge denied a motion to dismiss charges against a former attorney for the Clinton campaign at the center of the Russia hoax Wednesday.

Michael Sussmann, a Washington attorney and former federal prosecutor, was indicted by a grand jury in September for making a false statement to the FBI five years prior. The charges stemming from the probe into the origins of the Russia hoax by U.S. Special Counsel John Durham allege Sussmann misrepresented his own capacity to the federal law enforcement agency when making claims of a Kremlin collusion with the Trump campaign. Sussmann told the FBI he was not working on behalf of any clients when instead he was working on behalf of the Clinton campaign and an anonymous “U.S. technology industry executive” later revealed as Rodney Joffe, according to federal prosecutors.

The disgraced attorney filed a motion to dismiss the charges in February arguing the misrepresentation of his own affiliation was immaterial, and citing Section 1001 of the criminal code which outlaws “a materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or representation.” The judge found Sussmann’s defense claims unconvincing.

“While Sussmann is correct that certain statements might be so peripheral or unimportant to a
relevant agency decision or function to be immaterial under § 1001 as matter of law,” wrote U.S. District Judge Christopher Cooper, “the Court is unable to make that determination as to this alleged statement before hearing the government’s evidence.”

Prosecutors say Sussmann gave FBI General Counsel James Baker “white papers” in September 2016 supposedly showing discreet communication channels between the Trump Organization and Alfa Bank, one of Russia’s largest financial institutions.

Sussmann is one of three individuals to face charges from Durham’s probe to date. Former FBI attorney Kevin Clinesmith was sentenced to 12 months probation after pleading guilty in August 2020 to fabricating evidence for a spy warrant on Trump adviser Carter Page. The District of Columbia Bar Association restored Clinesmith as a member in “good standing” in December 2021 despite his role in perpetrating one of the greatest hoaxes in American history undermining the first half of the Trump presidency.

In November, federal authorities also arrested Igor Danchenko, the primary sub-source for the discredited Steele dossier which served as the basis to paint Trump as an undercover creature of the Kremlin.


Tristan Justice is the western correspondent for The Federalist. He has also written for The Washington Examiner and The Daily Signal. His work has also been featured in Real Clear Politics and Fox News. Tristan graduated from George Washington University where he majored in political science and minored in journalism. Follow him on Twitter at @JusticeTristan or contact him at Tristan@thefederalist.com.

Source

Will The Court Allow Special Counsel John Durham To See Clinton Campaign Documents?

Will The Court Allow Special Counsel John Durham To See Clinton Campaign Documents?

Late Wednesday, Special Counsel John Durham filed a motion to compel the 2016 Hillary Clinton campaign, the Democratic National Committee, Fusion GPS, and Perkins Coie to provide the judge presiding over the Michael Sussmann criminal case copies of unredacted documents previously withheld from the government. The Clinton campaign and DNC have claimed the withheld or redacted documents are protected by attorney-client privilege.

Here’s what you need to know about yesterday’s filing.

First, the Background

Durham charged former Clinton campaign attorney Sussmann in September of last year in a one-count criminal indictment, alleging Sussmann lied to former FBI General Counsel James Baker when Sussmann shared data and white papers purporting to connect Trump to the Russia-based Alfa Bank. Sussmann allegedly told Baker he was sharing this “intel” on his own and not on behalf of any client. The indictment, however, charged that Sussmann in fact was acting on behalf of both the Clinton campaign and tech executive Rodney Joffe.

Following Sussmann’s indictment, the special counsel’s office served various subpoenas on those connected to the Alfa Bank hoax, including on the Clinton campaign; the DNC; Perkins Coie, the law firm representing the Clinton campaign; Fusion GPS, the investigative firm Perkins Coie hired; Joffe; and various tech companies Joffe is or was connected to.

Joffe refused to provide the subpoenaed documents, asserting his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination. The Clinton campaign, the DNC, Perkins Coie, and Fusion GPS withheld or redacted numerous documents, claiming these are protected by attorney-client or work product privilege.

Next, the Law

As Durham’s motion explains, attorney-client privilege protects communications “that a client conveys to his attorney for the purpose of security for an opinion on law, legal services, or assistance in a legal proceeding.” Such communications cannot be subpoenaed; the government also cannot question a witness about the content of such discussions. However, the party asserting the privilege has the burden of establishing that the communications are, in fact, privileged, and merely claiming they are is not enough.

While the attorney-client privilege applies generally only to communications between an attorney and a client, the privilege can extend to third parties under some circumstances. For instance, communications with non-lawyers hired to assist lawyers in the provision of legal services are privileged. But the key here is the communication must be “for the purpose of obtaining legal advice from the lawyer.”

In addition to the attorney-client privilege, the work product doctrine protects documents that were “prepared in anticipation of litigation or for trial” by third parties on behalf of the client.

Communications protected by attorney-client privilege can lose their protected status through waiver, where the information is shared with a third party. Additionally, the privilege is destroyed when the communication falls within the “crime-fraud exception,” although in this case, the special counsel’s motion does not rely on that theory to seek access to the documents. Instead, yesterday’s motion argues the communications withheld were not created, shared, or related to the provision of legal advice to either the Clinton campaign or the DNC.

Durham Wants the Documents, But Not Quite Yet

While Durham argues in Wednesday’s motion to compel that the redacted documents are not protected by attorney-client privilege, he acknowledges that without reviewing the content of the material, that assessment cannot be fully made. Thus, at this point, the government first seeks a court order compelling the third parties to provide the unredacted documents to the court for an “in camera” review, meaning a confidential review by the court.

In total, the third parties withheld and redacted more than 1,000 documents, but the government’s request seems focused on a much smaller population of documents, listed in Exhibit A filed in tandem with the motion. That exhibit, however, was filed under seal.

The motion instead provides a summary of the material Durham seeks. It fits within two categories. First, Durham’s team asks the court to review documents related to what the prosecution calls Fusion GPS’s “provision of opposition research and media strategy-related services” to the Clinton campaign, the DNC, and Perkins Coie. More specifically, the government requests the court review the unredacted version of the contract between Perkins Coie and Fusion GPS and 38 emails and attachments exchanged “between and among” Perkins Coie, Joffe, and Fusion GPS employees.

Second, the prosecution seeks a review of “certain communications” between Fusion GPS and Joffe related to the Alfa Bank theory, and related emails. Those communications include emails between Joffe and an unnamed Fusion GPS employee the government subpoenaed for Sussmann’s trial.

Clinton and the DNC in the Hot Seat

As noted above, the party advancing a claim of privilege bears the burden of establishing the communications are protected. That means that if they wish to preserve their privilege, the now-defunct Clinton campaign and the DNC will need to show why those communications are privileged.

The wrinkle in this case, of course, is that neither the Clinton campaign nor the DNC are parties to the criminal case. Most likely, presiding Judge Christopher Cooper will issue an order directing the third parties who possess the documents to file them under seal for an in camera review and provide the Clinton campaign and the DNC an opportunity to argue their claim of privilege.

Making that argument will be tough for several reasons. First, while Joffe and Sussmann had an attorney-client relationship, Joffe had no contractual relationship with the Clinton campaign, DNC, or Fusion GPS. Yet the Clinton campaign and the DNC asserted attorney-client privilege and work product protection, including over communications exchanged solely between Joffe and a Fusion GPS employee.

But there is no basis in law to withhold emails to, from, or copied to Joffe, since by including him in the emails, the communications would no longer be “in confidence,” even if they were arguably for “the purpose of obtaining legal advice from the lawyer.” In other words, any privilege would be waived.

The communications to, from, or copied to Fusion GPS likewise will not be protected unless they were “for the purpose of obtaining legal advice from the lawyer.” In its motion, the special counsel’s office acknowledges that Fusion GPS “conduct[ed] opposition research regarding Trump’s purported ties to Russia at the behest of the Clinton Campaign and the DNC” pursuant to a contract Fusion GPS entered with the law firm of Perkins Coie.

Durham also acknowledges that Marc Elias claims he provided legal advice to the Clinton Campaign about the Alfa Bank allegations. But that does not translate to Fusion GPS supporting Perkins Coie “related to legal advice.”

It Was a Hit Job, Not a Legal One

To the contrary, Durham argues that Fusion GPS’s “primary, if not sole, function” appears to be “to generate opposition research materials that the firm then shared widely with members of the media, the U.S. State Department, the Department of Justice, the Federal Bureau of Investigation (“FBI”), and members of Congress.” The government adds that while Perkins Coie hired Fusion GPS purportedly to “support” Perkins Coie’s legal advice to its clients on “defamation, libel and similar laws in which accuracy is an essential legal element,” Fusion GPS’s actions were unrelated to any such advice.

Rather, as the motion notes, the “evidence makes clear that the primary purpose” “was to assemble and publicize allegations that would aid the campaign’s public relations goals.” And, as Durham adds, the D.C. Circuit has previously held that advice from “a medial, journalistic [or] political’ consultant that is not used in providing legal advice is not privileged.”

Yesterday’s motion highlighted many of those public relation outreaches, arguing that Fusion GPS’ “role in promoting the wide dissemination of its own and others’ research would appear to contravene any notion that the primary purpose of their work was to aid confidential legal advice from [Perkins Coie] about potential libel and defamation litigation. “If anything,” the motion continued, Fusion GPS’s push for reporters to “hurry” to publish the Alfa Bank tale before resolving questions about its “authenticity” “would itself arguably create significant libel and defamation litigation risk,” the special counsel’s office quipped.

Based on these facts, Durham submits that the claims of attorney-client privilege and work product protections “deserve careful scrutiny.” After that review, the special counsel requests the court order the production of the documents in unredacted form. 

Sussmann Might Have Something to Say Too

While the motion to compel filed last night speaks only to the third parties who hold the privilege and the unredacted documents, Sussmann’s attorneys will likely weigh in too, repeating the complaint they made during last week’s status conference that followed the hearing on Sussmann’s motion to dismiss. At that time, Sussmann’s attorney complained that the special counsel’s office has been discussing privilege “for well over a year,” and that “to only now bring it up six weeks before trials” is unfair and raises due process concerns.

Sussmann, of course, could always agree to a continuance of the trial, but then he wouldn’t have the due process argument for a possible appeal in the event he is convicted—an insurance plan, so to speak.


Margot Cleveland is The Federalist’s senior legal correspondent. She is also a contributor to National Review Online, the Washington Examiner, Aleteia, and Townhall.com, and has been published in the Wall Street Journal and USA Today. Cleveland is a lawyer and a graduate of the Notre Dame Law School, where she earned the Hoynes Prize—the law school’s highest honor. She later served for nearly 25 years as a permanent law clerk for a federal appellate judge on the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals. Cleveland is a former full-time university faculty member and now teaches as an adjunct from time to time. As a stay-at-home homeschooling mom of a young son with cystic fibrosis, Cleveland frequently writes on cultural issues related to parenting and special-needs children. Cleveland is on Twitter at @ProfMJCleveland. The views expressed here are those of Cleveland in her private capacity.

Source

error

Please help truthPeep spread the word :)