DAVID: THE PROSECUTION IN THE
SUSSMANN TRIAL SAYS EVIDENCE
PROVES THE CLINTON CAMPAIGN
LAWYER IS GUILTY OF THRIEGHT
FBI.
COURT WILL RESUME TUESDAY WHERE
A VERDICT COULD BE READ.
ANDY, DEFENSE ATTORNEYS FOR
SUSSMANN CLAIM THE CASE AGAINST
SUSSMANN IS -- I’M QUOTING
THEM -- SMOKE AND MIRRORS.
IT’S VERY CLEAR, IS IT NOT, THAT
HE BROUGHT TO THE FBI THIS
PHONEY EVIDENCE THAT WAS USED
FOR THE NEXT THREE YEARS TO DOG
THE TRUMP ADMINISTRATION.
HE WAS HAVE MUCH A PART OF IT.
>> I THINK IT’S FAIR TO SAY THAT
THE PROOF SHOWS I THOUGHT BEYOND
A REASONABLE DOUBT, THAT
SUSSMANN LIED, HE GAVE FALSE
INFORMATION WHEN HE SAID HE
WASN’T REPRESENTING ANYONE WHEN
HE BROUGHT THE BOGUS INFORMATION
ABOUT A RUSSIA BACK CHANNEL TO
THE FBI.
WHAT THE CASE WILL COME DOWN TO
IS DID THE LIE MAKE A
DIFFERENCE?
THERE IS A LINE OF EVIDENCE THAT
THE FBI KNEW EXACTLY WHO THEY
WERE DEALING WITH WITH US PLAN.
THEY KNEW OF WHO HE WAS, WHO HIS
CLIENTS WERE.
HE REPRESENTED THE DEMOCRATIC
COMMITTEE IN CONNECTION WITH THE
HACKING OF ITS SERVERS.
SO CERTAINLY THE FBI KNEW WHO HE
WAS.
HE GAVE THEM A COVER STORY THAT
HE WAS ONLY THERE AS A GOOD
CITIZEN, NOT ON BEHALF OF
CLINTON.
BUT THE FBI ACTED AS THOUGH THEY
KNEW THEY WERE HANDLING PARTISAN
POLITICAL INFORMATION AND THEY
SEEMED TO HAVE CONCEALED HIS
IDENTITY IN THE PAPERWORK, THEY
WOULD HAVE YOU BELIEVE IT WAS TO
PROTECT HIM AS AN INFORMANT, BIT
SEEMS LIKE IT WAS TO PROTECT THE
FBI BECAUSE THEY KNEW THEY WERE
TAKING PARTISAN INFORMATION.
DAVID: THERE IS THIS TEXT MEMO
THAT WAS SENT FROM SUSSMANN TO
THE FBI GENERAL COUNSEL, JAMES
BAKER, HERE IT IS.
JIM, IT’S MICHAEL SUSSMANN.
I HAVE SOMETHING TIME SENSITIVE
I NEED TO DISCUSS.
DO YOU HAVE AVAILABILITY FOR A
SHORT MEETING TOMORROW?
I’M COMING ON MY OWN, NOT ON
BEHALF OF A CLIENT OR COMPANY.
I WANT TO HELP THE BUREAU.
OBVIOUSLY IT WASN’T ON HIS OWN.
HILLARY SIGNED OFF ON THIS
PHONEY STORY OF ALPHA BANK BEING
CONNECTED TO THE TRUMP CAMPAIGN.
AND IT WAS A KEY LIE PRESENTED
BY THE HILLARY CLINTON CAMPAIGN
IN ORDER TO WIN AN ELECTION.
>> THE PROBLEM THE PROSECUTION
HAS WITH THAT PIECE OF EVIDENCE
IS THEY DIDN’T HAVE THE TEXT
MESSAGE AT THE TIME THEY
INDICTED THE CASE.
AND WHEN THEY DID INDICT THE
CASE, ORDINARILY IF YOU DIDN’T
HAVE EVIDENCE AT THE TIME OF THE
INDICTMENT, IT WOULD BE NO BIG
DEAL AS A PROSECUTOR.
YOU WOULD GO TO THE GRAND JURY.
DURHAM’S PROBLEM WAS HE WAS
FLUSH UP AGAINST THE STATUTE OF
LIMITATIONS.
HE WAS BEYOND THE POINT WHERE HE
COULD SUPERSEDE THE INDICTMENT
AND CHANGE THE CHARGE.
THE JUDGE INSTRUCTED THE JURY
THAT THEY COULDN’T CONVICT BASED
ON THE TEXT ALONE.
THEY HAD TO FIND AT THE MEETING
AFTER THE TEXT THAT SUSSMANN
MADE THE SAME REPRESENTATION.
TO MY MIND THERE IS NO REASON TO
THINK HE WOULDN’T HAVE.
HE DID SEND THE TEXT THE NIGHT
BEFORE, LESS THAN 24 HOURS
BEFORE THE MEETING.
BUT THAT DID NOT HELP DURHAM’S
CASE TO BE SURE.
DAVID: LET’S TALK ABOUT THE FBI.
IN THIS CASE, WHAT DID IT EXPOSE
TO YOU FOR ONE ABOUT THE WAY THE
FBI DOES BUSINESS?
>> I ANY THE WAY NECESSITY DID
BUSINESS AT THIS -- I THINK THE
WAY THEY DID BUSINESS AT THIS
TIME WAS THEY EVEN ENMESHED
THEMSELVES IN POLITICS.
IT SEEMS THEY TOOK INFORMATION
FROM SOMEBODY THEY KNEW WAS A
TOP DEMOCRATIC OPERATIVE.
EBB THOUGH HE WAS TELLING THEM
HE CAME TO THEM ON HIS OWN AND
NOT ON BEHALF OF A CLIENTS.
THEY MAD REASON TO SUSPECT THAT
6 WEEKS BEFORE THE ELECTION IF
YOU ARE TAKING INFORMATION FROM
A TOP DEMOCRATIC LAWYER WHO
REPRESENTS THE DEMOCRATIC
NATIONAL COMMITTEE AND HE WANTS
TO DUMP DIRT ON TRUMP.
IF YOU ARE A GOOD INVESTIGATOR,
YOU WILL BE SCEPTICAL.
BUT THE FBI TOOK THE INFORMATION
AND HEADQUARTERS WOULD NOT TELL
THE AGENTS WHO THEY TASKED TO
RUN THIS INFORMATION DOWN WHO
THE SOURCE WAS.
>> YOU DON’T HAVE TO BE SCHOOLED
IN HOW TO BE AN FBI AGENT TO
KNOW THAT YOU CAN’T DO THAT.
THAT TELLS ME THAT THEY WERE
DIRECTLY POLITICAL PARTISANS
THAT WERE DECIDING TO DO THIS.
AND IN MY MIND THERE IS NO DOUBT
THAT THEY WERE.
PARTICULARLY WHEN YOU READ THE
EMAILS BETWEEN PETER STRZOK AND
HIS WOMAN ACQUAINTANCE FROM THE
FBI.
>> LISA PAGE.
THE ART TAKES THING ABOUT THIS
IS WE ARE LOOKING AT THIS TRIAL
IN A VACUUM AS IF THE SUSSMANN
PIECE OF THIS AND THE ALPHABET
PIECE IS THE ONLY PIECE.
BUT WE KNOW AT THE SAME TIME
THEY WERE PREPARING TO GO TO THE
FISA COURT.
THEY JUST HAD A MEET WHERE THEY
TALKED ABOUT AN UNDERSTAND
POLICY IN CASEDON WON.
THERE IS A LOT OF EVIDENCE OF
STRANGE HANDLING OF INFORMATION.
NOW AGAIN, TO UNDERSCORE THIS.
THAT DOESN’T MEAN SUSSMANN IS
INNOCENT.
IT DOESN’T MEAN HE DIDN’T LIE.
BUT IT BECOMES DIFFICULT FOR THE
PROSECUTION TO PROVE A CASE WHEN
THE FBI IS ACTING LIKE THEY ARE
DOING SOMETHING THEY SHOULDN’T
BE DOING.
DAVID: I WANT TO SWITCH GEARS TO
THE SUPREME COURT AND THE
DEMOCRAT EFFORTS TO TEAR IT
DOWN.
WE HAVE SENATOR MARKEY TALKING
ABOUT IT BEING AN ILLEGITIMATE
COURT.
>> WE HAVE TO TAKE VERY
SERIOUSLY THE THREAT WHICH AN
ILLEGITIMATE FAR RIGHT SUPREME
COURT POSES TO GUN SAFETY IN OUR
COUNTRY.
WE HAVE TO EXPAND THE SUPREME
COURT TO GET BACK THE TWO STOLEN
SEATS THE REPUBLICANS AND DONALD
TRUMP TOOK FROM THE AMERICAN
PEOPLE.
DAVID: THAT’S THIRD WORLD
RHETORIC. CALLING THE SUPREME COURT, THE
CALLING THE SUPREME COURT, THE
ONE OF THE FOUNDATION OF OUR
DEMOCRACY TO SUGGEST SEATS WERE
STOLEN.
WHERE DOES THIS END UP?
>> DEPENDS ON WHO LISTENS TO
HIM.
I THINK HE’S A FRINGE BIRD
BRAIN.
I DON’T KNOW HOW MUCH HE
RESONATES WITH THE COUNTRY.
OBVIOUSLY THE SEATS WERE STOLEN.
IF THE DEMOCRATS HAD THE VOTES
TO GET MERRICK GARLAND
CONFIRMED, HE WOULD BE ON THE
COURT.
DAVID: IT’S LIKE YOU ARE IN
KNICK NICARAGUA, AND VENEZUELA.