Sussmann Linked to DNC Indiscretions


After eluding the whole world for a couple of years, John Durham and his hand picked special Grand Jury handed down such a whopping indictment against Michael Sussmann that the armchair pundits are still analyzing the potential repercussions. Now that everyone’s totally sick of hearing the phrase “the dominoes are about to fall,” guess what? This one seems to be massive and the first of a string that leads straight to Hillary Clinton.

Sussmann into everything

Powerful and prestigious Washington attorney Michael Sussmann was charged by Special Prosecutor John Durham for making a false statement to the FBI. Big deal, most say, who doesn’t lie to the FBI? It’s what he was lying to the FBI about which is such a big deal.

Reading between the lines, this could be the smoking gun proof that the 2016 DNC server attack really was an inside job. Rumors have been circulating all along that Imran Awan, or one of his ilk, sucked the data off the server with an Ubuntu Linux boot flash drive then used it to create “Guccifer 2.0” out of thin air. The whole plot was for Hillary Clinton to use it against Donald Trump for colluding with Russia.

The trail of breadcrumbs is certainly leading in that direction. As soon as they learned of the alleged hack attack of DNC and John Podesta emails, the FBI wanted to see the servers. Hillary said “no.”

Instead, Michael Sussmann, the lawyer representing her campaign over at Perkins Coie, hired CrowdStrike to do the investigation. When James Comey was grilled by the Senate he admitted they wanted their hands on the equipment and didn’t get to look at it. They were forced to rely on the report handed to them by Crowdstrike. They never even bothered to fill out a request for a warrant.

As spectator points out, “the FBI meekly agreed to allow CrowdStrike and Perkins Coie to do the forensic examination and, for all intents and purposes, run the investigation.” Perkins Coie means Sussmann. Talk about the rats guarding the cheese.

“Not even the lowliest local police department would agree to such an absurd arrangement. What if this was a murder case? Would the Smallville PD allow a private investigator and lawyer hired by the murder victim’s family to process the crime scene, do the autopsy, and tell the police and district attorney what they supposedly found?” Not just no but “hell no!” That kind of thing is generally frowned on because anything they found will be shredded in court.


Crowdstrike testimony confirms

When Shawn Henry, President of CrowdStrike Services, was put under the hot lights at the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, his lawyer was from Perkins Coie. He confirmed that Sussmann hired him and gave the orders. Because of that attorney-client privilege he couldn’t say a whole lot.

“Over the course of the hearing, Henry grudgingly gave ground.” They found “indicators that data [the DNC emails] was (sic) exfiltrated. We did not have concrete evidence that data was exfiltrated from the DNC, but we have indicators that it was exfiltrated.”

The official story is that it was hacked by Russians but it won’t hold up.

A much more likely explanation, supported by a whole bunch of independent evidence suggests that someone with physical access to the DNC servers, in other words an “insider” like the DNC’s tech guru Imran Awan, plugged in a flash drive and stole the data. What the company hired by Sussmann appears to admit under oath is that the data wasn’t “stolen.” It was given away. That would be consistent with everything else Imran Awan walked away with.

If the rumors turn out to be true, Awan was literally handed hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of computer hardware which he stuffed full of DNC secrets, including from congressional servers, and shipped it home to Pakistan before walking away clean, with no real charges. It was all part of his job contract.

Henry also admitted under oath that Sussmann-directed CrowdStrike found “indicators of [server] compromise, which are pieces of malware, et cetera.” A flash drive transfer is also a “compromise.” He didn’t say it but it’s true. CrowdStrike’s investigative report states that the data [emails] were “staged for exfiltration” by the purported Russian hacker.

Since the flash drive shows up as attached to the computer during the transfer, he was able to say without committing perjury “we just don’t have the evidence that says it actually left.” What he really said is that there is no proof the flash drive was unplugged. “CrowdStrike never found any ‘direct,’ ‘concrete,’ or other evidence that proves the DNC emails ‘actually left’ the DNC server.” Okay, so if it never left the server, how did Guccifer 2.0 get it? The FBI never knew a single word more than that. They kept trying to hang Trump with it anyway.