All Episodes
Previous Next
Nov. 10, 2021 - Kash's Corner
38:09
Kash’s Corner: More Indictments Are Coming; Unraveling the Origins of the Russia Collusion Hoax
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Hello everybody and welcome back to Cash's Corner.
So Cash, we're gonna talk about something that uh you played a pretty important role in today.
Um we're gonna look at Perkins Coy lawyer Michael Sussman's the indictment against him by uh uh special counsel Durham.
This is something a lot of people are talking about.
It's a 27-page indictment for something that might typically take two to five pages.
This is what I'm hearing from a lot of people.
But briefly tell me, what is this?
So basically, uh we'll get into the details, but a thousand and one count, um, being a former federal public defender and federal prosecutor dealt with these cases a lot, is basically saying you came in and lied to law enforcement, to cops to the FBI.
And that's what they're saying Michael Sussman did.
He they're alleging he went in to the FBI and lied to them.
Those indictments tend to be two to five pages maximum.
I've done them myself, I've defended them myself, and um so a lot of folks are curious as to why you would lay out what we call a 27-page speaking indictment.
And there are a number of reasons for doing it that way.
I can only speculate since I'm not John Durham.
So why don't you break down what is in this indictment?
Michael Sussman is one of the top two lawyers for the Hillary Clinton campaign when she was running for president in 2016, and the DNC.
His law firm, Perkins Coey, had himself, Sussman and his partner, Mark Elias, be the top two law firms in the entire country for the whole of the Hillary Clinton campaign for president and the Democratic National Committee.
So a large role played by this lawyer because they were paid tens of millions of dollars to obtain this role and execute everything from election law to campaign finance to any criminal allegations that might come up to state law as to how voting is supposed to be done in Alabama versus New York versus California campaign ads.
Um the gamut runs pretty far and wide, which is why they're their retainer is so high.
But they're the two premier lawyers for the DNC and Hillary Clinton Clinton campaign.
I mean, and so you know, this is uh bigger role than say the the first indictment that John Durham made, which was uh the indictment of Kevin Kleinsmith.
So people forget this isn't John Durham's first indictment, it's his second.
And he John Durham charged Kleinsmith with doctoring a document and email to the federal judge and federal court that was uh seen reviewing the FISA application search warrant.
So that was a pretty big deal that someone who worked at the FBI was charged with lying basically to a federal court because he changed what was in an actual email and then submitted that email to the court, knowingly doing that.
And that first individual, Kleinsmith, pled guilty.
So he's a convicted federal criminal.
And that was the first indictment from some months ago.
This is the second one.
Now we're moving on to the private sector, uh, the lawyers, the lawyer for the Hillary Clinton campaign.
And it's very interesting um timing and a read.
So you have the top Hillary Clinton lawyer, um, or one one of the two top Hillary Clinton lawyers um allegedly going out and lying to the FBI.
What are they lying about?
In the indictment, they are alleging, John Durham's alleging, that basically Michael Sussman on behalf of the DNC and Hillary Clinton campaign went into the FBI and met with the general counsel.
Let's just hit pause for a real quick second.
The FBI has 40-something thousand employees, maybe.
Um the general counsel is the number one lawyer at the Federal Bureau of Investigation.
Every other lawyer works for him.
This individual, Sussman, was able to, based on his relationships with this lawyer and his service at DOJ before he went to Perkins Coo.
He's able to get a meeting and walk into the Federal Bureau of Investigation's headquarters and sit down with the general counsel of the FBI, which is a big deal in and of itself.
But he, according to the indictment, Sussman went into this office to see Baker and provide this information that they're talking about in the indictment, this stuff that we'll get into about Alpha Bank.
And he wrote a white paper.
Sussman had his team write a white paper that was allegedly paid for by the Clinton campaign.
And he presented it to James Baker of the FBI and said, I'm just being a good Samaritan.
I need you guys to review this, and thanks for meeting with me.
What the indictment alleges is a criminal conduct is not the handoff of that information.
It's that Sussman, according to the indictment, lied about who his client was, who he was doing on behalf of, who paid him to collect that information and submit it to the FBI, which is a lie if you're lying to the FBI about it.
He never revealed to Baker in the according to the indictment that his client was a Hillary Clinton campaign.
In fact, according to the indictment, uh Sussman actually goes out of his way to say he's not there on behalf of anyone.
He's just stumbled upon this information and I'm presenting it to you, James Baker at the FBI.
And of course, the information, the other the what Sussman was alleging was, of course, incredible, could have been incredibly significant if it were true.
Yes, if it were true.
What Sussman's alleging is that to get into a little bit of the weeds on the whole Russia Gate um scandal from 2016 onwards is, and you have to remember the timing of this.
This was before the presidential election in 2016, in September-ish, October-ish of 2016.
He goes to the FBI and says, I have information that Trump, the other candidate, not his candidate, but the opposing candidate for president.
Um, his building and his enterprise have been permeated by a Russian bank and a Russian internet server that's allowing them to conspire with the Russian government or people in Russia to steal the election, was the allegation.
Pretty significant and pretty damning if it were true.
The only problem is per the indictment, and per my own investigation when I ran Russia Gate for Chairman Nunez on House Intel, is we knew at the time none of that information was true.
And in fact, the FBI and this indictment comes out and flat out says that the people who did the research for Michael Sussman said themselves they didn't believe that the connection between the Alpha Bank server and the Trump campaign even existed, and it would be a stretch to even put it down on paper.
That's all in the indictment.
Um so it's uh if it were true, it'd be pretty damning.
But um I have a little bit of a personal role in this because of my 2016 job back on the House Intel Committee.
Right.
Well, you you actually wrote the deposition that forms a significant part of this indictment.
When we were doing, when we were charged by the speaker at the time in 2016 to invest what they call the Russian active measures against the U.S. election, part of our job under Chairman Nunes was to call in 60 some witnesses and swear them in under oath and depose them, question them, interrogate them.
And we deposed principals, attorney generals, FBI directors, deputies, um, private individuals, Clinton campaign officers, and one of the people we interviewed and deposed was Michael Sussman.
And I actually took that deposition, and that deposition of Michael Sussman's sworn testimony from 2016 is cited in John Durham's indictment from just the other week.
And what it says was it takes part of the questioning and it says, were you Michael Sussman working on behalf of anybody in regards to this alpha bank information?
And he, in the deposition that I took, said yes, it was on behalf of a client, and he repeated it and confirmed it.
The deposition is in the indictment, and speaks for itself.
But he wouldn't tell me back then in 2016 who the client was, even though we knew.
They claimed attorney client privilege and that they wouldn't let us get into who the campaign uh or who the figure was.
But we had proven it back then, which is why we took that deposition with such rigor on those line of questions.
Well, and it's it's very interesting because uh, well, let's let's actually sketch this out.
Okay.
Um the top of Perkins CUI.
And then Perkins CUI is hired by well, you why don't you tell me?
Yeah, yeah.
So Perkins-Coe, this huge international behemoth law firm, very well respected, is hired by the Clinton campaign and the DNC to be their lawyers for the presidential election cycle of 2016.
Big job, right?
Obviously, You're representing the Democratic nominee for president and the entire Democratic National Committee.
So Elias and Sussman are the two guys overseeing this entire architecture of legal representation.
And those guys get paid, those guys, Perkins-Coey, get paid tens of millions of dollars from the Clinton campaign and the DNC.
What do Sussman and Elias do?
They take that money and go out and hire Fusion GPS, which I'm sure many of our viewers are familiar with, an internet research firm.
And I believe they're the ones cited in the indictment is Fusion GPS and their CEO Glenn Simpson.
They pay Glenn Simpson and Fusion GPS millions of dollars to conduct research against President Trump's campaign, including all the Russia stuff.
Then Fusion GPS hires Christopher Steele, who also I'm sure our viewers are now familiar with in the Steele dossier.
So the money, just to simplify it, goes from the Hillary Clinton campaign to the Hillary Clinton campaign's lawyers, to the people doing the internet research for him, Fusion GPS, and Steele.
So they are paying, they, the DNC and the Hillary Clinton campaign are paying for this research.
You mean opposition research?
Yes, opposition research.
So they, the DNC and the Hillary Clinton campaign through Perkins-Coey, Fusion GPS and Steel, are paying millions of dollars to get opposition research against President, or then at the time, candidate Trump and his entire campaign.
Bottom line, they're spending millions of dollars on that.
Now, in and of itself, I'll tell you that there's nothing wrong with going to get opposition research against your opponent.
That's what political cycles do all the time.
But this is problematic for reasons I think we're going to get into.
At the same time as they're kind of running the whole legal operation and everything you just mentioned, Sussman goes to someone he knows well at the top of the FBI legal team, uh Baker, and shows him this connection, this alleged connection, Alpha Bank Trump campaign or Trump organization.
And at the same time, from what we know actually from this uh uh uh UK legal case where um uh Christopher Steele was actually on the stand.
Um he we also know that it was Sussman who introduced this uh Alpha Bank Trump connection into the Steele dossier in the first place, which is you know, again, fascinating.
You're talking about another track of this entire operation that's sort of outlined in Durham's indictment.
Not only did Sussman on behalf of the Clinton campaign per the indictment take this information to the FBI, he's also taking the information and seeding it into areas of the media.
So that's the other problematic portion of the allegations in the indictment because this information that was false per the indictment, and that from my belief, from my investigation of Russia Gate, we knew then that back then, and now it's coming out that it is so.
He's not only ceding it to a law enforcement agency, which we'll get to the details of that in a second as to what they did with it, but the media, because they want the media to start running these stories before the election.
And that's exactly what happened.
So he gives it to Christopher Steele, and Steele starts giving it through Fusion GPS and others to people in the media.
And Sussman himself allegedly meets with people in the media to start planting these stories.
And what happens?
Right before the election, there's a story that breaks nationally that says looks like President Trump is somehow connected with the Russian government through these Alpha Bank servers.
And Hillary Clinton, the Democratic candidate, even tweets it and said and pretends like she didn't know anything about it.
Look at President Trump.
He's connected with Russians, don't vote for him.
And that was uh that's pretty damning information to put out a week or two right before an election.
So basically what you're saying is that information from the same source, which is a highly politically motivated source, is going both to the press and going to the FBI.
Yes.
And you're probably asking, well, what's what's the problem with that?
And we just highlighted why it was a problem for the media because the information wasn't true.
And you have a presidential candidate pushing out and national media pushing it out on a U.S. presidential election.
Here's the other problem, shifting back to the FBI component of this, right?
This information, which we knew back in 2016 and 17 and 18 when we were uncovering the Russia-Gate Investigation on House Intel was we knew was false.
But at the time, what Sussman was doing was propping it up as true and accurate or at least um credible.
And he asked his FBI friends to take it and then use it in their investigations into the Trump campaign.
So now not only do you have a political media sort of scandal investigation on one side, but as we now know, also the FBI was on the verge of obtaining a FISA warrant against Carter Page, the then Trump campaign associate.
FISA warrant, federal search warrant, extremely intrusive, goes up on your phones, on your computers, and everyone you're talking to, you can see text messages, you can hear stuff, uh, you could read emails, it's very, very invasive.
But as we now know, the FBI used that information, um, partly that was given from SUSMEN to help a federal judge obtain probable cause and go up and surveil this guy.
So it's a pretty big deal now for the first time in that I know of in US history that you have a presidential candidate who is under surveillance right before the election because of this information.
One of the things that's been alleged is that uh they were kind of expecting they would actually find something having these incredible surveillance tools at their disposal.
And that's one of the biggest problems I have with that.
As a former national security prosecutor who used the FISA process and applied for FISAs against terrorist targets and the like, and went to the FISC and made those applications and the extensive work behind them.
You're not supposed to go to a federal judge and say, Well, we think this guy is bad and we hope to find out why he's bad.
Please give us a warrant.
Um that's that's simplifying it uh enormously, but that's the essence of it.
You're supposed to go to a federal judge and say, these are the reasons the target is bad.
These are the reasons we think he's breaking the law.
And sometimes you're proven wrong, but if you do it on a good faith basis, that's okay, the law allows for that.
What the Hillary Clinton campaign did through uh Perkins CUI, Fusion GPS, and Steel was, and ultimately the FBI is take information they knew, they, the FBI, couldn't verify, and they knew uh that there was exculpatory information that they withheld from the court.
And more importantly, if that wasn't enough, they also knew there were sourcing problems with the information that was coming in.
But they put it in an application anyway, and like you said, Jan, took it to the FISC and said, and we're basically like fingers crossed, hopefully we get a warrant, then we'll find out what we're actually looking for, which violates the purpose of a FISA warrant.
Okay, let's let's cover a couple of things.
We know that some of the people in this tech company that were looking at this Alpha Bank uh Trump organization connection.
Um, we knew that they didn't think there was anything really there.
Basically, I think what you said was that that they they knew it wasn't true.
This is what you're saying.
And so just qualify that for me.
Sure, if you look at the Durham indictment, it's not anything I know because I never talked to these tech companies or these researchers during our investigation.
But what Durham's saying is during through his investigation is that the people that Suspin hired to do the research regarding Alpha Bank, they themselves said in the indictment, we don't believe that there's a connection here, and that per saying so in writing would almost be putting down a lie.
I'm using my own words, but it's in the indictment.
So that's where that information for me comes from.
And that's pretty damning.
If the person that Sussman hired to say there's a Trump Alpha Bank Russia connection, is he himself the expert saying there isn't, and we can't really get it there?
But then there's more emails in the Durham indictment that say, well, how do we make it look so?
You know, which is really problematic because now you have the person who's the expert saying we can't get there because the information doesn't support it, but now there's an exchange between the individuals involved who say, how do we couch it?
How do we mask it so it's like that anyway?
And I think that's why Durham took one of the reasons Durham took so much time in laying out a 27-page indictment, so you see the extent to which Sussman's work product for the DNC and Hillary Clinton campaign what went into the FBI and the level it went to deceive, I believe, people in the FBI and the FISC and the FISA warrant.
Fascinating.
Okay.
So there were a whole bunch of elements to sort of crafting this Trump Russia collusion narrative.
But how important was this Alpha Bank Trump organization connection from which was highlighted in I think late October?
Well, I'll just I'll just couch it like this.
Flip the seats around, the deck move the deck chairs a little bit, right?
Say President Trump's campaign in 2016 hired law firm X to go in and research a connection between the Clinton campaign headquarters and the government of Russia and a bank.
And say whatever you find, make sure you put it down in paper and find experts to say that the Clinton campaign, irrespective of the facts, was coordinating and working with the Russian government right before the 2016 presidential election.
That would have been international headline news, right?
That's exactly what per the indictment, what John Durham is saying the Clinton campaign did to the Trump campaign.
And that's why it's so problematic.
But that's also why it's not getting a lot of coverage, because the roles are as they are.
It's against President Trump coming from the Clinton campaign.
And most of the media doesn't want to cover it.
But I don't think they're going to be able to avoid it for much longer.
I guess another way to ask, would there have been a Mueller investigation without this specific piece of the puzzle?
No, that's a great point, and I think I overlooked that.
Yet I don't know because this is this is another facet of what the Sussman work product here does is not just the media operation that they launched, not just the FBI investigation and FISA process against a presidential candidate, but ultimately we had a special counsel.
And that special counsel was charged with finding out, among other things, how this Alpha Bank stuff worked with the Trump campaign, because by that time Mueller was stood up in late spring, early summer of 17.
One of the questions that he was charged with answering was these Russian connections surrounding Alpha Bank because the information behind it hadn't come out in our investigation.
Remember, Congress is very limited in terms of what we can pr get, the documents we can get, the witnesses we can get to come forward.
We don't have the grand subpoena power, the investigatory powers, the law enforcement agents doing our work.
It's just staffers on the hill trying to trying to do an oversight investigation.
Muller comes in and can use all of the Department of Justice's powers to go in and investigate this stuff.
And one of the main legs of his investigation was to look at some of this Alpha Bank stuff because if true, it would have shown that Trump was coordinating with the with the Russian government.
Okay, so you know, we we keep talking about, and I this I find this really fascinating that we this is a very uh large 27-page indictment compared to what was necessary.
Now, I know I know you think there's something bigger afoot here, other than that just simply this indictment than this charge.
I do, I do.
And remember, it's not just this one, it's this coupled with the Kleinsmith indictment.
Okay.
These two indictments cover two big components that we've been talking about about the Russia Gate um in investigation.
This one is largely uh involved with the media campaign right before the election and then seeding that into the FBI.
The Kleinsmith indictment goes one step further, I think, and says he, the lawyer at the FBI took information from the intelligence community and doctored it and went presenting that to the FISC, the Pfizer court.
And so now you have a layered investigation in reverse almost.
He he, Klein Smith was the one closest to the FISC and the intelligence community.
He, Michael Sussman, is closest to the FBI and the media portion as it relates to Alpha Bank servers.
So I think there's a larger conspiracy at play here, and it's sort of laid out in the 27-page indictment Durham put out, because he identifies not by name, but he identifies six to eight individuals by title, and I think I can recognize most of them, if not all of them.
And those are major players that we deposed and investigated during our 2017-18 investigation into Russia Gate.
So I think he's just starting, if uh if you want my opinion.
Okay, so that that's really interesting because uh there's there's a lot of people that didn't think, you know, maybe you didn't even expect to see an indictment of someone like Michael Zussman.
But um so one of the things that folks concerned about, you know, justice being done, uh, I'm hearing from they're saying, well, actually it's very likely that Durham may actually be, you know, defunded.
There's only a few days left in his official funding.
So what what do you think about that?
You know, I think it's it's tragic that that that so many in the media are sort of focusing on that and not a federal indictment uh for one of the biggest political scandals in U.S. history, if not the biggest.
This individual, Michael Sussman was just charged.
A federal trial, a federal case on average, takes 12 to 18 months to adjudicate, whether it's by plea or trial.
So I laugh at anyone in the media who tells me they're worried about John Durham being defunded.
He literally can't because he is in the middle of a federal prosecution.
So I don't worry about any of that.
And I think he's gonna keep going.
So there's no defunding issue for me.
Again, this is this is very interesting because I guess you know, you've been one of the people that's been kind of bullish on on Durham, right?
You know, expecting that that he would actually come through something, it seems like he has.
So, you know, another cause for concern, which I've seen, and this is something that our friend Lee Smith has actually written about, and we've I've I've talked to him about it, is this is the fact that that the judge in the case actually it has some pretty strong connections with the Democratic Party.
Um is this something people should be concerned about?
It's something that should be at least be looked at, I think, as a former federal prosecutor and federal public defender.
There's canons of ethics that apply for recusal, so conflicts of interest, right?
Um, you know, if I were the judge um and someone brought forth an individual before me that I knew or had a relationship with through my universe, it would be a conflict of interest for me to sit over and preside over that trial, that proceeding.
That's sort of simplifying it.
So in this case, the judge that was assigned the Sussman case, his wife happens to be a prominent lawyer in town, and she represented Lisa Page and still does.
Who's Lisa Page?
Just a quick refresher.
She was the central FBI attorney who reported to Andy McCabe as special counsel for him, and also who worked for James Baker at the time, who was the attorney who reviewed this entire FISA application process and worked hand in hand with Peter Strack, the lead counterintelligence FBI investigator for the investigation into the Trump presidency.
And oh, by the way, they were having an affair and kept that information withheld from the American public and the FBI.
So it would seem that question should be asked of in this larger conspiracy that I believe is coming, is Lisa Page going to be a witness?
Is she gonna be a witness for the defense or the prosecution?
Is someone calling her?
Is Durham working with her?
Is she cooperating?
Because conflicts of interest are supposed to be adjudicated not on the eventuality that they'll happen, but on the possibility that they might.
And so how can this judge have, let's just say this is how it plays out, Sussman goes to trial.
And Lisa Page is brought into the courtroom, and this judge's wife is the lawyer for the witness.
To me, that's a that's a conflict worth looking at.
There are canons of ethics that guide that and adjudicate that.
But I think what ticks off American people so much about Washington is this sort of um this style of inside beltway operation that most of the public doesn't even know about, and the few that do are calling for it to be examined.
And the the best person to examine it is the judge and the Department of Justice.
They should just say, hey, I can do my job fairly and the case isn't going here, or John Durham can have a ex parte communication with the judge to say, look, this individual that your wife represents was a target, is a target, is an unendicted coin co-conspirator, could be a witness for the government, could be a witness for the defense, and you might find yourself overseeing a trial in which your wife represents the witness.
As we're speaking here, I'm thinking, man, this is like this is pretty big news, right?
It doesn't seem to be getting the attention that uh that you might expect with big news like this.
But I the the the the funny part is I've almost been conditioned to not expect it to be treated that way.
That's what I just realized, right?
Yeah, me too.
Me too.
And I think that's I'm glad we're talking about it, but I don't know if more people are gonna be talking about it.
Um and just to remind you who who Lisa, not you, but the the audience who Lisa Page and Peter Strock were, you have the number one lawyer responsible for the Russellgate investigation and the number one intel uh uh FBI agent.
These two uh were literally, while having an affair, uh texting each other before the election and saying they would stop candidate Trump from being president.
I mean, just hit pause on that alone.
The individuals charged to lead the investigation into the Trump campaign, were texting each other before the election saying all the ways that they would stop it.
And now this person, Lisa Page, might be a witness or an unindicted co-conspirator in the Sussman indictment.
And this is the type of stuff that should be newsworthy, should be talked about.
And when it gets buried, this is the type of stuff that ticks off so many people in America because the rules are applied differently to those that were in and running the Russia Gate hoax versus those that uh revealed the Russian gate hoax, and now you see the John Durham's of the world all of a sudden being excoriated.
This guy, remind you, is a 30-plus year federal prosecutor.
He's worked for Democrats and Republicans alike.
And and and he's known for getting his man, so to speak.
I mean, he is.
I mean, yeah, look, Democrats have appointed him to be U.S. attorney and Republicans have appointed him to be U.S. attorney.
What more could you ask for in terms of a career prosecutor who is just doing the job?
And he established himself over and over again, but namely during the rendition investigation back when the CIA was investigated about its enhanced interrogation techniques.
That was led by John Durham.
So his work kind of speaks for himself.
So, you know, in these kind of situations, you know, I I can't help thinking about how it's only something like 3% of cases ever go to trial.
Most most everything gets resolved by plea these days.
That has its own issues that we're not gonna discuss today.
But um, it makes me think that, you know, a seasoned, you know, multiple time U.S. attorney like Durham has a broader plan with this indictment.
Like he's hoping probably to get some people to cooperate to talk, to expose some things that weren't exposed before to build this case, maybe build the case of this broader conspiracy.
So, how do you think um he might be using this indictment?
For me, I think the 27-page indictment is the biggest signal that more is coming because when you issue an indictment for lying to the FBI, like they did with Sussman, it's two to five pages max.
It's unheard of to be 27 pages.
So why put all that information out there?
It's exactly for that reason, to put it out there.
The public can now go and read the indictment and see what John Durham's been working on.
It's a way to announce pieces of investigation.
By name, by title, all the six to eight individuals in the indictment that they identified that were working with Sussman or on behalf of Sussman and who was paying Sussman and where the information was going.
Because people are gonna figure out who those individuals are.
The other thing is you talk about cooperation.
Look, I've I've tried 60 federal cases or 60 cases trials to verdict in state and federal court.
And sometimes people cooperate and sometimes they don't.
You don't bring an indictment on the hopes that someone's going to cooperate.
That's not how federal trials are conducted.
If you're doing that, you're going to fail.
You bring the best case that you can, and if someone cooperates along the way, then you can enhance your conspiracy charges, maybe bring in other people that you weren't initially looking at.
And my question is well, we've got two people that have been charged.
Who hasn't been charged and is cooperating?
Are the Peter Strox of the world cooperating or the Lisa Page of the World cooperating?
James Baker, is he cooperating?
He hasn't been charged, but he's been a central figure in all of this.
Remember, he was the one who had to sign off on the fraudulent Pfizer warrant.
So are those people cooperating?
Are there people at Perkins-Cooey cooperating?
What about at the Hillary campaign?
This indictment cites individuals who were in communication at the Hillary campaign, the Hillary Clinton campaign manager, the communications director, and one of their advisors were all in contact directly with Sussman per the indictment about all this Alpha Bank stuff.
So have they been talked to?
I would imagine you put all those people in grand juries for uh interviews and you obtain documents, and I think that's what's coming.
So this has been going on for you know at least five years.
Um I saw someone had noted that uh perhaps one of the reasons why Durham made this indictment at the time he did was because the statute of limitations on making the false statement, uh the the limit is something is five years, right?
So, you know, I guess at this point, right, five years in, in the bigger picture, for people that maybe don't know the details, don't know the nuance, maybe uh didn't understand what actually happened.
Um, why is this important?
Sure.
Let me address the timing first and then the uh the importance of it.
So having run complex investigations, federal investigations, let me give you a perspective.
Health care fraud investigations or Medicare fraud investigations, they take the government anywhere on average from three to seven years to adjudicate and investigate.
Okay.
So those are going on for years and years and years and years, and then you finally have an indictment five years later.
I've I've defended those cases.
I've even brought conspiracy charges myself as a federal prosecutor that were years in the making.
So five years I know sounds like a long time, especially for um people who aren't familiar with the criminal justice system at the federal level.
But it's not, and I have to remind people, and this gets to the segue to the second point.
Um Durham has been charged with investigating the arguably the biggest political scandal in US history.
For him to do it, he's only been on the job, mind you, two years.
Right?
He didn't come into play on day one.
He came into play way later.
So he's bringing out conspiracy or he's bringing out charges uh two now inside of two years.
I know it might not sound fast, but it's kind of fast for federal level work, especially at that complicated level.
And the other reason why I think in terms of the importance and the timing is to simplify it for those who haven't been following this, like you have for three, four or five years and uh and many in our audience, is just think of it this way.
In the United States of America in 2016, in 2020, in 2024.
Is it okay for a political opponent during a presidential election to go out and buy false information, know that information is false, submit it to the U.S. media in an effort to castigate your opponent in the presidential election.
And then is it okay to take that same information used in the media and submit it to the Department of Justice and the Federal Bureau of Investigation and say, you know, we know we know that this information is false, we're not going to tell you guys, but please go up on a warrant on a federal search warrant on my opponent to be the president of the United States so we can dig up more dirt and make sure he does not become president of the United States, should that be allowed.
And what we're saying, what we've been talking about for the last three, four, five years, and in the during this episode is that's what happened.
It took a couple of years, it took two congressional investigations, it took Bob Mueller's special counsel and John Durham as a special counsel to seed through some of all of this information, and now we're finally showing the American public what happened.
So, yeah, it's hard to simplify, but I think the magnitude can't be um highlighted any more than that.
If you want free and fair elections for the president of the United States, you should care about John Durham's investigation and where it goes.
You know, just to pick up on something we we discussed a little bit earlier, it seems bizarre that media are so reluctant in some ways to pick up on this story, many media.
And of course, and so many media in the past got it so terribly, terribly wrong.
I agree.
And instead of you and I just going through the litany of articles that people got wrong, here's what I suggest for our viewers.
Go online and go back to 2016, 17, 18, 19, 20, and look up an article.
Doesn't matter what outlet it's from on the Russia Gate Investigation.
And look at the headlines.
You don't even have to look at the body of the work.
Look at the headlines and see which outlets got it wrong time and time again and which outlets got it right.
And see if you can do that.
See if the outlets you relied on so much to get your factual information were correct when they said then candidate Trump was in the pocket of Putin.
Go online and see if they were correct when the FBI and the DOJ came out and said there's no way the FISA process could be abused in this fashion.
There's too many uh people in charge, there's too many principles at play for that to occur.
See who wrote those articles.
Go ahead and see who wrote articles about private citizens and political campaigns and what their involvement in the Russia Gate scandal was then and what it actually has shown to be now, i.e.
Michael Sussman and the DNC and the Hillary Clinton campaign and Perkins Coe and the like.
And don't forget Fusion GPS and Glenn Simpson.
Go back and look at that trail and just look at the headlines, and I think you'll see how broken the media is and why they're not covering it as much as they should be today.
Well, and we'll definitely link some of these infographics that we've created at the Epoch Times that kind of, you know, sort of maybe I will identify some leads for this investigation that you're suggesting here.
That'll be great.
Well, so I think we're we're about at the end here.
I think it's time for our shout-out.
Okay, I've got a I've got a unique shout-out this week.
Uh so just bear with me for a second.
So the shout-out is for my Objective Medusa team.
And for those of you that don't know who that is or what that is, um, you have to read and watch the plot against the president to get the full picture of it.
But the objective Medusa team was the warriors that I was able to work with under Chairman Nunes on House Intel to run the Russia Gate investigation.
And this indictment that we're talking about today, Sussman and also the Kleinsmith indictment, is um for us a validation of so much of the work we did in 2017 and 2018 and were scoriated for personally.
So uh to my Objective Medusa team.
▲
Export Selection