All Episodes
Previous Next
May 28, 2022 - Rudy Giuliani
39:24
Inside the Sussmann Trial | Rudy Giuliani | May 28th 2022 | Ep 242
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Hello, this is Rudy Giuliani, and I'm back with another episode of Rudy's Common Sense.
And this episode will be coming to you over Memorial Day weekend, so let me wish to all of you a very solemn Memorial Day.
Remember, there's always a bit of a confusion with some people and it's understandable, I guess.
Memorial Day is to remember those who lost their lives in service of our country.
Veterans Day is to remember all those who served our country.
Of course, remembering both is fine, but let's remember specifically those who made the ultimate sacrifice.
Today's subject is going to be the Sussman trial because it's now come to an end and the jury will get a chance to decide it.
It's a pretty simple case from my point of view.
It might have been tried when I was U.S.
Attorney in what we call the Short Trials Unit.
And those were the first-year people who had, you know, three four-day trials instead of the two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight, nine, ten, twelve, three-month trials.
This is a definable number of witnesses, a simple question, very, very direct, powerful evidence, and a rather weak defense.
A judge that is determinedly biased and a jury that is almost impossible to believe that he allowed these jurors to remain.
So I think I just described the whole case to you, I think.
Let me see if I can go back and do it briefly, and then tell you what I think the significance of it is.
Okay?
So, the main characters I think you know.
There's Michael Sussman.
Michael Sussman was and is a cyber lawyer, and worked for the law firm Perkins Coie, which was Democratic National Committee's law firm Hillary Clinton's law firm and I have to say in fairness involved in a lot of the skullduggery Involving the skill now proven to be false dossier totally false totally fraudulent dossier two other lawyers testified in this case MOOC and Elias and we'll go over their testimony in a minute and
Then, of course, the main witness, the main focus of this is James Baker, who was the general counsel of the FBI, because Sussman decided to bring this case to the FBI, not to FBI agents, which is the way you normally bring a case to the FBI.
Or if you're a high-level muckety-muck like Sussman, maybe you go to the agent in charge of the local office or the agent in charge of fraud or political corruption or normally you would just go to a regular agent but he went to the general counsel and here's the testimony of Mr. Baker because that's really the core of the case.
The charge is 18 United States Code section 1001 used a lot in federal court.
I can't tell you how often I use that statute in indictments.
I can almost recite what it says.
I wrote it so often when I was a kid before I was in charge of a lot of people and tried a lot of cases like this.
1001 very simply is a deliberate false statement to the government in an important matter that's material.
So, you know, if you get your birth date wrong, Or you're a woman and you don't want to tell people how old you are, and there's no significance of that to the case, then that's a false statement, but it's immaterial and it doesn't violate 1001.
It has to be given to the government, it's got to be false, and it has to have some effect on the case.
It can't just be some silly thing like, you know, did you ever dye your hair?
No.
Well now, if you look differently at some point, and that would identify you as being part of a crime, And you say you didn't dye your hair, then that could be a false statement.
But if it's just your vanity, then it isn't.
Okay, so here's the false statement summarized very, very simply.
On September 19, 2016, Mr. Sussman, as a lawyer, comes into the office of the General Counsel of the FBI.
Now, you've got to begin with the fact he got special treatment.
You are not going to get to see the General Counsel of the FBI, I assure you.
Even if you're a lawyer, you're not going to get to see the General Counsel of the FBI.
He got to see the General Counsel of the FBI because he's got big connections to the Democratic Party, and at this point, I'd have to say the FBI was operating more like the state police for the Democratic Party than what we would think of as our FBI.
So he was given this very special meeting, and he told Baker a story, a very serious allegation about Donald Trump.
Late in the campaign, September 19, 2016, already the issue of Russian collusion had come up, and to give it substance, he said that he had very solid information, That Trump servers at the Trump Organization had a direct link to the Alpha Bank in Moscow, which is a bank really controlled by the Russian government and used by the Russian government.
And of course, that would be devastating Proof that Trump's denials that he had anything to do with Russia were totally false, and that the allegations that there was a Russia connection, which so far had no substance to them, might have some real substance to them.
So, in that sense, it's a very, very important allegation.
Now the question is, how did Sussman present this?
He presented it Baker says, let me see if I have his testimony here because it's pretty darn, it's pretty darn, it's pretty darn, said that right at the very beginning of the meeting, Baker says right at the very beginning of the meeting, Sussman
He said he was not appearing before me on behalf of any particular client, Baker recalled during the testimony.
And that he had information about a surreptitious communications, or a surreptitious communications channel between Alpha Bank, which he described as being connected to the Kremlin in Russia, and a part of the Trump Organization in the United States.
And Baker said he was 100% confident he said that in the meeting.
Baker went on to say he would have agreed to meet with Sussman if he knew Sussman was there acting on behalf of the Clinton campaign.
That would have raised a very serious question in his mind about the credibility of the testimony and the conflict, particularly with all of the things going on with the Clinton investigation at that point.
He would have then, you know, referred it right over to the Clinton squad to be investigated.
And certainly, that would have been put as a qualifier on the credibility of this allegation, which was very, very serious.
Now, the question is, did he say this?
Well, Baker is 100% sure.
In the cross-examination of Baker, it was revealed that at other times he wasn't as sure.
We'll go over that in a moment.
Think your homeowner's insurance covers home title fraud?
Think again.
And neither does your Common Identity Theft Program.
The FBI calls home title fraud one of the fastest-growing crimes, which is why you need to go to HomeTitleLock.com, America's leader in home title protection.
Here's the problem.
The deed to your home is the only document that proves you own it.
And the deeds to all of our homes now are online.
In minutes, a criminal can find and forge your name off the deed to your home and refile as the new owner.
Like Jeff, who spent a fortune in legal fees after a thief forged himself onto the deed to Jeff's home and took out loans.
Jeff didn't have home title lock then, he does now.
Or Deborah, who thought her common identity theft service would protect her.
Then a criminal got onto the deed to her home and had her evicted.
Deborah has Home Title Lock now.
HomeTitleLock.com is your peace of mind.
And the deed to your home is protected.
Visit HomeTitleLock.com.
HomeTitleLock.com.
So let's first look at the things that bolster the credibility of Baker's version of events.
That he was told by Sussman, falsely, that he didn't represent a client.
First, he says he has 100% recollection of it.
Second, the day before a text was sent to him by Sussman, in which he says, straight out, and we'll put the text up on the screen so you can see it, He says he'd be coming on my own, not on behalf of a client or company.
I want to help the Bureau.
So, based on that, there's evidence that he said it the day before.
The Durham prosecutors in Durham Felt that that was the false statement, because by reference, it's kind of incorporated into the meeting the next day, putting the meeting on a false basis.
But the judge very strictly ruled that the, this is a little complicated now, that the text is not the crime.
In other words, the text doesn't complete the crime of false statement.
The text is black and white, you can't really dispute it.
So he struck the text and corrected the indictment from that point of view and instructed the jury that way.
However, he did allow them to put the text in evidence and argue that it supports its evidence.
Basically, if he wrote it the day before, why wouldn't he say it the next day?
So it's evidence of the fact that Sussman lied to Baker, but it's not definitive proof and it's not the charge itself.
The fact of the lie is then buttressed by the fact that immediately, as Sussman transmits it to his colleagues to be further investigated, he makes it clear that Sussman told him, this is not on behalf of a client.
And one of them One of them writes down, I believe this is correct, writes down, well when he gives it to agent Bill Prestep, Bill Prestep said, not doing this for any client.
That's written and in evidence.
Prestep recorded it in notes that he took during the call.
So he described it a day or two later as he told me he wasn't there on behalf of a client.
Then again, Baker alerted James Comey, Andrew McCabe, the deputy director, and Tricia Anderson,
who was a lawyer for the FBI.
And he alerted them that Sussman came in, gave this evidence that there was a connection
between the Trump Organization and the Moscow Kremlin Alpha Bank.
But Anderson also made a note, no specific clients.
Well, that would seem pretty darn clear, right?
But, in the cross-examination, the defense claimed that his recollection was clear as mud, that at other times, for example, in July of 2019, which is a couple years later, he told Horowitz, the Inspector General, that the data came from some of people that were his clients.
But he didn't say who the clients were.
Some number of people that were his clients Well, of course the information actually came from Jaffe who was his client as well Baker said he used that language as a shorthand way to describe the people with whom he was connected and that it wasn't a contradiction of his earliest statement And that He couldn't recall taking any action to conceal Sussman's identity from other FBI employees.
And some FBI employees say that they weren't given Sussman's identity.
So those are the attacks on Baker's credibility as to the question of, did Sussman lie and say that he wasn't representing a client?
Now, it is clearly a lie because he billed He billed the campaign and Hillary Clinton for the meeting, specifically.
There's some argument that it doesn't say, you know, meeting to give false story to FBI, but you don't really need that.
It's quite clear that they're billing for that particular meeting.
And then a series of other FBI agents testified and To this evidence, but all of them in the dark, apparently, that this was coming from the Clinton campaign, that this wasn't some neutral piece of evidence from a well-regarded informant, but this was a piece of evidence from a highly paid lawyer for the Clinton campaign.
And of course, that would have changed That would have changed the context of this dramatically.
And then you end up with the argument being made that the FBI really knew That this was being done on behalf of the Clinton campaign and therefore it wasn't material.
Kind of like the game they played with Flint where it's hard to see how that statement was material when they already knew the answer to it.
Now that didn't work for Flint.
But after all, we learned a long time ago that we don't have equal justice in America anymore.
That's a thing of the past.
Because the judge here has been nothing less than outrageous in the way he's handled this case.
I mean, first, to exclude this, not only the evidence of the email the day before as a false statement, not the evidence of the email, but the charge that it's a false statement.
Now, excluding that is extremely damaging because there you can have no dispute as to whether Sussman lied.
You don't have to rely on the recollection of the FBI agent.
Let me read it to you again because you'll see how significant it is that the judge overruled Durham's request as to the way this should be treated.
Jim.
Obviously they knew each other well, right?
Jim, it's Michael Sussman.
I have something time-sensitive, paren-sensitive, I need to discuss.
Do you have availability for a short meeting tomorrow?
Important part now, this is in emphasis added.
I'm coming on my own, not on behalf of a client or company.
Want to help the Bureau.
So, this is very, very technical.
When Durham indicted Sussman, he didn't have this memo.
He indicted him based on The testimony of Baker that Sussman didn't identify his client and then Baker's subsequent repetition of that to three or four different FBI agents who made a record of it.
This was discovered in preparation for trial.
The statute of limitations, believe it or not, because unfortunately, and I have a very, very big objection to this, Durham has taken so damn long with this investigation, This is not the way I believe serious federal crime should be investigated.
The longer an investigation goes, the more statute of limitations happen, recollections start to fail, things disappear.
A good prosecutor is an expeditious, fast prosecutor.
Sorry, Durham.
You failed the good prosecutor test.
I know they all adore you.
I don't.
You take too damn long.
Too damn long, health to defense.
Always.
Always.
So, in any event, here's an example of it.
If he had brought this case two years ago, he'd go right back to the grand jury, change the indictment, make it this false statement, and you can't even dispute this.
He wrote it himself.
I mean, the only one who can get away with this is Hunter Biden, because he's got about 50 of these where he would be convicted just on what he has in his text, but the FBI and the crooked Attorney General are covering that up.
But here we got it, and nobody's going that far for Sussman.
So the judge has this contorted ruling that this doesn't merge into the charge.
And I don't see how it doesn't.
I mean, they have the meeting the next day.
He gets this piece of paper the night before.
And then they meet.
This merges into the meeting.
This becomes a statement at the meeting.
It's the basis on which the meeting took place.
And, of course, it gives very, very strong evidence that he must have said the same thing then.
But even if he didn't, it would seem to me it's incorporated by reference, by not having been denied or corrected.
That's what I think a fair judge would have ruled.
There's no question this judge appointed by Obama was not and is not a fair judge.
He also excluded a good deal of evidence about the surrounding circumstances involving Hillary Clinton, involving the two FBI struck and page, the FBI lovers, Christopher Steele, The whole context in which this took place.
So this becomes a straight out, is Sussman telling the truth?
Isn't he telling the truth?
And is it important?
If he didn't tell the truth, is this important?
Well, on that issue, FBI agents testify that had they known, they would have investigated entirely differently, and they would have preserved the chain of custody in a different way.
So, it seems to me, unless you really, really have a jury that just wants to acquit, and you may, that they do satisfy the materiality standard.
In fact, they satisfy all the standards.
This judge, who obviously is doing everything he can to get Sussman acquitted, has not thrown the case out.
Because if he were to do that, that could be reviewed on appeal.
And the case could be reinstated and it could be given to another judge.
If he lets it go to the jury and the jury acquits, the government cannot appeal.
You might not know that, but the judge could have made any serious number of errors and it never gets reviewed.
Once a jury finds you not guilty, even if it's based on false evidence, false instructions, over.
Over.
Double jeopardy.
Says that it's over.
Well, let's take a short break, and then we'll be back, and then we'll try to put this in a bigger context.
I mean, what does this all mean, win or lose?
Not long ago, Mike Lindell, the inventor of MyPillow, and his team fit me for my very own MyPillow.
They also introduced me to their wide assortment of other incredible products, like their mattress topper, their sheets, towels, slippers, and more.
Sleep is incredibly important to me, and I can assume for all of you.
It's time you give MyPillow a try and see for yourself.
Listeners have helped build MyPillow into the incredible company it is today, and Mike Lindell wants to give back to all of you.
You can get great discounts on MyPillow products by going to mypillow.com right now and seeing each of the specially priced items, including those in the Radio Listener Special Square.
You're going to see rotational offers up to 66% off on products like their pillows, mattress topper, geezer sheets, but also new products like their slippers, weighted blankets, robes, and waffle blankets.
All MyPillow products come with a 60 day money back guarantee.
Enter promo code Rudy for these great specials.
That's MyPillow.com and use the promo code Rudy.
Welcome back.
And now, we'll put this in a larger context.
First of all, is he going to be convicted?
Is he going to be acquitted?
If we base it on the evidence in the trial, it more than meets the reasonable doubt standard.
There's no question that he met with suspect.
From the text the night before, there's no question he said he didn't represent a client.
And from the bills that are put out, there's no question that he was representing a client, and that client was Hillary Clinton.
And this guy Jaffe, who prepared what turns out to be, without any question, a false piece of evidence.
There was no connection of any kind between the Trump service and the Russia bank.
This was as false as the entire Russian hoax story was false.
This is an outrageous presentation to develop a false charge against a presidential candidate four or five days before the election because you knew you were going to get your head kicked in, which you did.
One writer said, you know, October surprises happen all the time, but they usually have some truth to it.
For example, there was a similar October surprise against the second Bush that he had a DUI when he was a youngster that he had never disclosed.
Kind of a cheap thing to bring out at the end, but true.
This is a cheap thing to bring out at the end that you made up.
It seems to me that's criminal, not political, that's criminal.
And then you bring it to the FBI, and then the protectors come in for Queen Hillary and say that that would be Mock, the campaign manager, and Elias, the lawyer who had a lot to do with the election problems as well, and they say, We knew about this, this allegation.
We weren't sure of it completely.
We didn't know that Sussman was going to bring it to the Bureau, nor did he ask our permission.
We wouldn't have allowed him to do that.
And we weren't exactly sure of it, but we gave it out to the press anyway.
And we had Hillary comment on it as if it were true.
Wow!
Wow!
What scummy people, huh?
They knew it wasn't true.
You don't think they knew the whole thing?
What are they?
Yeah, they do think we're stupid.
Well, then they really get lucky when they get Judge Cooper, boy!
These are some of the people he left on the jury and didn't strike.
And remember, the government and the defense have two types of challenges.
Challenges they can exercise on their own, preemptory challenges, and then they have a challenge for cause.
And in many cases, those are up to the judge.
So here's who the judge let on the jury, and they did not have enough of their own peremptory challenges to exclude them because there were far worse people that had to be excluded.
Pretty hard to believe to be worse than this, but here's what we got.
We have a woman whose child knows Sussman's daughter.
Maybe.
Just maybe.
You might argue you could let that go if the woman said, I could be fair.
Second one, man who donated to Hillary Clinton, gone.
Come on.
Come on.
You know that people in this day and age, their predisposition about this, particularly if they're political and they donate, they almost can't see the truth anymore.
They've become... I don't think it's unfair to say they've become brainwashed.
How about man who donated to Hillary Clinton.
We got that one.
Then a woman who may have donated to Hillary Clinton.
The may should be turned into yes or no.
And if the may is a yes, she should have been stricken from the jury.
And if it's a no, obviously, then she should be on the jury.
But it shouldn't be a may.
Now, as I said, the government has no way of appealing this.
You're stuck with Obama's judge's ruling.
And don't tell me the judges don't rule according to their political party.
All judges don't.
There are good judges.
Hey, an Obama-appointed judge in that very district dismissed me from the January 6th case, saying that nothing that he saw justified a claim that I had anything to do with the violence.
And he threw Donald Jr.
out of the case also.
Well, thank you, judge.
Overcame whatever bias you have as I have always tried to do whenever I acted in cases.
I remember once Republicans bringing me a case against a Democratic vice presidential candidate right in the middle of the campaign.
I told him I wasn't going to investigate her until the campaign was over.
And it involved a president that I loved and would have done anything for except something wrong.
Then, now this one here, woman whose husband worked for the Clinton campaign.
I mean, bye-bye.
Bye.
He's gone.
I should tell you, before I tried as many cases as I did as a federal prosecutor, she was a defense lawyer, most as a federal prosecutor.
I was also a law clerk to a federal trial judge.
So this is not unknown to me.
I've gone through hundreds of jury selections from all different points of view, including being on a jury myself.
And how about the last one?
Juror who believes legal system is racist.
This is a juror that doesn't believe in our legal system.
Our legal system is not racist.
There's nothing racist at all about our legal system.
If you believe our legal system is racist, you believe our legal system is unfair.
You shouldn't be on a jury.
And it also gives you a sense of the predisposition that juror is going to have with regard to what, you know, turns out to be a very, very political case.
Now, let's take the bigger picture, because I would say that if I were judging this case in most jurisdictions of the United States, except in crooked Democrat big cities, this is a conviction.
Easy one.
three-hour deliberation conviction. I would be surprised if they convicted me.
I know something about the tremendous bias in Washington, D.C.
It's much worse than the rest of the country.
I represented a client, a young woman who was tortured in the D.C.
school system for merely having carried a Trump sign.
A lucky, strong young woman who was able to handle it, although damaged by it.
But, I mean, to the point of getting things suggesting that she'd kill herself.
How about one extraordinary text that said, almost like a kind one, I feel sorry for you being in the system.
I mean, Republicans really shouldn't come to D.C.
schools.
We're 98% Democrat.
It may be weird where you are.
It's sure pretty weird in parts of New York and Los Angeles.
I mean, they got really strange ideas, these Democrats.
They've gone off the left cliff, and they're going into, like, the last couple of chapters of Mao, Lenin, Marx, Alinsky, and any other communists they can get their hands on.
But nothing like D.C.!
I'd be shocked if they could come back with a fair verdict, and I would be delighted.
I'd be delighted for the scales of justice because it breaks my heart to see an America where we do not have a fair justice system.
You can't possibly say that we do when you see all the things that Hunter Biden has done for which he is not prosecuted and other people are prosecuted for things that We're not even sure of crimes.
Well, let's just sum it up.
Case solid as hell.
Conclusion?
Sounds like we're in Biden justice territory.
However, the facts that emerged from the case are devastating.
This is all part of a plan.
It fits in.
The minute we've had Hillary knowing about it, she's finished.
Now they tried to protect the Queen by saying she knew about it, but she didn't know about it being given to the FBI, but she knew about it being given to the press.
In other words, she's a sneaky leaker of a false story of major proportions that the FBI at that point already knows is untrue, that the CIA knows is untrue.
That silly story then goes on for four years of investigation for $45 million of federal money.
Obama knew it was untrue.
Brennan told him.
Hillary during that period of time had to have found out it was untrue.
Don't let it go ahead.
So the FBI investigated.
And put America through torture based on an allegation that they concluded in one day was false, and the CIA concluded it a few days later.
It was communicated by Brennan to Obama, and then Hillary's people went crazy with it.
But it was part of an overall thing that the judge wouldn't be allowed to be proved because they met with Christopher Steele as well.
History has been served by this case.
It may result in an acquittal.
Everyone knows it shouldn't.
This could be, you know, might almost be worse in point of view of how dramatic the wrongdoing here is if this becomes an acquittal, because it's so obviously a conviction.
But what will not go away is the evidence that they were forced to give to keep her out of that criminal charge that's going to involve her in another, which is that she knew about this, She knew about this claim that the Trump Organization was connected to the Alpha Bank.
She knew it was developed by their cybersecurity people being paid by her law firm.
They admit that they weren't sure of it.
Mook testifies they weren't sure of it.
But they leaked it anyway four days before the election.
Any communication between them and the FBI would have concluded in the FBI telling them, and they basically controlled the FBI, that this was a false charge.
But at least we got them with, they weren't sure it was correct and they put it out anyway.
And then obviously, very quickly found out it was false and let it go on for four years.
That's got to be pursued further.
And that now gets you into the moment he's elected.
President and sworn in.
It gets you trying to depose the awfully elected President of the United States based on a false, fraudulent, and perjured story.
Well, that's conspiracy to defraud the United States.
Sounds like it might be sedition, too, Hillary.
The story's not over.
It's just beginning.
Thank you, and stay tuned.
There's plenty more to this.
I know it's coming out slowly, but don't you see?
We're being vindicated.
Left and... I should say left and right.
We only get vindicated on the right.
The left doesn't publish any of this.
That's why you gotta listen to RudyGiulianiCS.com.
You're not gonna hear this from the anti-American big media, the anti-American big tech, and the anti-American Democratic Party.
They'll censor all this.
But you'll hear it from me and my colleagues.
That's why it's important to subscribe.
You'll keep up on all this and you'll have the facts that are being held behind the iron curtain of censorship, which is breaking down.
We're well over 50% now with people who doubt the integrity of the election.
2,000 meals, give it another month or two, it's going to blow the whole thing open.
This is going to blow open too.
It's a shame that Durham doesn't move a little faster, but it's going to come out.
It's all there.
Keep watching RudyGiulianiCommonSense.com.
Hit subscribe so we can keep you up to date on everything going on and very soon we're going to begin something new and something really important that we have to move with very very quickly and that is an alert about the rhinos who have really hurt our party.
And created sometimes more damage than the Democrats.
Like, for example, helping to create this January 6th committee, which is a disgrace.
I mean, Republicans shouldn't have helped create it.
Those Republicans, some of them have resigned, but they've got to be defeated.
So that we can have... A house divided against itself can't stand.
We got big battles to fight here.
Peacefully.
Politically.
To do that, we gotta be united.
Behind an America First program, I think we all know it.
And I think we all know who the traitors are.
But, we're gonna start giving you their names.
Starting next week.
Follow up.
Help their opponents.
This is how we win our government back.
This is how we save our government.
This is how we save our democracy and our values.
Thank you.
God bless you.
Have a solemn Memorial Day.
Use it to remember the people who died, your family, all of the rest, the great sacrifices made in America.
And use it as a refutation of all of the calumny and defamation of our great nation by the New York Times in 1619, You know, there's a poll conducted every day that proves they're vicious liars.
You know what that poll is?
All the people trying to come into the United States and not wanting to go anywhere else.
We may not be perfect and we surely are not, but we're the best there ever was.
And we're always striving for a more perfect union.
That's why you say, thank God that I'm an American.
And my tremendous gratitude to those who sacrificed their lives to give us what we have.
▲
Export Selection