Democrat shielding FBI officials hid embarrassing information through the unjustified excuse of protecting “national security,” The Hill asserts. What they were really covering up with self-serving magic marker redactions are their own backsides.
A smoking gun lurks in Footnote 43, on page 57, of the report which cleared President Donald Trump and his campaign of collusion with Russia. What was hidden turned out to be unclassified and what it shows could lead to indictments.
“What makes this so extraordinary is that the FBI and the DOJ would have Americans believe that a contact with a lawyer for a political party during the middle of the election is somehow a matter of national security that should be hidden from the public,” The Hill’s John Solomon explains.
The House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence report runs 130 pages not counting the attachments. In the sea of black magic marker “redactions,” which are only supposed to be used to protect national secrets, was a section easy to miss.
Between the holes, it says that the bureau’s main lawyer met with someone who gave him some information in September of 2016, “about Russia, email hacking and a possible link to the Trump campaign.” The rest of the note had to be hidden to keep the world safe, the Department of Justice decided.
Former Federal Bureau of Investigation general counsel James Baker’s testimony last Wednesday was behind closed doors but nothing he talked about was classified top secret. If it were, they would have held the meeting in a “sensitive compartmented information facility.”
Following the interrogation, word quickly leaked out that Baker testified under oath that “he had met with a top lawyer at the firm representing the Democratic National Committee and received allegations from that lawyer about Russia, Trump and possible hacking,” Solomon writes. He noticed the resemblance to the mysterious footnote.
Footnote 43 begins with seven consecutive text lines fully blacked out. The uncensored text begins, “[i]n September 2016 [redacted- likely Michael Sussmann] shared similar information in a One-on-one meeting with FBI General Counsel James Baker. HPSCI, Executive Session of [redacted], Dec. 18, 2017.”
“Around the same time as his meeting with the FBI, [redacted- likely Sussmann] shared the information with journalists, including [redacted- Franklin Foer] of Slate, who published an article at the end of October. HPSI, Executive Session of [redacted] Dec. 28, 2017; [redacted] ‘Was a Trump Server Communicating With Russia?,’ Slate, Oct. 31, 2016. Candidate Clinton promoted the [redacted- Franklin Foer] article to her social media followers the same day it was published. Twitter, @HillaryClinton, Oct.31, 2016, 4:32 PM.”
It has been widely reported that The DNC and Hillary Clinton’s campaign paid Glenn Simpson and Fusion GPS, through the DNC law firm Perkins Coie, to hire Christopher Steele to dig up the Russian dirty dossier. It has been repeatedly confirmed that the dossier was the prime evidence used to obtain a wiretap warrant against low-level Trump campaign aide Carter Page.
Now we have “a concrete storyline” Solomon insists, “backed by irrefutable evidence.”
“The FBI allowed itself to take political opposition research created by one party to defeat another in an election, treated it like actionable intelligence, presented it to the court as substantiated, and then used it to justify spying on an adviser for the campaign of that party’s duly chosen nominee for president in the final days of a presidential election.”
Michael Sussmann has been conclusively identified by various sources as the Perkins Coie attorney who was spoon feeding information to Baker. Sussmann was also leaking to “at least one journalist ahead of the FBI’s application for a FISA warrant,” Epoch Times reports.
Sussmann apparently took information he got directly from Christopher Steele, a person his firm had hired using Clinton campaign funds, and disclosed it to Baker and the press, specifically so their versions could be used in FISA court as “corroborating information,” circularly backing up Steele’s dossier.
Sussmann was outed almost immediately after Baker’s interrogation ended last Wednesday. Rep. Jim Jordan commented as he left the hearing, “During the time that the DOJ and FBI were putting together the FISA during the time prior to the election, there was another source giving information directly to the FBI, which we found the source to be pretty explosive.”
Catherine Herridge at Fox News confirms she’s convinced Sussmann is the other “source.”
The December 18, 2017 date mentioned in footnote 43 lines up with the date Michael Sussmann was interviewed by the House intelligence committee, which virtually proves that Sussmann was the individual Baker sat down with in September of 2016.
The Slate article referred to in the footnote was published the same day as one written by David Corn for Mother Jones, with the headline, “A Veteran Spy Has Given the FBI Information Alleging a Russian Operation to Cultivate Donald Trump.” There is more than a good chance that Sussmann is the source for both of these stories.
The Slate article has been totally debunked. They thought they had uncovered a secret server in Trump Tower communicating directly with a Russian bank. It turned out to be spam advertisements sent out by a travel agency. The “traffic” Foer was reporting on was simply “mass emails, related to loyalty programs, discount offers, and the like.”
But, it was enough to convince the FISA court that a wiretap on Carter Page was justified.
The plot thickens even further when the revelation that when the DNC was hacked in 2016, the first one they called was Sussmann, is factored in. According to Epoch Times, “immediately following the alleged discovery, DNC CEO Amy Dacey called Sussmann at Perkins Coie. After speaking with Dacey, Sussmann contacted Shawn Henry, CSO and president of CrowdStrike.”