More Details on Plot to Frame Trump Are Oozing Out of the Swamp

0
98
Plot

The latest developments to come oozing out of the swamp, in the plot to frame former President Donald Trump, are focused on “YotaPhones.” It appears that Sussmann engineered that scandal, too. John Durham and his special team of investigators have been really busy in recent weeks, which has Hillary Clinton and her evil minions really nervous.

Part of the plot

Fresh details are swirling around over more bogus Trump-Russia collusion allegations pushed by Michael Sussmann at the CIA, as part of his plot to frame Trump. This new information involves ultra-high tech Russian “YotaPhones.” In his late-night surprise filing on Friday April 15, Durham released a lightly redacted version of an official CIA “memorandum for the record,” written the day the agency met with Sussmann, February 9, 2017.

Right after Donald Trump’s inauguration, Democratic cybersecurity lawyer Michael Sussmann had a little chat with CIA spooks, where he “linked former President Donald Trump to these phones.” Trump supposedly used a Russian spy phone from “locations near the White House and elsewhere.” These incidents were said to extend back as far as 2016, while Donald Trump’s campaign was in full swing. CIA officials thought it was bullcrap and Durham does too. That’s why he filed formal charges against Sussmann for “lying to the FBI” by “concealing his clients.

Before his deceptive plot to feed false intelligence to CIA agents, Sussmann tried to peddle his propaganda to Hillary Clinton Fan Club members at the Federal Bureau of Instigation. In September of 2016, before the election, Sussmann had a similar clandestine meeting with FBI general counsel James Baker. He met with the bureau’s official lawyer to to push since-debunked claims of a secret back channel between Trump’s Organization and Russia’s Alfa Bank. At that time, those clients happened to be Hillary Clinton’s 2016 presidential campaign and “Tech Executive-1,” now confirmed as “former Neustar executive Rodney Joffe.” Sussmann lied to the FBI. Then, lied again when he concealed Joffe at his meeting with the CIA in early 2017.

Following standard procedure, the CIA documented everything Sussmann told them. He obviously lied when he told them that his contacts had gathered information “indicating that a Russian-made Yota phone had been seen by them connecting to WiFi from the Trump Tower in New York, as well as from a location in Michigan, at the same time that then-candidate Trump was believed to be at these locations.” He also was fibbing when he claimed that “the Yota phone was seen connecting to WiFi from the Executive Office of the President” in December 2016. That would be the oval office of the White House.

It’s previously been reported about this evil plot that Durham’s latest filing has revealed that the CIA concluded in early 2017 the Alfa Bank information was not “technically plausible,” was “user created,” “contained gaps,” and “conflicted with [itself].” The YotaPhone conspiracy was just as fabricated. That’s why Sussmann’s lawyers are jumping up and down, objecting to the various statements made to the CIA being introduced as evidence. The heavy duty part of the filing comes in relation to an earlier Jan. 31, 2017, meeting Sussmann had with “Former Employee-1.

That person was a former employee of the CIA. Durham included “a heavily redacted copy of an email that the former CIA employee sent to someone referred to as ‘Employee 14.’” In that email, “Sussmann said that he represents a CLIENT who does not want to be known, but who had some interesting information about the presence and activity of a unique Russian made phone around President Trump.” The activity started in April 2016 when then President elect Trump was working out of the Trump Tower on its Wi-Fi network. “After his move to the White House, the same phone surfaced on the EOB network.” EOB refers to Executive Office Building.

Given as Russian gifts

Sussmann suggested that “only dozen or so of these phones are present in the U.S.” Also, “the CLIENT claims that double screen YotaPhones are often given by Russian government officials as gifts.” The trial is scheduled to start in May and Durham is counting on being able to use all of it in front of a jury.

It doesn’t matter if Sussmann lied intentionally as part of an evil Deep State plot or not. “regardless of whether this statement was true, partially true, or — as the Government contends — false and misleading, the statement is admissible because it provides crucial context for the defendant’s meeting and the other statements he made.

As noted in the CIA documents, Sussmann told them he had met with the FBI’s attorney “on a similar, though unrelated, matter.” That was a total lie and proves it was an intentional plot. He met with the bureau to talk about the exact same things. Durham called him out on it in the paperwork, arguing that Sussmann’s statements were “misleading.” That puts it mildly. “Information regarding the Alfa Bank allegations that he had pushed to the FBI was among the materials Sussmann provided to the CIA.” That proves it was related. During the February 2017 CIA meeting, the defendant made it all sound so innocent.

Sussmann “provided both written documents and thumb drives which he claimed contained data related to potential Russian activities connected to then Presidential candidate/elect Trump.” He lied to the CIA when “Mr. Sussmann advised that he was not representing a particular client and the information he was volunteering to us was not privileged.” Durham also suggests he told the agency, “his contacts wished to provide information to the U.S. government through Mr. Sussmann, preferring anonymity citing a potential threat from the Russian Intelligence Services.

This time around, he didn’t bother to hide his connection to Hillary Clinton. He simply claimed it didn’t matter to his plot. The meeting notes say that Sussmann “was up front” that his law firm supported the Democratic National Committee and the Clinton campaign “but that such work was unrelated to his reasons for contacting the CIA.

He didn’t tell them he ordered the research project. Durham told the judge that what he fed the CIA was an intentional attempt to “deceive” the CIA “by prompting them to act on information without truthfully describing or disclosing the relevant background, including the fact that the FBI had already been made aware of the allegations.

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here