Another development for in-the-weeds enthusiasts of the Durham-Sussmann case: the defense has a new filing with a bunch of handwritten notes of a March 6, 2017, FBI meeting attended by Baker at which there was knowledge that Sussmann had a client. /1
https://pacer-documents.s3.amazonaws.com/36/235637/04519212888.pdf
The defense appears to be planning to use this to suggest that Sussmann at the meeting itself or early subsequent phone calls made clear that he had a client, making things murkier. And to point out that Durham apparently didn't show these notes to Baker to refresh his memory. /2
The previous notes ("d/n say who client was") were from Mary McCord, the head of DOJ national security division. These are from Tashina Gauhar, a top intelligence oversight DOJ official: /3
The were also trying to figure out Trump's outlandish tweet accusing Obama the "bad (or sick) guy" of having wiretapped Trump Tower during the campaign, whether there was anything that could be a garbled version of./4
The notes attached to the filing also show a snapshot of Trump-Russia investigation generally at that point in time, including discussion of Manafort, Flynn, Page, Papadopoulos, etc./5
I want to study all this more, but for now:/end
Exhibit A is Tashina Gauhar: https://pacer-documents.s3.amazonaws.com/36/235637/04519212889.pdf
Ex B is Mary McCord https://pacer-documents.s3.amazonaws.com/36/235637/04519212890.pdf
Ex C is the calendar invite showing who was there
https://pacer-documents.s3.amazonaws.com/36/235637/04519212891.pdf
Ex D is Scott Schools
https://pacer-documents.s3.amazonaws.com/36/235637/04519212892.pdf
P.S. I think this is them puzzling over the Louise Mensch / Heat Street thing
Originally tweeted by Charlie Savage (@charlie_savage) on May 9, 2022.
*****
The judge in the Sussmann-Durham case has issued a ruling about a number of evidentiary issues. May write about this later, but for in-the-weeds enthusiasts here's my preliminary read of the takeaways: /a
https://pacer-documents.s3.amazonaws.com/36/235637/04519212781.pdf
1 – Emails among researchers with Joffe can’t come in
2 – Emails from FusionGPS to press can come in
3 – Joffe "VIPs" email can’t come in
4 – Joffe “was going to get a cybersecurity job” email can’t come in
/b (cont'd)
5 – Joffe "what would a security expert/non DNS expert think of this white paper" email can come in
6 – Anderson/Priestap notes can come in only if Baker’s memory is challenged and then Anderson/Priestap testify they don’t remember the conversations (I think)
/c (cont'd)
7 – What Sussmann said to CIA in February 2017 can come in
8 – How the Yotaphone data was gathered/analyzed and what the CIA did with it and thought about it can’t come in
/d (cont'd)
9 – No order to immunize Joffe so he'll agree to testify as defense witness, but prosecutors are forbidden from raising whether Joffe’s role in the collection
effort was somehow “objectionable” or illegal so judge says maybe he'll choose to testify w/out immunity
/e (cont'd)
Notably, judge declined to hold "a time-consuming & largely unnecessary mini-trial to determine the existence & scope of an uncharged conspiracy to develop and disseminate the Alfa Bank data" & portrayed that theory as foggy.
f/end
Originally tweeted by Charlie Savage (@charlie_savage) on May 7, 2022.