Court Testimony Shows How Spygate Conspirators Deceived The FBI
…Baker treated Sussmann as a confidential source and kept Sussmann’s identity secret from other agents. As a result, agents investigating the supposed Trump-Alfa Bank network were kept in the dark concerning Sussmann’s role in bringing the data to the FBI. Consequentially, agents were also unaware of Joffe’s role in procuring the data and whitepapers.
Sussmann’s Legal team claimed the HC campaign would not have wanted Sussmann to pass the Alfa Bank information to the FBI, his legal team also challenged the prosecution’s case byarguing that Joffe had no reason to use Sussmannto share the Alfa Bank info with the FBI; because Joffe was a CHS for the FBI.
Questioning last week by Sussmann’s lawyers, that in September 2016, when Sussmann was meeting with Baker on behalf of Joffe, Joffe had presented FBI Special Agent Tom Grasso a copy of the Alfa Bank whitepaper, under the presumption that Grasso served as Joffe’s handler. Those questions seemingly served to counter the prosecutor’s claims that Joffe used Sussmann to sidestep his handler.
However, yesterday when the defense had Grasso testify on behalf of Sussmann,Grasso revealed that he was not Joffe’s handler. Rather, Grasso, who knew and had a long working relationship Joffe as a CHS.
Questioning of Grasso, Sussmann’s lawyers attempted to bolster their argument that Sussmann was rightly concerned with the “intel” Joffe shared and thus gave it to Baker out of a concern for national security. Butthe plan backfiredwhen on cross-examination Grasso revealed several facts damaging to Sussmann’s defense and supportive of the prosecution’s legal theory of “a look, a leak, and a lie.”
First, Grasso testified that “in Oct 2016,” the tech exec had “called Agent Grasso and provided some info on the ties between the Alfa Bank/Trump Organization. Joffe further informed Agent Grasso that there was an ongoing investigation on this matter, something Agent Grasso had been unaware of”
That testimony is significant because it shows thatwithin two weeksof Sussmann meeting with Baker, Joffe knew the FBI had launched an investigation into the Alfa Bank “intel,” even though FBI agents testified that they were holding the investigation “close.” The only logical explanation for Joffe’s knowledge is that he knew of the Alfa Bank investigation because Sussmann told Joffe that he had given the data to the FBI.
Grasso also testified that “Joffe specifically asked him not to disclose his identity to other people in the FBI.” Grasso said, Joffe claimed he wanted to stay anonymous because “this is very sensitive information. People’s safety could be at risk.” Because of that request, Grasso did not contact Joffe’s handler to inform him that Joffe had provided Grasso supposed intel—something he had done in the past when Joffe gave him information.
Joffe’s demand for anonymity with Grasso parallels the tech executive’s alleged use of Sussmann to take his anonymous tip of the Alfa Bank hoax first to the FBI and then later to the CIA. It alsofurther refutesSussmann’s argument that Joffe had nothing to gain by having Sussmann go to the FBI with the tip on his behalf. Clearly
During his cross-examination of Grasso, lead prosecutor introduced this theory to the jury when he asked Grasso “whether he knows whatcircular reportingis and whether he has ever encountered someone planting information with two different parts of the FBI so it looks corroborating.” While Grasso responded that he had “never encountered that,” the special counsel is sure to stress in its closing argument that the evidence suggests that is precisely what happened here.
That is why it wasimperativethat Sussmann lie to Baker—so that his client Joffe could feed the Alfa Bank theory to other parts of the FBI and thereby bolster the theory of Russia collusion.https://thefederalist.com/2022/05/26/court-testimony-shows-spygate-conspirators-deceived-the-fbi-using-same-strategy-twice/