Text Message Bombshell Exposes Hillary Clinton Lawyer's "Conspiracy"


Jordan Sekulow

April 6

4 min read

Election Law



We are seeing firsthand how the wheels of justice turn slowly. Back in 2016, presidential candidate Hillary Clinton’s lawyer Michael Sussman tried to take down the other presidential candidate Donald Trump over a phony Russian collusion narrative. Now, new evidence from Special Counsel John Durham’s court filing is revealing hard evidence that Sussmann lied to the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) – and the FBI might have known about it.

As we previously noted, a United States Department of Justice (DOJ) court filing, regarding Special Counsel John Durham’s investigation, states: 

As set forth in the government’s detailed indictment, on Sept. 19, 2016 – less than two months before the 2016 U.S. Presidential election – the defendant, a lawyer at a large international law firm (“Law Firm-1”), met with the FBI General Counsel at FBI Headquarters in Washington, D.C. The defendant had requested the meeting to provide the General Counsel with purported data and “white papers” that allegedly demonstrated a covert communications channel between the Trump Organization and a Russia-based bank (“Russian Bank-1”). In the course of the meeting, the defendant lied, falsely stating to the General Counsel that he was not providing the allegations to the FBI on behalf of any client. This false representation led the General Counsel to understand that the defendant was providing the information as a good citizen, rather than as a paid advocate or political operative. In fact, the defendant had assembled and conveyed the allegations to the FBI on behalf of at least two specific clients, including a technology executive (“Tech Executive-1”) at a U.S. based Internet company (“Internet Company-1”) and the Hillary Rodham Clinton Presidential Campaign (the “Clinton Campaign”).

Michael Sussmann actually texted FBI General Counsel James Baker before the meeting: 

Jim - it’s Michael Sussmann. I have something time-sensitive (and sensitive) I need to discuss. Do you have availibilty for a short meeting tomorrow? I’m coming on my own – not on behalf of a client or company – want to help the Bureau. Thanks.

Following the meeting, the FBI Assistant Director and Deputy General Counsel took notes. The notes indicated that Sussmann said he was not doing this for any client, but also stated that he represents the DNC, Clinton Foundation, etc.

In an extremely divided election between two highly known candidates, the FBI didn’t question Clinton’s lawyer coming in and wanting to share this information during the presidential election?

The DOJ stated what they expect the evidence will show at the upcoming trial:

As an initial matter, the Government expects that the evidence at trial will show that beginning in late July/early August 2016, the defendant, Tech Executive-1, and agents of the Clinton Campaign were “acting in concert toward a common goal,” Gewin, 471 F. 3d at 201-02, namely, the goal of assembling and disseminating the Russian Bank-1 allegations and other derogatory information about Trump and his associates to the media and the U.S. government.

In fact, for the first time, this Durham filing goes on to call it a “conspiracy.” ACLJ Director of Policy Harry Hutchison explained how the FBI went along with this:

My presumption is, and this is purely speculation on my part, that the FBI was probably in on the game before Sussmann came with “hard evidence.” I think there are three answers we have to think about with this particular motion. First, this particular motion provides real hard evidence that there was indeed a conspiracy even though there is no conspiracy alleged at this particular point [with regard to the FBI at least]. This motion also suggests that the evidence includes a text suggesting that there were affirmative steps taken by the Clinton campaign to implicate Trump. Third, this particular motion raises this question, and I think it’s the key question, how far does the conspiracy go? So even if a[n FBI] conspiracy is not alleged in the indictment, it is very likely that there are other key players out there and it is very likely that some of those key players are serving in the Biden Administration. So, those are some of the issues that the American people should think about.

Today’s full Sekulow broadcast is complete with even more in-depth analysis of the Durham filing.

Watch the full broadcast below