As previously reported, the FBI was so closely tied to Michael Sussmann, former Hillary Clinton lawyer that it had a workspace within Perkins Coie. Sussmann held an FBI badge which gave him special government access. Perkins Coie was, of course, the law firm that represented Hillary Clinton throughout her 2016 campaign and its aftermath.
Perkins Coie’s response to Jordan and Gaetz’s letters indicates that the law firm had maintained the space for more than a decade starting in 2012. Carlson claimed that the space was still operational today. Gaetz said it was Sussmann, who was “operating this secure workplace environment.” Gaetz asked. Given the work they are doing together, what leverage would Perkins law firm have on the FBI?
Tucker Carlson made the shocking disclosure on Tuesday evening, shortly after Sussmann had been acquitted of lying to the FBI. There was overwhelming evidence, including receipts, that he was paid to disinformation about Donald Trump for the bureau. Given the behavior of the judge and jury, Durham was not given a chance.
It seems that the FBI still has many questions. What is the point of a government agency continuing to work within a law firm representing Hillary Clinton, even though she was being investigated? The FBI did actually “investigate her” over her illegal email server. Was that a conflict of interests? It was certainly a conflict of interests to be so closely linked to Sussmann.
The FBI is not innocent in this case, which I think was evident from the exchange last week between Sen. John Kennedy and FBI Director Christopher Wray suddenly makes more sense.
Watch the video to see Kennedy directly asking Wray if Sussmann had a special badge that granted him access to FBI Headquarters. Wray dodges the question and says he cannot discuss it as it is an ongoing case. He wants to “do it right”.
What does this question have to do with the Sussmann case, which was settled a few days after the exchange? It has nothing to do. Wray could have answered the question completely without interfering with the trial, but he chose not to. Why didn’t he?
Kennedy asked Wray about Sussmann and Perkins Coie in another clip. Wray refused to answer the question again, but I was struck by one aspect of his answer.
I will be very careful not to get into a discussion about a case currently before a strong-willed and independent federal judge and jury.
Kennedy is not asking any questions in these exchanges that have to do with Sussmann lying about the FBI. Therefore, it’s impossible to say that he cannot discuss these matters. Wray could easily have answered the questions without having to contradict anything Durham was doing.
The FBI director mockingly smiles as he answers his question. It almost seems as if he knew the verdict or had high confidence in it given the identity of the judge.
Ask yourself again why Wray is so evasive. Wray refuses to answer simple questions that fall within his authority. Why has he not addressed the connection between Hillary Clinton and the FBI after nearly a decade?
We know all the answers, and the revelation by the FBI that they had a Perkins Coie workspace adds clarity to Wray’s refusal of being held responsible. Kennedy should be given another chance to take on Wray. The bureau is corrupt from the bottom. It will be interesting to see if the FBI director refuses answers to the questions now that Sussmann is over.