Jack - On a Maybe

Episode Date: October 10, 2021

This week: Sussman’s lawyers filed a response to the weaksauce Durham indictment as part of his oranges investigation; some breaking news out of the fifth circuit court; new House Oversight findings on a Trump loan; an update on Middle East Marshall Plan; plus the Fantasy Indictment League. Follow AG on Twitter:Dr. Allison Gill (@allisongill)https://twitter.com/MuellerSheWroteWant to support the show and get it ad-free and early?https://dailybeans.supercast.tech/Orhttps://patreon.com/muellershewrote Aura is a new type of security service that protects all of your online information and devices with one simple subscription. With an easy online dashboard and alerts sent straight to your phone, Aura keeps you in control and guides you through solving any issues. For a limited time, Aura is offering our listeners up to 40% off plans when you visit http://Aura.com/MSW. Nuts.com is a family run business committed to getting you the freshest food fast. Fresher than the supermarket and most orders ship the same day! New Nuts.com customers get free shipping on your first order when you text MUELLER to 64000. 

Season 4 of How We Win Is Here For the past four years, we've been making history in critical elections all over the country. And last year, we made history again by expanding our majority in the Senate, eating election denying Republicans and crucial state house races, and fighting back a non-existent red wave. But the Maga Republicans who plotted and pardoned the attempted overthrow of our government now control the house. Thanks to gerrymandered maps and repressive anti-voter laws. And the chaotic spectacle we've already seen shows us just how far they will go to seize

power, dismantle our government, and take away our freedoms. So, the official podcast of the persistence is back with season 4. There's so much more important work ahead of us to fight for equity, justice, and our very democracy itself. We'll take you behind the lines and inside the rooms where it happens with strategy and inspiration from progressive change makers all over the country. And we'll dig deep into the weekly news that matters most and what you can do about it, with messaging and communications expert,

co-founder of Way to Win, and our new co-host, Jennifer Fernandez-Ancona. So join Steve and I every Wednesday for your weekly dose of inspiration, action and hope. I'm Steve Pearson. And I'm Jennifer Fernandez-Ancona. And this is How We Win. Hey, it's Mariah and Steve, co-host of SwingLefts How We Win Podcast.

Two years ago, with your help, Democrats won the Tri-Fecta in Virginia. The election to keep Virginia Blue is on November 2nd, and actually early voting has already started. We're asking you to go to SwingLeft.org and help us win again. If we get voters fired up and turned out, we'll keep Virginia blue. You can't let the GOP win. A Republican victory would move Virginia backwards, and it would dramatically weaken Democrats' chances in the midterms.

Go to SwingLeft.org slash Virginia, and you can help us win. No matter where you live, you can make an impact. You can join a virtual phone bank, write letters to voters, and donate to the races that need the money the most. Let's show the GOP that we will not stop fighting for our democracy. Go to swingleft.org slash Virginia and sign up to volunteer. That is how we win. [♪ OUTRO MUSIC PLAYING [♪

Hey, all. This is Glenn Kirschner and you're listening to Mueller She wrote. So to be clear, Mr. Trump has no financial relationships with any Russian oligarchs. That's what he said. That's what he said. That's what I said. That's obviously what our position is. I'm not aware of any of those activities. I have been called a surrogate at a time, a two, in that campaign. And I didn't have, not have, communications

with the Russians. What do I have to get involved with Putin for having nothing to do with Putin? I've never spoken to him. I don't know anything about a mother than he will respect me. Russia, if you're listening, I hope you're able to find

the 30,000 emails that are missing. So, it is political. You're a communist! No, Mr. Green. Communism is just a red herring. Like all members of the oldest professional capitalist. Thank you. Hello, and welcome to Mueller, she wrote,

I'm your host, Alison Gill, the artist formerly known as A.G. Smash in the Crotch Act, otherwise known as Smash in the Hatch Act. We're just gonna open right up with some inside jokes that most people won't understand unless they've been listening for four years. Yeah, and you know what else is really cool? Is that probably 99.9% of people listening to this show will understand my next sentence.

Because the first thing that we're going to be talking about in the opening lines here and the opening headlines and the last thing we're going to talk about in the opening lines here, in the opening headlines. And the last thing we're gonna talk about in the show is that we have a response from Susman's lawyers about the weak-sauce Durham indictment as part of his orange's investigation. And I know that you get what I mean, you know, that you get me when I say those words. We have a very interesting sabotage for you

right before the fantasy indictment league. There's some breaking news out of the fifth circuit Court of Appe, and we have new house oversight findings on a Trump loan from Deutsche Bank. We have an update on the Middle East Marshall Plan, which we haven't talked about since, I think, well, we've mentioned it a few times, but episode six, season one, the kitchen table days,

the Marshall Plan episode. I recommend you take a listen to it. You have to go way back in the archives to find it. I think it came out in January of 2018. That's how old it is. But you'll want to give it a listen there. And also, if you're interested, I'm on the latest episode of the Proveil podcast with Greg Olyar. So scoot on over and check that out if you get a minute. Also, I've confirmed that beginning November 7th, the MSW Book Club will be covering here, right matters. And Colonel Vindamann, the author,

has agreed to answer Patron's questions on the final episode of that series. So order your copy today, here, right matters. And also order your copy of Mary Trump's reckoning. It's very, very good. We're covering that right now on the MSW Book Club. And we're starting up our Patrons Helping Patrons program again. So if we're just 36 bucks, you can buy a one year premium subscription of all three of these podcasts. The Mueller

She wrote MSW Book Club and the Daily Beans for just 36 bucks. You can get it for somebody who maybe can't afford to swing it right now. So to give back or to sign up to receive a donated subscription, head to dailybeanspod.com, scroll down to the main page on the bottom of the main page and look for the Patrons Helping Patrons link. And before we jump in today, we have some breaking news that is not muller related, and MMR, as they call it, Texas's six-week abortion ban is at least temporarily back in effect as of Friday night after a federal appeals court fifth-circuit paused the lower court district court order from

earlier this week that had halted the enforcement of the law. The order from the three-judge panel on the U.S. Court of Appeals for fifth-circuit granting what's known as an administrative stay is not permanent. The court will now decide whether to grant Texas's request for a longer term hold that would keep the law SB 8 in effect while the state appeals its loss to the district court. The circuit ordered the Justice Department to respond by Tuesday, 5 p.m. central time. We will see if the Department of Justice goes directly to SCOTUS with this and how the

conservative SCOTUS will act considering their inconsistent shadow docket. We've talked about that with Steve Laddick on this program on On the Beans. All right, we have a lot of news to get to so let's jump in with just the facts. All right, first up, Dick Bag, Corey Lewandowski is back in the news. He was basically a Trump donor, has told police that she felt threatened by Corey Lewandowski when he allegedly told her that he once stabbed a man in the back of the head and killed him. Trashel Odom, who is married, said in a police report that Lewandowski told her he grew up

in a bad part of Boston and his killed people while he was seated next to her at a charity event in Los Angeles. He told her this seated next to her at the charity event. He didn't kill people sitting seated next to her at a charity event in Los Angeles, he told her this seated next to her at the charity event He didn't kill people sitting seated next to her at the charity event. This past September 26th very recently Lewandowski also told trash L This isn't just a chef's kiss of a name that he stabbed someone over and over again when he was 10 years old killing the person He allegedly bragged about his sexual prowess and then showed her his hotel room key. He was staying next door to her suite

where she was staying with her sister and children. She told the police Lewandowski's behavior made her fear for her safety. He also allegedly touched her multiple times. So that's Cory for you. And I'm not surprised. Next up in the news, Flynn. Flynn, Michael Flynn is back in the news.

The former general and former Trump advisor, who thinks companies may be putting COVID vaccines in salad dressings, by the way. Allegedly received a total of $200,000 in undisclosed secret payments in 2014 and 2015 for consulting he did on a plan to build 40 nuclear power plants in the Middle East. That's the Marshall Plan, Middle East Marshall Plan.

The nuclear power plan, which never came to fruition, would have involved companies in the US, French, Canada, I guess they mean France, and Russia, constructing and managing nuclear plants in Arab nations. That's according to spy talk, a site run by a national security reporter Jeff Stein, and the paper reported that an audit of a Dutch company specializing in transport revealed the payment to Flynn. A little background, if you need it. Flynn came to the White House as Trump's national security adviser in early 2017, quickly resigned in disgrace or fired, was fired in February, after lying to the FBI about his interactions with then Russian ambassador to the US Sergei Kislyak. And it's interesting because I pulled out this

reporting from Rolling Stone and I've already found two mistakes in their reporting. As you know, he also worked as a lobbyist and a consultant to Turkey's government with Bijan Kian. Robert Mueller's team filed charges against Flynn. He pled guilty to making false statements to the FBI regarding his work for Turkey in contacts with Russia while he served as campaign adviser to Trump in 2016. Trump later issued Flynn a full and unconditional pardon in November of 2020. NRC reported that the $200,000 in payments to Flynn came from a US firm connected to the project called ACU Strategic Partners, which paid him using money it received from Mammowet, according to Internal Dutch and US corporate documents that the paper obtained.

In 2017, Spy Talk reported in Newsweek that Flynn was involved with the project, working as an unpaid advisor to ACU despite not disclosing that information on his financial disclosure form, or a later amended version of the form either. At that time, officials told Newsweek that Flynn had been repaid between $10,000 and $15,000 for travel expenses related to his time in the Middle East. The report led investigators by two house committees, investigations in two house committees, that found Flynn had not disclosed his meetings with the Middle East officials related to the nuclear project.

You remember we went over that on the Monshira podcast. According to spy talk, which spoke with NRC, who first broke the story, Carola Howticamer, Flynn did not respond to requests for comment, by the way. These previously unknown payments to Flynn are no small matter. It's crucial that public officials disclosed

any past business they conducted, as paid lobbyists to a foreign company or government. Kind of, yeah. Especially for a person serving in a position as high-powered as national security adviser, but you remember Sally Yates ran over their hair on fire saying, you gotta, chats with Kislyak and lying about it. Anyway, transparency is imperative, as we know, which is why disclosure forms and laws exist, not revealing this information can erode the public's trust and could lead to dangerous national security implications. In another story, NATO on Wednesday expelled eight members of Russia's mission to the military alliance, saying that they were secretly working as intelligence officers and halved the size of Moscow's team able to work at its headquarters.

Quote, we can confirm that we have withdrawn the accreditation of eight members of the Russian mission to NATO, who were undeclared Russian intelligence officers. That is according to a NATO official. The official was speaking under customary condition of anonymity and can't be named in public. NATO also reduced the number of positions that Russia can accredit people for at the organization from 20 to 10. No immediate clear explanation was given for the decision which will take effect at the end of the month. Although I got to say associated press, no explanation was given for the decision except in the

quote here, they were Russian intelligence officers. That seems like a reason to me, associated press. Maybe I'm wrong. Relations between NATO and Russia have been increasingly strained, as we know, since Moscow annexed Crimea in 2014, the two were at odds over Russia's nuclear missile development, aerial intrusions into NATO airspace, and the buzzing of allied ships by fighter planes. Official talks between them have been limited in recent years. NATO's this is a quote, NATO's policy toward Russia remains consistent.

We have strengthened our deterrence and defense in response to Russia's aggressive actions, while at the same time we remain open for meaningful dialogue. The main forum for dialogue, the NATO Russia Council, is stalled. Quote NATO proposed to hold another meeting of the NATO Russia Council over 18 months ago, and that proposal stands, the ball is in Russia's court. Leonid Sletsky, the chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee in the Lower House of Russian Parliament, and another chef's kiss of a name, dismissed the accusation against the Russian diplomats as baseless, and warned that NATO's move will further strain relations may.

Slutsky also told the Interfax News that Moscow could respond with asymmetric retaliatory measures, but he didn't elaborate on what that might be. I think Trishel, Odom, or Trashel should marry Leo Slutsky because there needs to be a Trashel Slutsky in the world, don't you think? We'll be right back with sabotage. You don't want to miss it today. Hey everybody, it's A.G. I've discovered an incredible website.

You need to take a look at its nuts.com. It is the best kept secret of savvy snackers and bakers worldwide. There is an outstanding selection of tasty snacks first off available. They have like bourbon, pecans, white chocolate, toffee cashews, crystallized ginger, honey sesame sticks. Every snack you can imagine and they're very, very good. Nuts.com isn't just for nut lovers, it's your one-stop pantry shop as well. They have a huge variety of stuff, including candies, dried fruits, baking mixes, pasta,

and more. Nuts.com is the easiest, most convenient way for me to always have nutritious, tasty, healthy nuts, dried fruit, flowers, grains, and so many other high-quality foods delivered directly to my front door. They have over 4,000 products to choose from, including tasty, healthy, kid-friendly snacks. The dried strawberries are my favorite, honestly. And they have custom trail mixes too. Plus all the raw organic roasted salted and candied nuts you can imagine. Even chocolate dipped.

Gluten free and vegan options are available. Nuts.com is a family-run business committed to getting the freshest food fast. Fresher than the supermarket and most orders ship the same day. New Nuts.com customers get free shipping on your first order when you text Muller, M-U-E-L-L-E-R to 64,000. So text the word Muller to 64,000 to get free shipping on your first order from Nuts.com. Again, that's Muller to 64,000. Terms apply available at Nuts.com slash terms.

Hey everybody, welcome back. We have one big damn story that dropped on Friday night, like a rock from the Washington Post. And I'm quoting Donald Trump's luxury Washington hotel lost more than $70 million when he was in office, despite reaping millions and payments from foreign governments according to federal documents released by the House Committee on Oversight and Reform on Friday. The Committee, chaired by Rep Carolyn Maloney,

released hundreds of pages of financial documents on the property Friday that it received from GSA. Remember Emily, member GSA Emily? That's the agency that issued the federally owned property to Trump's company. They leased it to Trump since 2013. Trump was required to submit documents to the GSA as a condition of his lease. Maloney and Rep Gerald Connelly, a Democrat of Virginia, alleged the documents show that Trump received an estimated $3.7 million from foreign governments and got preferential treatment from Deutsche Bank, which had previously loaned Trump $170 million to renovate the hotel. And we didn't know that this had happened.

The findings raised new and troubling questions about the former guys lease with the GSA and the agency's ability to manage the former guys conflicts of interest during his term, in office when he was effectively on both sides of the contract as landlord and tenant. Maloney and Mekonoli also wrote a 27-page letter Friday to GSA administrator Robin Carnahan, The Trump Organization called the committee's allegations irresponsible and unequivocally false. Quote, we have been great custodians of this iconic building, continued to have a great relationship with the GSA, and are in full compliance with our least-hold obligations. That is, spokeswoman Kimberly Benza simply stated this report is nothing more than a statement of the same kind of law. relationship with the GSA and are in full compliance with our least-hold obligations. That is, spokeswoman Kimberly Benza simply stated this report is nothing more than continued political harassment and a desperate attempt to mislead the American public and defame Trump

and pursuit of an agenda. Yeah, math. Hmm, the committee released documents showing it in 2017 Trump's company told the GSA, it would be required to start repaying the principle of its Deutsche Bank loan, not just the interest in August of 2018, subject to certain conditions outlined in the loan. Paying interest alone, the Trump organization owed an annual mortgage payment between $5 and $7 million. Then, in filing for 2018, Trump's company said, no principle would be due until 2024.

The financial documents did not give an explanation for the change in the wording. The House Oversight Committee said it did not know why the wording changed. It did not offer a reason for its claim that it was preferred treatment. Benza, the Trump organization spokeswoman, said the characterization was wrong. At no time did the company receive any preferential treatment for any lender. She did not offer an explanation for why the wording changed in the agreement. Deutsche Bank also disputed the committee's findings. The committee's letter, quote, makes several inaccurate statements regarding Deutsche Bank and its loan agreement. That's Bank spokesman Dan Hunter, who's probably really fun at parties.

The Constitution prohibits presidents from taking emoluments, as we know, Trump insisted that this prohibition did not apply to normal business transactions, allowing him to continue renting rooms and ballrooms to foreign states. Democrats filed lawsuits alleging he was wrong, but their case is bogged down, and no court ever ruled Trump was in violation of the clause. But his company said it would donate any profits made off foreign government businesses back to the US Treasury. Between 2017 and 2019, the company donated $448,000.

That's it. The House Oversight Committee used that figure, along with other details about the hotel's revenue and profitability, to estimate that Trump's hotel had received about $3.7 million in payments from foreign governments during those years. But the committee said this figure was not exact. And it was not clear which governments had made the payments. Before Trump entered politics, his Washington hotel symbolized the ambitions of his chain.

The Trump org converted the historic old post office pavilion into a 263-room palace near the White House and scoffed at rivals who said they paid too much and would never make any money. I mean, we are paying too much for the old post office Trump said, but we will make that so amazing that at some point in the future, it'll be very nice. After Trump won the White House, a hotel came to symbolize something else. There are blurred lines between Trump's government and his businesses.

Foreign leaders, Republican groups, companies seeking government approvals, the inaugural, all crowded into its soaring atrium. Sometimes they met Trump, the president, and paid Trump, the businessman, all in the same trip. Interesting. But through all that change, the document show the Trump hotel lost money. Even in its best years, the hotel was only about 56% full, lagging behind its competitors in the DC luxury market. Gosh, nobody in DC likes Trump. That's weird. It lost between $13 million and $22 million every year, requiring constant injections of capital.

The document showed that Trump's company poured $24 million from his company coffers to offset losses. It's interesting, right, that... Deutsche Bank would loan $170 million to somebody who can't fucking sell a hotel room to renovate the hotel as though that were the problem and then give them principal free payments until 2024. The financials reveal more about the results of an expansion spree that Trump undertook in the years before he entered politics, shifting his company away from the focus on US golf clubs and merchandising contracts and adding a string

of expensive high profile luxury hotels. I'm going to put luxury in quotes. I've seen them. They're not that great. Trump has invested more than 289 million in two golf resorts in Scotland without ever turning a profit. That's according to financial statements filed with the British government. His derail resort in Florida struggles according to public filings. New York Times reported it required Trump to inject more than 213 million in additional funding. In Washington, Trump's company tried to sell the lease for the hotel in 2019. We reported on that as soon as it's contract with the GSA allowed it to.

Then the company pulled the hotel off the market when COVID hit. When COVID hit. Hmm, when COVID hit. Interesting. Crushed the hotel business for months. Now Trump's leases for sale. Again, multiple bidders of expressed interest according to two people familiar with the sale who spoke on the condition of anonymity. Sheila Johnson, owner of the Salamander Resort and Spa

in Middleburg, Virginia, expressed interest in the property last year. But it's unknown whether she's currently pursuing the property should not respond to calls and text messages seeking comment. Trump's company has previously floated 500 million as the target price. Industry experts say it's worth well short of that, but top luxury hotel chains are likely to be interested in taking over the property and marketing it to a wider audience than Trump was able to given his politics. Trump has called investigations into hotel and finances by both Democrats on Capitol Hill

and New York prosecutors politically motivated and without merit. And a spokesperson for his company did not immediately return requests for comment Friday morning. The GSA also did not immediately respond to requests for comment. And a spokesperson from Deutsche Bank declined to comment. Trump's company spent an estimated 200 million renovating the building into a luxury hotel shortly after Trump entered the White House. The GSA ruled that his company remained in compliance with the lease. And despite a series of lawsuits and congressional hearings launched by Democrats accusing Trump of corruption and constitutional

violations, his company was able to maintain control of that hotel. Alright, everybody, it's time for Sabotage. For today's Sabotage, allow me to read to you from a court filing. Submitted 8 October 2021 in the case of the United States, V. Almaliq, Matthew Grimes, and Thomas Barich. Motion and proposed order of withdrawal as Council of Record. Pursuant to local criminal rule 1.1B and local civil rule 1.4, they undersigned respectfully request the withdrawal of Paul Hastings LLP as Council of Record for Defendant Tom Barrick, Jr. As demonstrated in the accompanying declaration of Farah Guberman,

Mr. Barrick has requested that Paul Hastings withdraw from this matter. Paul Hastings consents to this withdraw. Paul Hastings is affirmed, by the way. And respectfully requests that Farah Guberman and Matthew Herrington admitted pro-Hawk Vichet be removed as council of record from Mr. Barich. Respectfully submitted Farah Gooberman, Matthew Harrington, Paul Hastings, LLP. How's you know?

Or maybe you didn't know, but I'll tell you, I have some inside information, some rumors intelligence from a very reliable source, I think, but hasn't been confirmed in public reporting or mainstream media. But I have information that Tom Barrick is cooperating. A change in legal team like this is common when plea agreements are reached. Their work is done. These are also trial lawyers. You don't need very big expensive trial lawyers if you're

not going to trial. But I take this as an indication that a plea agreement is eminent. But again, this is speculation, but I will put beans on it. I will put my beans all the beans upon it. And you don't want to miss the fantasy indictment league after this break. We'll all be breaking down the susmen filing and response to the Durham indictment. Stay with us. after this break, where I'll be breaking down the assessment filing and response to the Durham indictment. Stay with us. Hey everybody, this segment of the show is brought to you by Aura.

Despite the dramatic changes in the way people use the internet during the past decade, security tools have largely remained the same. Aura offers complete digital security for your online accounts, finances, devices, and more, all in one easy to use app. Aura protects your online finances, personal information, and tech from online threats. It's an all in one protection from identity theft,

financial fraud, malware, scam sites, and so much more. You'll be alerted to fraudulent activity and threats very quickly with Aura. For example, if your online accounts are password are compromised or if someone tried to open a bank account in your name, Aura's solutions are easy to set up, all plans come with proactive $1 million ID theft insurance, and you can always get in touch with US-based customer support. Aura is a new type of security service that protects all of your online

information and devices with a simple subscription, with one easily online dashboard and alerts sent straight to your phone, Aura keeps you in control and guides you through solving any issues. For a limited time, Aura's offering you up to 40% off plans when you visit Aura.com-msw. That's Aura-a-u-r-a-u-r-a.com-s-m-s-w to get complete protection and savings of up to 40%. Again, Aura.com-s-m-s-w. Alright everybody, welcome back. It's time for the Fantasy Enditement League. I'm gonna be a dinosaur! No way, this is gonna be a dinosaur! Alright everybody, welcome back, it's time for the fantasy indictment league. And here it is, we have a reply to the Susman indictment. As you'll recall, a lawyer for the Clinton campaign in Perkins, Kui, named Susman, was indicted by Durham.

That's the special counsel appointed by Bill Barr, under no authority, by the way, to investigate the origins of the Trump-Russian investigation, also known as the Oranges. Durham said Susman materially lied to James Baker at the FBI and two other people at a different agency. When he said he was not handing over alpha bank information as part of his work

on the Clinton campaign or for any other client. I recommend you listen to our reporting on this extremely weak indictment from three weeks ago on this podcast called, the episodes called, on the oranges of species. I thought you'd like that. But let's see, they've responded. Susmonds lawyers have responded. And let's see, they've responded. Susmonds lawyers have responded.

And let's see what they have to say. This is in the United States District Court for DC, District of Columbia, in the United States of America, V. Susman, defendants' motion for a bill of particulars and memorandum in support. Defendant Michael A. Susman, buy and through Under Sign Council, pursuant to federal in support. Security and Cybersecurity partner at Perkins Kui LLP met alone with James Baker, alone keyword, the then general council of the FBI to alert him that a major media outlet was about to publish an article about suspicious internet contacts between the Trump organization and a certain Russian bank.

Mr. Susman arranged for this meeting on behalf of his client a cyber expert involved in identifying and analyzing relevant data underlying the suspicious internet contacts. And Susman did so to make the FBI aware of this matter which raised national security concerns and to ensure the FBI would not be caught off guard when the article was published. Special counsel John Durham now alleges, in an indictment, filed on September 16, 2021, that Susman told Mr. Baker he was not meeting with him on behalf of any client at all. At bottom, special counsel has brought a false statement charge on the basis of a purported oral statement made over five years ago for which there is only a single witness, Mr.

Baker. For which there is no recording, and for which there are no contemporaneous notes by anyone who was actually in the meeting. Not only that, but the special counsel has brought this false statement charge, even though Mr. Susman has consistently maintained, including in testimony under oath, that he met with Mr. Baker on behalf of the cyber expert client. And even though Mr. Baker has testified under oath in ways that corroborate rather than undermine Mr. Susman's account, for example, Mr. Baker has testified that he did not remember

Susman specifically saying whether he was meeting on behalf of a particular client. And that what he did remember was that Mr. Susman met with him because cyber experts had come across suspicious information they wanted brought to the FBI? The indictment is seriously vulnerable to challenge as a matter of law, and Mr. Susman will make relevant pretrial motions at the appropriate time. Remember how I said they should file a motion and to just dismiss the whole case because Durham wasn't appointed under any authority because according to special counsel regulations 600.1A I believe or 600.3A.

It says that special counsel shall come from outside the government and Durham was working for the government. He was US attorney. Anyway, back to this response. For now, Mr. Sussman moves for a bill of particulars. While the indictment in this matter is 27 pages long, the majority of the allegations are not relevant to the crime of the special counsel is chosen to charge. And on that charge, a single alleged false statement, the indictment plainly fails to provide Mr. Sussman with a detailed clarity that the law requires

that is essential in enabling Sussman to prepare his defense, as set forth in greater detail below. Now, it's interesting, and I say, the indictment is 27 pages long. The majority of the allegations are not relevant to the crime. That's just sort of like a, hi, I'm gonna poke in the ribs, and this is my way of saying this is a fucking political

document, not an indictment. That's how I read it, anyway. Let's see, first, the indictment fails to allege the precise false statement that Mr. Susman purportedly made. It is simply not enough for the indictment to make allegations generally about the substance of a purported false statement.

Rather, the law requires that special counsel identify the specific false statement made, i.e., the precise words that were allegedly used. It is particularly critical for Mr. Susman to receive notice of the precise false statement being charged, given that A, the statement is unrequited five years old and witnessed by a single individual only, who has already disclaimed memory of the statement, and B, the indictment itself lacks a single consistent theory about even the substance of the false statement.

Sometimes suggesting Mr. Susman said he was not meeting with the FBI on behalf of any client, and other times claiming that Susman said he was not doing work on the Russia bank issue on behalf of any client. Hmm. Second, the indictment charges only an affirmative misrepresentation in violation of 18 US Code 1,012A2, but the indictment also makes confusing and stray allegations about omissions that would ordinarily be the basis of a separate violation of 18 U.S. Code Section 1001A1.

These raises, this raises serious questions on which specific crime the council intended to charge. A misrepresentation of violation of 18 U.S. Code 1001A2 or an omission violation of 18 U.S. Code 101A2, or an omission violation of A1. Mr. Susman is entitled to understand which particular crime he must defend himself against, without prejudice to any other pretrial motions that keep repeating that. Mr. Susman may bring on the matter. Mr. Susman is entitled to additional particulars regarding the alleged emissions and the indictment,

including regarding the legal duty, if any, that required him to disclose the allegedly omitted information, the indictment suggests he should have disclosed. Yeah, I need to know the law here. What's the legal duty of that disclosure? Third, the indictment fails to provide adequate particulars regarding the ways in which the alleged false statement was material. The indictment does make several allegations regarding materiality, and yet these allegations are vague, imprecise, and inconsistent.

Suggesting the FBI might have asked more questions, take another steps or allocated resources differently without specifying how or why it would have done so, leaves Mr. Susman having to guess about the meaning of the allegations that special counsel has leveled against him. Accordingly, without prejudice to any pretrial motions, Mr. Susman may make regarding materiality. Mr. Susman requests that the court order the special counsel to provide more detail about why the purported false statement was material. Fourth, the indictment alleges that Mr. Susman repeated the purported false statement made material. Fourth, the indictment alleges that Mr. Susman repeated the purported false statement made to Mr. Baker at yet another meeting to two other government agents

representing another government agency five months later. But again, the indictment fails to provide particulars to the exact words of the purported statement, the context in which it was made, and why it was made. In addition, the indictment fails to include that there were more than two government agents in the second meeting, and fails to identify all of the government individuals and attendants, and to whom Mr. Susman allegedly repeated the false statement. Having made these allegations, special counsel must provide further precision in order to allow Mr. Susman to even begin to decide

how to respond appropriately. Fifth and finally, the indictment can seal the actual identity of certain individuals and entities, alleged to have witnessed and otherwise been involved in the conduct giving rise to the fall statement charge, including the name of the agents and representatives of the campaign on whose behalf Mr. Sussman was allegedly working. The entire animating theory of the Special Counsel's indictment is that, in a meeting with the FBI and another government agency, Sussman was secretly working on behalf of Hillary Clinton's 2016 campaign for president. The special counsel should be required to identify with which agents and representatives of the Clinton campaign Mr. Sassman was allegedly working

so that he can adequately prepare his defense. Council for Mr. Sassman previously asked the special counsel to provide the detail and particulars identified above, but special counsel declined. That decision simply cannot be reconciled with the law. Pursuing to the Constitution, federal rules of criminal procedure, the well-settled case law, Susman is entitled to understand the charge against him, to prepare his defense, and to safeguard against unfair surprises at trial. And then he cites a bunch of case law. Now, here's the part that I wanted you to hear specifically.

I'm going to skip ahead here to page 13 for you. I've given you the five reasons that they need to build particulars here. And then on page 13 in the second paragraph, it says, here, however, while the indictment has made several allegations regarding materiality, these allegations are vague, imprecise, and inconsistent. Mr. Susman is again left to guess about what the special counsel means by the allegations leveled against him.

Accordingly, without prejudice to any pre-trial motion for Mr. Susman might make regarding materiality, Mr. Susman requires special counsel to order to be providing more detail about why the purported false statement was material. The indictment makes allegations about materiality in two separate places. to be providing more detail about why the purported false statement was material. The indictment makes allegations about materiality in two separate places. In paragraph five, the indictment alleges Susman's false statement was material because, quote, among other reasons, Susman's false statements misled the FBI General Counsel and other FBI personnel concerning the political nature of his work

and deprived the FBI of information that might have permitted it more fully to assess and uncover the origins of the relevant data and technical analysis. Now, I would like for you to listen to a clip from our show from three weeks ago. Take a listen. So what he's saying here, what Durham is saying is, this is a material lie because had they known, had the FBI known, he was working for Perkins Kooey and this other internet guy and an internet company, that information might have permitted the FBI to more fully assess and uncover the origins of the relevant data, might have. They're inditing them on a maybe. All right, let me continue on here. The indictment alleges further that had Mr. Susman disclosed

that he was representing specific clients, it might have prompted the FBI General Counsel to ask, and might is italicized here in this filing. For the identity of such clients, which in turn might have prompted further questions and that the FBI might have taken additional more increased steps before opening or closing an investigation and might have allocated

its resources differently, or more efficiently, or uncovered more complete information about the reliability and prominence of the purported data at issue. First, special counsel should be required to identify the other reasons that it was a material. It's unfair to raise the specter of an additional rationale that actually substantiating the claim

and then they cite a case. Second, to the extent the indictment alleges that Mr. Sussman purported false statement, his purported false statement was material and misled the FBI personnel concerning political nature of his work. Special counsel should be required to provide detail what that actually means. The indictment, after all, makes clear that both Mr. Baker and the assistant director were aware that Susman represented the DNC and other high profile political clients.

What was then the political nature of his work that was unknown to the FBI? Special counsel should be required to explain what his work refers to. Third, to the extent the indictment and the legislation assessment purported false statement was material because it deprived the FBI of information that might have permitted it to morphfully assess and uncover information about the data. Special counsel should be required to provide the detail about why that's the case. As Mr. Baker's testimony was well aware that Susman provided, you know, information came from cyber experts.

And indeed, Mr. Susman was not charged with making a false statement about the origin of the information. But looking up here on page 14 Might have might have might have They're like you you got to explain how it would have been what do you mean might have and you know When I went over this in Daimler in the show, I was like really you're gonna indict them on a might have on a maybe Hmm Anyway, I highly recommend you check this out and it's It's the central focus of our fantasy indictment league, because I think it'll be undone.

I think they're gonna review it in the booth and overturn this call, honestly. I really do. It's just such a weak indictment. It's just so weak. And with that, my picks today include a plea agreement with Tom Barich, right?

I'm gonna go with superseding Trump org and superseding Weiselberg. I'm gonna keep the Kalamari and Makani plea agreement in New York. A lot of plea agreements on my team this week. That's five. So then of course we can do gates because as you know, his Joel Greenberg sentencing

was pushed back again. It was supposed to be August 19th and it was November 18th or something like that. Now it's March of next year. And Gates is hired a bunch of trial lawyers. So it's gonna happen, I just don't know when. I mean, who pays, whose dad pays $15.5 million for a pardon for an innocent person?

I mean, I think he ended up wiring him $5.5 million, a pardon for an innocent person, you know. I mean, I think he ended up wiring him $5.5 million, but I'm not sure of the total amount. It's unclear in the indictment, but it is clear that money was wired. All right, so Gates, Greenberg's already cooperating, so I don't think he'll get any super seating. Rodriguez already played. Let's do, I'm not gonna put Rudy, Joe, and Tone's Zing on here. One, two, three, four. Okay, that leaves me one more for a team of 10.

Ivanka, let's do it. Let's go big in Manhattan District Attorney, the Manhattan District Attorney's Office and that investigation. And there's probably something else out there brewing that came out of the Mueller investigation and one of those behind the red action bars in Appendix D of the Mueller report. There's probably something out there like a Tom Barak waiting to drop. We'll see what it is. Anyway, that's the show. Thank you very much for listening. I'll be back next week.

And you can hear me all week, every week day morning, drive time, drive time listening, if you're driving anywhere with the daily beans pod. And I hope to see you there. So please, everyone, until next time, take care of yourself. Take care of each other. Take care of the planet. And take care of your mental health.

I've been A.G. is Muller She Wrote. Muller She Wrote is written and produced by Allison Gill in partnership with MSW Media. Sound Design and Engineering, or by Molly Hockey, Jesse Egan is our copywriter and our art and web designer by Joe Elrider at Moxie Design Studios. Muller Sheerot is a proud member of MSW Media, a group of creator-owned podcasts focused on news just as in politics. For more information, visit mswmedia.com. Hi, I'm Dan Dunn, host of What We're Drinking With Dan Dunn, the most wildly entertaining adult beverage-themed podcast in the history of the medium. That's right, the boozy best of the best, baby!

And we have the cool celebrity promos to prove it. Check this out! Hi, I'm Allison Janney, and you're here with me on What We're Drinking With Dan Dunn. And that's my sexy voice. Boom. Hi, I'm Allison Janney and you're here with me on what we're drinking with Dan Dunn. And that's my sexy voice. Boom. Boom is right Academy Award winner Allison Janney. As you can see celebrity's just love this show.

How cool is that? Hey, this is Scottie Pippin and you're listening to the Dan Dunn show and wait, hold on. The name of the show is what? Alright, sure. Scottie Pippin momentarily forgot the show's name, but there's what? Alright, sure. Scotty Pippin momentarily forgot the show's name, but there's a first time for everything. Hey everyone, this is Scoot McNary. I'm here with Dan Dunn on What Are You Drinking? What's calling it?

Fine, twice. But famous people really do love this show. Hi, this is Will Forte and you're, for some reason, listening to What We're Drinking With Dan Dunn. Now, what do you mean for some reason, listening to what we're drinking with Dan Dunn. Now what do you mean for some reason, Will Forte? What's going on? Hi, this is Kurt Russell. Listen, I escaped from New York, but I couldn't get the hell out of Dan Dunn's happy hour.

Please send help. Send help. Oh, come on Kurt Russell. Can somebody out there please help me? I'm Deed of Antis and you're listening to what we're drinking with Dan Dunn. Let me try one more time. Come on. Is it right?

What we're drinking? It's amazing. Is it right? Ah, that's better. So be like Deed of Antease friends and listen to what we're drinking with Dan Dunn, available wherever you get your podcasts. M-S-W Media.