Marc Elias Takes the Stand in Sussmann False-Statement Trial
- Oops!Something went wrong.Please try again later.
Prominent Democratic lawyer Marc Elias testified Wednesday in the false-statement trial of lawyer Michael Sussmann and described how he and his then-colleague Sussmann worked to disseminate questionable evidence of allegedly illicit communications between the Trump organization and Russia’s Alfa Bank on behalf of the Clinton campaign.
It is the prosecution’s contention that Sussmann lied when he went to FBI general counsel James Baker with evidence of the Trump-Alfa connection under the pretense that he was offering the information as a concerned citizen, on behalf of no client.
Elias, who served as general counsel to the Clinton campaign and outside general counsel to the Democratic National Committee (DNC) during his time as a partner at Perkins Coie in 2016, conceded under questioning from the prosecution that feeding opposition research to the FBI could theoretically be beneficial in prompting media attention — a key point in the trial since prosecutors are trying to prove that Sussmann was advancing the Clinton campaign’s interests when he came forward with the evidence.
Asked if he was aware of instances in which FBI investigation had prompted stories, or made reporters more likely to publish them, Elias answered in the affirmative.
“In an ideal world, you’d have your cake and eat it too,” he said, acknowledging that an FBI investigation could constitute its own, or make a story more poignant, and describing the risk-reward calculus at issue.
That admission came after Elias, under questioning from defense attorney Sean Berkowitz, said that he did not believe it would have been “beneficial to the campaign” for Sussmann to go to the FBI with the Trump-Alfa Bank allegations. To support that belief, Elias cited the FBI’s inability to stop the publishing of DNC emails earlier that year, James Comey’s perceived hostility to Hillary Clinton, and the worry that it could delay the story’s publication.
Elias said that he was unsure if Sussmann told him about his intention of going to the FBI with the allegations prior to meeting with Baker, or if Sussmann informed him after the fact, though he believe it was the latter. He added that Sussmann was not required to run communications with the bureau by either himself or another member of the campaign.
Berkowitz also extracted from Elias that he had not directed, authorized, or consented to Sussmann’s approaching the FBI, to the best of his recollection.
Whether Sussmann approached the bureau because he thought the risk was worth it to the campaign or because he wanted to give the bureau a heads-up has been a key distinction between the prosecution and defense’s theory of the case.
The prosecution also used its time with Elias to go over billing records at Perkins Coie, having him explain the process and reviewing specific forms that indicated Sussmann was billing the Clinton campaign in 2016. The records are significant since part of the prosecution’s case rests on their claim that Perkins Coie billing records show that Sussmann was being paid by the Clinton campaign when he went to the FBI with the Trump-Alfa Bank evidence.
Elias hired the opposition research firm Fusion GPS to work on behalf of Perkins Coie for the Clinton campaign and DNC. A combination of various calendar invites, emails, and billing records indicate that Elias, Sussmann, and Fusion GPS did meet to discuss matters pertaining to the Clinton campaign. Elias connected Sussmann with employees of Fusion shortly after a meeting he held with Sussmann and Joffe.
The connection to opposition research firm Fusion GPS is significant since they contracted Christopher Steele to compiled the since-discredited Steele dossier, alleging widespread collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia. Parts of the Trump-Alfa Bank theory wound up in Steele’s opposition research reports.
Baker, the former FBI general counsel Sussmann is alleged to have lied to, also testified Wednesday, saying that he took Sussmann’s request to meet to share the evidence seriously.
“It seemed to me at the time that it was very important,” said Baker on Wednesday, recalling his reaction to a text from Sussmann on September 18, 2016 that read: “Jim — it’s Michael Sussmann. I have something time-sensitive (and sensitive) I need to discuss. Do you have availability 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.”
Baker said that he had considered Sussmann both a friend and colleague for years at that point, dating back to their time together at the Department of Justice. In 2016, he said that the two were not in frequent contact, but were in touch on “a regular basis”
Baker’s questioning by prosecutor Andrew DeFilippis will continue on Thursday morning.
Another witness, and former employee of Fusion GPS, Lauren Seago, stated that “all of the work that we did” was on behalf of Perkins Coie and its clients.
The admission is significant because it indicates that the research into connections between Donald Trump and Russia’s Alfa Bank was conducted for Perkins Coie clients around the same Sussmann was a lawyer at the firm, and allegedly working for both Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign and tech executive Rodney Joffe, whose firm, Neustar, first compiled the Trump-Alfa Bank evidence.
Seago said that she had met with Sussmann once while working on research pertaining to the matter at Perkins Coie’s offices in Washington, D.C. during the summer of 2016. Also in attendance at that meeting was Fusion principal Peter Fritsch, Joffe, and Elias. The purpose of that meeting, according to Seago, was to discuss “allegations of communications between the Trump Organization and Alfa Bank.” Seago said she could not remember much about the ensuing discussion.
After that meeting, Seago began to devote time to researching the matter on behalf of Perkins Coie and exchanged a number of emails with Joffe and other employees of Fusion GPS, at least one of which Sussmann was copied on. Seago added that she had the “general impression” that Joffe was Sussmann’s client, but was not formally made aware of that fact.
Later, she translated the technical data suggesting a connection between Trump and Alfa Bank into laymen’s terms, and presented her conclusions to Franklin Foer, a writer for Slate. “We certainly hoped that he would publish an article,” explained Seago. Under questioning, she explained that she was “conversant” but not an expert on Domain Name System data.
Foer obliged them, touting the claims in an article published on October 31, 2016, a little over a week before Election Day.
Under cross-examination, Seago said that she did not know Joffe as a client of Fusion GPS and noted that he seemed knowledgeable about the data. She also admitted again to not being an expert herself and professed to have provided accurate information, to the best of her knowledge.
Berkowitz also asked a number of questions to establish that Seago was not aware of any FBI investigation, or part of any plan to leak information about an FBI investigation to the media.
Seago also told the prosecution that she had never — and never received instruction to — conceal her employer or clients from reporters.
Deborah Fine, a deputy general counsel for the Clinton campaign, also took the stand on Wednesday. Fine said she could not disclose parts of the research she conducted for the campaign because it would violate attorney-client privilege, but acknowledged that she did work with Fusion GPS on “Trump-related litigation” and communicated with representatives of the firm “on average, several times weekly.”
After Baker’s testimony, Berkowitz raised the possibility of his asking for a mistrial with Judge Christopher Cooper because Elias had responded to a question by saying that his questioner would need to ask Sussmann, raising Fifth Amendment issues. There seemed to be debate between Berkowitz and DeFilippis over whose question had caused the problem.
Cooper said that he was “not inclined to grant a mistrial.”
