Christopher Wray’s Recent Evasions on Michael Sussmann Start to Make Sense After Shocking Report From Tucker Carlson – Opinion

RedState published Wednesday’s report that the FBI had a close relationship to Michael Sussmann, former Hillary Clinton lawyer. The FBI has an office inside Perkins Coie and Sussmann holds an FBI badge which gives him access to special government agencies. Perkins Coie is, of course, the law firm that represented Hillary Clinton’s campaign throughout the 2016 campaign and its aftermath.

According to the letter from Perkins Coie in response to Gaetz and Jordan’s letter, the law firm has maintained that space for more than a decade going back to 2012. Carlson said that the space was still operational today. Gaetz claimed it was Sussmann who was also “operating this secure work environment.” “What reason would there be for that?” Gaetz asked. “And what leverage would the Perkins law firm have over the FBI, given this work they’re doing together?”

Tucker Carlson revealed this shocking truth on Tuesday evening, just after Sussmann was cleared of lying to FBI. This despite ample evidence and actual receipts showing that Sussmann was paid to disinformation Donald Trump for the bureau. Durham never stood a chance, though, given the make-up of the jury and the Obama-appointed judge’s behavior.

The FBI seems to have many questions. It is hard to believe that a government agency would continue working within the same law firm as Hillary Clinton’s. Remember, the FBI actually did “investigate” her over her illegal email server. Was that a conflict in interest? Sussmann was in a conflict of interests by being so closely linked to him.

In other words, the FBI is not innocent here, and I believe last week’s exchange between Sen. John Kennedy and FBI Dir. Christopher Wray makes sense suddenly.

If you watch the video, what you’ll see is Kennedy asking Wray directly whether Sussmann had a badge that gave him special access to the FBI HQ. Instead of answering that incredibly simple question, Wray deflects, claiming that he can’t discuss it because it’s an ongoing case and he wants to “do things the right way.”

However, what has this question to do with Sussmann’s case which ended a few days after the exchange? It has absolutely nothing to do. Wray could have answered that question completely without interfering with the trial, but he chose to do so. Ask yourself why he didn’t.

Kennedy also pressed Wray to answer the question about Sussmann’s identity and Perkins Coie. Wray didn’t answer again, but I was struck by one aspect of his reply.

I want to be really, really careful about not getting into a discussion about a case that is currently in front of a very independent and strong-willed federal judge and jury right now…

Again, nothing Kennedy is asking in any of these exchanges has to do with Sussmann lying to the FBI, therefore, it’s a stretch to suggest he can’t discuss these matters. Wray would have been able to answer the questions without having to contradict anything Durham was doing.

In this final example, though, the FBI director chooses to go out of his way to claim the judge and jury in the now-completed Sussmann trial are “independent” as he mockingly smirks through his answer. He almost seems to have known the verdict or, at the very least, had high expectations of it given his judge.

Wray’s incessant evasiveness is another reason. Is it because he is unwilling to answer questions completely within his scope? What is the point of him not addressing the connection between Hillary Clinton and the FBI after nearly a decade?

I think we know the answers to all those questions, and the revelation that the FBI had a workspace inside Perkins Coie adds clear context to Wray’s refusal to be held accountable. Kennedy deserves another opportunity to confront Wray. It’ll be interesting to see how the FBI director refuses to answer the questions now that he doesn’t have the Sussmann trial to hide behind.