Judge shoots down FBI response to questions about Democrat law firm paying for Steele dossier

Elizabeth Vaughn:

Judicial Watch (JW) announced on Friday that U.S. District Court Judge James E. Boasberg denied the FBI’s second attempt to stop the release of any communications between former FBI General Counsel James Baker and Michael Sussmann, a partner at the Perkins, Coie law firm. Sussmann represented the DNC and the Hillary Clinton campaign in 2016.

Sussman allegedly met with Baker to share information targeting then candidate Donald Trump in 2016. Sussmann is believed to have hired Fusion GPS on behalf of the DNC and the Clinton campaign to produce opposition research to use against Trump. Funds from the DNC and the Clinton campaign were “laundered” through Perkins, Coie by Sussmann to pay for the production of the dossier. The price tag? $12 million.

According to JW,” the court specifically rejected the FBI’s argument that it needed to protect the “privacy” of Hillary Clinton’s lawyer.” Good for them.

It usually takes several tries before JW actually receives the documents it requests and this time was no different. JW submitted a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request in October 2018. The Department of Justice did not respond. In March 2019, they filed a lawsuit to obtain the following documents:

Any and all records of communication between former FBI General Counsel James Baker and former Department of Justice attorney and current Perkins Coie Partner Michael Sussmann.

Any and all records created in preparation for, during, and/or pursuant to any meeting between Mr. Baker and Mr. Sussmann.

Any and all calendars, agendas, or similar records, either in paper or electronic format, documenting the schedule and activities of Mr. Baker.

JW indicated that the FBI would neither confirm nor deny the existence of records and successfully argued: “[T]he sworn testimony of Baker, the former FBI general counsel, confirms that Sussmann was sharing the same documents with the media.…Rather than privacy, this confirms that Sussmann was seeking to obtain attention for his activities. Hence, this is far from a typical case…Sussmann had no expectation of ‘personal privacy,’ as he was actively seeking publicity for himself and the information he wanted to share.”

Judge Boasberg ruled, “[A]ny risk of invasion [of privacy] evaporated once Baker publicly testified that he had received documents from Sussmann, as well as met with and spoken to him on multiple occasions in 2016.”
...

There is more.

The judge's ruling makes sense.  If Sussman was sharing the same information with the media it is illogical to argue that releasing the information would invade the privacy of Clinton's attorneys.  It makes me more eager to see these documents so we can learn just how the coordination with Clinton's counsel was being used to push the first coup attempt against the President.