Conservative newsman Tucker Carlson revealed on his program last night that Perkins Coie, the Democrat-aligned law firm that was instrumental in the 2016 Clinton campaign’s efforts to discredit President Donald Trump, has given office space to the FBI in its Washington, D.C. headquarters.
Carlson credited Reps. Matt Gaetz and Jim Jordan for the revelation, which he said came as a result of a letter the congressmen sent to lawyers retained by Perkins Coie.
“We’re learning tonight much more about the connection between the FBI and [Michael Sussmann]’s former law firm, Perkins Coie,” said Carlson. “This show can report exclusively that within that letter, Perkins COie admits that the FBI has maintained a quote, ‘secure work environment,’ within Perkins Coie offices for more than a decade, going back to 2012.”
“Perkins Coie is responsible to the FBI for maintaining the Secure Work Environment,” the law firm’s lawyers said in their letter to Gaetz and Jordan, said Tucker.
The news came on the same day that Sussmann, a former Perkins Coie lawyer who admitted to interfacing with the Clinton campaign to hurt Trump’s campaign, was acquitted by a Washington, D.C. jury. He was charged with lying to the FBI. Former Clinton campaign manager Robby Mook testified on how later-discredited information was shared.
“We got a report from a whistleblower that we confirmed through multiple admissions including this letter,” said Gaetz last night on “Tucker Carlson Tonight”.
BREAKING: In response to a letter sent by Rep. Matt Gaetz and @Jim_Jordan, Perkins Coie, the legal arm of the DNC and Hillary Clinton, admits they have been operating an FBI workspace in their Washington, D.C. office since 2012. pic.twitter.com/D2k19wQ2n5
— Rep. Matt Gaetz (@RepMattGaetz) June 1, 2022
“The Democrat Party’s law firm, the law firm that received $42 million from the Democratic Party, houses this co-located workspace that they operate in concert with the FBI. Why in the world would that be the case? Why would Christopher Wray allow this to continue?”
Gaetz also noted that it seems peculiar that the FBI would continue to operate this workspace while a former Perkins Coie lawyer was charged with lying to them.
“Michael Sussman was in fact operating this secure work environment,” said Gaetz. “What leverage does the Perkins Coie lawfirm have over the FBI,” he asked.
Carlson noted that this is not a normal relationship for a law firm, a major political party, and the top law enforcement agency in the United States. Gaetz agreed.
“I have spoken to former federal prosecutors on the judiciary committee and throughout the country, and I have not heard any describe a relationship like this with a private law firm. Especially because Michael Sussmann was an election lawyer, why in the world would and election lawyer be operating a facility in this way?”
“Our concern is that politically motivated dirt will be converted into politically motivated investigations,” he explained. “That’s why Jim Jordan and I are demanding answers from Christopher Wray immediately.”
Gaetz concluded by saying that the FBI does not deserve “special access” or a “special portal” to the FBI, “especially knowing what they do now, that they often trying to take this opposition research and then use it for law enforcement and counter intelligence purposes.”
June 1, 2022 at 11:43 am
June 1, 2022 at 1:42 pm
“Dem Law Firm”?… I don’t think so! That suggests that a law firm can exclude the representation of opposing Party court challenges by way of the firm’s legal staff! And there shouldn’t be an issue about a conflict of interest, if a law firm can demonstrate– and it should be able to!– that the firm’s DIFFERENT COUNSEL are acting IMPARTIALLY. And if a law firm can’t do that, then it should be OFFICIALLY REMOVED from the practice of law… otherwise, we’re permitting– by default!– GATED ZONES of “legal practice”!
My question here, is: Is the law firm dictating the contractual agreement regarding others’ use of it’s̲ premises, or is this being done through a Real Estate Holding? If the former is true, then the law firm could be in violation of a prospective contractee’s Constitutional Rights & Freedoms, if– for example!– another lawfirm was denied use of the premises, because it was believed that allowing another law firm to set up shop would undermine one’s own, “business”. However, a law firm must show impartiality in all of it’s̲ dealings… and, if there be “legislative gaps” in how law firms effect “DUE DILIGENCE”, then the accountability for how law firms conduct their affairs, may rest with our LEGISLATIVE BODIES, AND THEIR STANDING COMMITTEES (BY COMMISSIONS AND/ OR OMISSIONS!)!