Latest Durham Filing Shows the Net Is Tightening, People Are Flipping – Opinion

When last we left you in the saga of the Durham probe, the defense’s motion to dismiss the case against former Clinton lawyer Michael Sussmann had been denied. This means that Sussmann, who is charged with making false statements to the FBI, will not be allowed to plead or postpone his trial. It must have been making people in Clinton-land shiver at what is coming.

Now, more information has come out in the latest filings in the case and if it wasn’t obvious already, these filings make it clear that this is going beyond Michael Sussmann. This is from the government’s response to multiple motions from the defense.

First, we know that the smear that was perpetrated against the Trump Organization about the supposed contact with the Alfa Bank — to make it look like Donald Trump was somehow communicating with the Russians — was not true. However, the most recent files indicate that it could have been fabricated by the CIA. The CIA concluded it was not “technically plausible” and was “user created and not machine/tool generated”:

Durham doesn’t go that far. Durham, however, has filed another document opposing the attempt by the defense of excluding an expert witness for government. He says that he will present an expert agent to prove that the technologists behind the claims about Alfa Bank couldn’t have reasonably believed their conclusion regarding the data they claimed and that they gave it to the FBI.

We can’t know if it will cover more people. Durham discusses immunity granted to different persons. Durham gave immunity to “Researcher 2” to explain what had been done with the data, and that he raised concerns to the defendant about whether the data was being “unlawfully collected and used.”

Durham says that the government immunized Researcher-2 because “at least five other witnesses who conducted work relating to the Russia Bank-1 allegations invoked (or indicated their intent to invoke) their right against self-incrimination.” So they gave him immunity to uncover the facts concerning the opposition “research project” that Tech Executive-1 and the others had carried out before Sussmann met with the FBI.

Durham opposes the attempt by the defense of compel Tech Executive-1 immunity. Durham says clearly that Tech Executive-1 is not just a “witness,” but a “subject” of the investigation and continues to be so. Tech Executive-1 — whom the court has identified as Rodney Joffe — has also invoked his right against self-incrimination.

Durham alleges that there was contact between Researcher-2 and the defendant, that Researcher-2 was involved in writing a white paper related to the allegations about the Russia Bank, and then the defendant billed the Clinton campaign for the white paper’s drafting.

Durham also said they will be seeking immunity for a person employed at the “U.S. investigative firm” (Fusion GPS). Now that’s fascinating, because one would think that has to pertain to information on Christopher Steele and the dossier, the people who hired him, and/or the communications that went back and forth — who knew what when.

Durham went on at length in the filing about the Clinton campaign connection, and the evidence that Sussmann was working for them when he allegedly lied to the FBI and said he wasn’t.

This evidence proves the following: (i) the defendant represented the Clinton Campaign and was involved in its wider opposition research activities; (ii), he took steps to incorporate the Russian Bank-1 claims into the opposition research efforts. (iii), he coordinated with U.K. Person-1. Tech Executive-1 and Investigative Firm in relation to the Russian Bank-1 claims. (iv). He met with FBI on September 19, 2016, in order, among others, to further the Clinton Campaign’s interests with U.S. assistance. Investigative Firm.

Durham points out that Tech Executive-1 and the Clinton Campaign claimed privilege over this information. This would appear to support the claim Durham made.

Finally, the defendant’s argument that the Court should bar the Government from offering evidence that the Clinton Campaign and Tech Executive-1 have asserted the privilege over particular documents is similarly without merit. Evidently, it is relevant that the Clinton Campaign as well as Tech Executive-1 assert attorney-client privilege to documents that pertain to or concern the Russian Bank-1 claims. Such information is inherently probative because – as alleged in the Indictment – the defendant claimed he did not assemble those allegations on behalf of any client. For this reason, the Clinton Campaign’s and Tech Executive-1’s privilege claims over documents relating to the Russian Bank-1 allegations naturally undermine, and tend to refute, the defendant’s assertion to the FBI General Counsel. The documents are thus highly probative.

Then there’s more about that DNS surveillance that they were doing.

The evidence at trial will also establish that the defendant carried with him to the FBI and Agency-2 two separate sets of thumb drives containing data files that were named, among other things, “log of DNS lookups for, 851.txt,” “[Russian Phone Provider- 1]-cpwest8,” “[Russian Phone Provider-1]-eop.csv,” “[Russian Phone Provider-1]-[Healthcare Provider-1].csv,” and “[Russian Phone Provider-1]-trumporg.csv,” all apparent references to the specific source and/or destination of purported DNS lookups.

“CPwest8” was Trump’s Central Park address, “Trumporg” would be the Trump organization and “EOP” would appear to indicate the Executive Office of the President, based on Durham’s prior filings.

Sussmann seems to have everything they require. So the question is: Will he or others turn to expose more about the relationship? With the grants of immunity, that’s an indication that there’s more coming and that they will already have people laying out a lot of the plan. There are at most a few of them sharing their knowledge. Durham seems to be getting closer and more restrictive. It seems like Clinton-land is melting right now.

About Post Author

Follow Us