6 New Revelations From The John Durham Spygate Probe
Category: News & Politics
Via: vic-eldred • 2 years ago • 48 commentsBy: Margot Cleveland (The Federalist)
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
On Jan. 25, Special Counsel John Durham filed a "discovery update" and a request for an extension of time to provide Michael Sussmann documents related to the government's pending criminal case against the former Hillary Clinton campaign lawyer.
The 19-page court filing reveals some fascinating details about the Sussmann case, the broader special counsel investigation, and most intriguingly an apparent rift between Durham's team and the Office of Inspector General. Here's a quick refresher of the case, followed by five takeaways.
What's Happened So Far
On September 16, 2021, the special counsel's office filed a one-count indictment against Sussmann, who served as a lawyer for the Clinton campaign during the 2016 election. The indictment charged that Sussmann had lied to FBI General Counsel James Baker when he provided him information that purported to show the Trump organization had established a secret channel to communicate with a Russian bank, Alfa Bank.
Specifically, according to the indictment, "Sussmann lied about the capacity in which he was providing the allegations to the FBI," with Sussmann falsely stating "he was not doing his work on the aforementioned allegations 'for any client.'" In fact, though, the indictment charged, Sussmann was acting on behalf of "a U.S. technology industry executive at a U.S. Internet company"—later identified as Rodney Joffe—and "the Hillary Clinton Presidential Campaign."
Before the 2016 election, the Clinton team also pushed claims to the press of a Trump-Alfa Bank covert communication channel, with Slate publishing a detailed story on this conspiracy theory the week before the election. The FBI later concluded there was nothing to the story and then turned its attention to claims of a broader Trump-Russia collusion for the next three years.
But by May 2019, the investigators had become the investigated, with then-Attorney General William Barr directing Durham "to investigate certain intelligence and law-enforcement activities surrounding the 2016 presidential election." Prior to the 2020 election, Barr appointed Durham as a special counsel, and for the last year-and-a-half he has continued in that role, albeit with little fanfare.
1. There's Much More to Come
In fact, Sussmann represents only the third individual charged as a result of Durham's probe. In August 2020, FBI lawyer Kevin Clinesmith pleaded guilty to altering an email to push forward the FISA surveillance application against Carter Page. On November 4, 2021, Durham charged Igor Danchenko, Christopher Steele's primary sub-source, with five counts of lying to the FBI.
Now, with Monday's filing in the Sussmann case, there is reason to believe more is to come—much more. And that's the first take-away.
2. Criminal Investigation of Sussmann Afoot
There is an "active, ongoing criminal investigation" of Sussmann's conduct.
After news broke of the indictment against Sussmann, the left quickly spun the charge as a big nothing-burger. "Is that all John Durham Has?," more than one commentaryasked.
Of course the indictment of Danchenko a little over a month later proved that wasn't the case, but even before Durham charged Danchenko, the media should have known more was to come. After all, when the special counsel's office charged Sussmann, it should have been clear from Durham's timing that he was trying to outrun the clock on the five-year statute of limitations: With Sussmann's alleged lie to Baker occurring on September 19, 2016, the special counsel team had to file the indictment when it did to prevent the charge from being time-barred.
That Durham was not done seemed clear from the 27-page speaking indictment that, among other details, revealed that in crafting the Trump-Alfa Bank narrative, computer researchers working with Joffee "accessed 'data of an Executive Branch office of the U.S. government,' which 'Internet Company-I had come to possess as a sub-contractor in a sensitive relationship between the U.S. government and another company.'"
And while Danchenko's indictment makes clear the special counsel's office was not done in general, yesterday's filing by the special counsel suggests he isn't even done with Sussmann.
"The Government also maintains an active, ongoing criminal investigation of the defendant's conduct and other matters," Monday's court filing explained on its opening page. Special Counsel Durham's office repeated that point two more times, adding more texture in the third instance: "In addition, the Special Counsel's office maintains an active, ongoing criminal investigation of these and other matters that is not limited to the offense charged in the Indictment."
So, no, this offense is not all Durham has, either in general, or potentially related to Sussmann.
3. Marc Elias Called Before the Grand Jury
Another significant revelation from yesterday's court filing concerned Sussmann's Perkins Coie colleague, Marc Elias, the top lawyer for the Hillary Clinton campaign.
Elias, identified in the Sussmann indictment and the government's discovery update as "Campaign Lawyer-1," provided sworn grand jury testimony, according to the special counsel's office. That revelation proves significant given that Elias served as an attorney for the Clinton campaign and thus attorney-client privilege would generally protect communications related to the legal work performed.
However, as the attorney known by the moniker Techno Fog noted, "the fact that Marc Elias, the DNC/Clinton lawyer, was before a grand jury. . . indicates Durham has used the 'crime-fraud exception' to compel disclosure of information and to elicit testimony."
The crime-fraud exception provides that communications are not protected by attorney-client privilege if a client seeks advice from an attorney to plan or commit a crime. If Durham did successfully use the crime-fraud exception to question Elias or force the production of documents, that would be a huge development, especially given Elias's role in hiring Fusion GPS, which hired Steele.
But there's much more than Marc.
4. Many Others Called Before Grand Jury
Elias was not the only one called before the grand jury, as Durham's team laid out in Monday's filing in an effort to obtain an extension to the discovery deadline.
In addition to Elias, the grand jury heard sworn testimony from James Baker; Bill Priestap; the assistant director of the FBI's counterintelligence division; a former FBI deputy assistant director for counterintelligence; an FBI special agent; an FBI headquarters supervisory special agent; two CIA employees; two employees of Georgia Tech; and a former employee of one of the internet companies identified in the indictment.
Also significant was the list of individuals or companies served with grand jury subpoenas for documents, which included the Clinton campaign; "a political organization," likely the Democratic National Committee; Perkins Coie; three internet companies connected to Joffe; Georgia Tech; Fusion GPS; and "a public relations firm that advised [Perkins Coie] concerning public statements issued in 2018 about the [Sussmann's] meeting with the former FBI General Counsel."
The full list of materials provided to Sussmann's legal team added additional insights into the breadth of the special counsel's investigation, including the fact that Durham's team conducted at least 94 interviews. In addition to Baker and Priestap, Durham's team interviewed more than 24 other current or former FBI employees, numerous CIA employees, a dozen employees at various internet companies connected to Joffe, as well as an employee of Joffe's, the former chairman of Perkins Coie, a former employee of the Clinton campaign, and four current and former employees of Georgia Tech.
Likewise interesting is that the special counsel's office turned over to Sussmann 12 transcripts of interviews conducted by the DOJ's Office of Inspector General in connection with the OIG's investigation of Crossfire Hurricane. That Durham had these documents suggests the special counsel's office is reviewing what the OIG compiled as part of its own investigation.
A final tidbit of note: The special counsel's office provided Sussmann nearly 400 emails its team had retrieved from the FBI's holdings that were sent to, received from, or copied to Sussmann's Perkins Coie email address from January of 2016 through June of 2017. That's a lot of email messages: To whom at the FBI was Sussmann communicating during that time period, and about what?
5. The Court of Public Opinion
In addition to detailing all of the information the special counsel's office had already provided Sussmann or would shortly, in requesting an extension to finish discovery, Durham's team stressed the breadth of Sussmann's discovery demands and the transparency with which those demands were met.
For instance, Sussmann's attorneys requested "all of the prosecution team's communications with counsel for witnesses or subjects in this investigation, including, 'any records reflecting any consideration, concern, or threats from your office relating to those individuals' or their counsels' conduct…and all formal or informal complaints received by you or others' about the conduct of the Special Counsel's office."
After noting that "communications with other counsel are rarely discoverable," the government said it expects to produce responsive documents later this week. But the special counsel office added, "it is doing so despite the fact that certain counsel persistently have targeted prosecutors and investigators on the Special Counsel's team with baseless and polemical attacks that unfairly malign and mischaracterize the conduct of this investigation."
For instance, "certain counsel have falsely accused the Special Counsel's Office of leaking information to the media and have mischaracterized efforts to warn witnesses of the consequences of false testimony or false statements as 'threats' or 'intimidation,'" Durham explained to the court.
In other words, with Sussmann's lawyers soon to receive this cache of complaints against Durham's team, watch for the corrupt media to be quoting those false charges by this weekend, spinning a narrative of a corrupt special counsel's office.
6. Wait! WHAT?
Near the end of the special counsel's 19-page discovery update and extension request came the fifth takeaway: something strange is going on in the Office of Inspector General.
According to yesterday's filing, on December 17, 2021, the OIG provided the special counsel's office a written forensic report concerning a "cyber-related matter" that Sussmann had told an OIG special agent in charge about. Specifically, in early 2017, Sussmann told the OIG agent that one of his "clients had observed that a specific OIG employee's computer was 'seen publicly' in 'Internet traffic' and was connecting to a Virtual Private Network in a foreign country."
When the OIG office provided Durham's team the "forensic report," it represented "that it had 'no other file[] or other documentation' relating to this cyber matter."
However, one week ago, Sussmann's attorneys informed Durham's team that Sussmann had, in fact, personally met with the DOJ's inspector general in March 2017, when he passed on the tip about the OIG employee's connection to a foreign VPN. While Sussmann had not told the OIG his client's name at the time, last week his lawyers informed Durham's team that it was Tech Executive-1, i.e., Joffe, who had discovered the OIG employee's computer connecting to a VPN in a foreign country.
Upon learning this news, Durham's team promptly contacted the OIG again and learned, for the first time, that Sussmann had met with both the inspector general and his then-general counsel in March 2017 about the above-described cyber matter. Since then, including over this last weekend, the OIG has been providing further documentation related to that meeting to the special counsel's office.
So many questions! First, why did the OIG not inform the special counsel's office that Sussmann had met with both the inspector general and his then-general counsel? And why did the OIG falsely represent that there was no "further documentation"? Sure, it could have been accidental, but given that Durham's attorneys publicly exposed this "mistake," it suggests something more is afoot.
Then there is the question of the veracity of the claim and what happens to the investigation. Was there really an OIG employee connecting on a foreign VPN? Who was it? Why? Did the OIG ever find out?
What about Joffe: How in the world did he discover the OIG employee's computer connecting to a VPN in a foreign country? Was Joffe monitoring other government computers? How? Why? Was anyone else involved? Who knew?
These questions seem significant given that Sussmann's meeting with the OIG occurred in March 2017, putting the "discovery" during the Trump administration and ongoing Crossfire Hurricane investigation. With questions like these just arising now, no wonder Durham isn't done yet with his investigation.
Article is LOCKED by author/seeder
Who is online
437 visitors
Another significant revelation from yesterday's court filing concerned Sussmann's Perkins Coie colleague, Marc Elias, the top lawyer for the Hillary Clinton campaign.
That wouldn't be the same Marc Elias that sued states over election rules in 2020 and is doing it again now?
If you're reading this Marc, I'm hoping for an indictment.
Durham is desperately trying to salvage a scrap of his diminished reputation before he walks off into the sunset and oblivion.
He has spent three years investigating "Democrats" and come up with virtually nothing. His one or two indictments have come on relatively minor charges against people no one has ever heard of.
Where are the promised indictments against Comey, Mc Cabe, Strzok, Brennan, Clapper, Hillary or Obama?
Durham was a total dud.
I'm only hoping he did what Muller did - wait until the Congress changes hands and then hand in a report - only this time there will be actual wrong doing.
Who's Muller? Thomas Muller ?
if you are unable to recognize the name even with the obvious typo, perhaps this conversation isn't for you.
Robert Mueller, the empty suit who was the big front for the Mueller investigation.
With your penchant of going off topic, I didn't want to take chances.
But according to Barr, Mueller fully cleared Trump.....
Gee, you almost had a point there. I didn't write it.
Ya! We've been waiting on those indictments for how long now?
They use to complain about how much money the Mueller investigation cost yet no one peep about how much this cost, that has been going on longer.
Maybe he can set a record and hit the five year mark...
Patience is a virtue.
Durham is the empty suit here.
I can imagine what you must think of Mueller then. Not so much as a single indictment of an American for working with Russia despite all those promises.
Remember post after post promising "we don't know what Mueller knows"..
Lol.
We actually know that the Trump campaign colluded with Russians. The June 9th meeting at Trump Tower was collusion. Mueller didnt indict because he concluded that Trump Jr was too stupid to realize he was doing something wrong.
The cognitive dissonance it takes to defend Mueller's investigation while dismissing Durham's is too much for me.
I just can't be that blindly partisan.
I dont really have an opinion about Durhams results one way or the other.
I do object to the right saying that Mueller didnt find anything. He found that Trump obstructed justice 10 times and he found dozens of inappropriate contacts between the Trump campaign and Russians. The problem was that Mueller was too cautious in how he described his findings and did a very poor job of it when he testified before Congress.
No, he said he might have.
and he found dozens of inappropriate contacts between the Trump campaign and Russia
Yeah, I believe saying hi to an ambassador in the bathroom was the level of most of the "inappropriate contacts" Crimes of basic politeness
yeah ok
You do know that collusion is not a crime under any USC don't you?
And yet according to the left, General Miller’s direct contacts with Chinese officials at the end of the Trump presidency were righteous.
Amazing!
Yes, Durham was doomed to fail because beginning in 2014 and continuing right up to election day 2016 Trump was actively negotiating a deal with Putin to build Trump Tower Moscow. He even went so far as to offer Vlad a five hundred million dollar penthouse as a bribe. Trump lied about it but Rudy Giuliani and Donald Trump Junior have publicly admitted to it. Reports of Trump colluding with Russia were TRUE!
You just say anything off the top of your head? Is that called "Bronx intuition?
Maybe I'll make a mistake? Is that why they linger? People are waiting for dental service.
That might be the most illogical argument I've ever seen. Congrats.
The work the word "because" is doing......
How much do you think this tower cost? A single penthouse worth 500 million?
You probably should look up what the word collusion means if you think trying to build a building is collusion
Key words, right up to election day. Private citizen. Case closed. Next.
and maybe we should all be aware Collusion, is not a specific crime on the books, Muellers job was not to charge Trump, just to bring facts forward to the Senate and House, which he did, but Barr disingenuously prematurely released a pseudo summary.
What are your thoughts on so many LIES about Russia
by so many people ?
Well then, Trump was secretly colluding with Russia during the 2016 election cycle and he lied about it right up to election day making reports he was doing so true. Case closed!
Conspiracy (which Mueller himself said is legally synonymous with collusion) is a charge on the books and Mueller's job was to charge anyone who did conspire with Russia.
No American was charged with conspiring with Russia.
Except he wasn't so there is that. Appeal denied.
Case closed? Try again. Mueller was unable to establish a conspiracy between members of the Trump campaign and the Russians involved in this activity.
To find conspiracy, a prosecutor has to establish beyond a reasonable doubt the elements of the crime: an agreement between at least two people, to commit a criminal offense and an overt act in furtherance of that agreement. Meuller couldn't establish any of that.
One of the underlying criminal offenses that Mueller reviewed for conspiracy was campaign-finance violations. This, unfortunately is not as uncommon as people like to think. If that's so bad then why was this same thing not brought up when the Obama / Biden administration was fined $375,000 by the Federal Election Commission for violating federal disclosure laws? Oh that's right. But Trummmmppppp!
Mueller found that Trump campaign members met with Russian nationals in Trump Tower in New York June 2016 to receive disparaging information about Clinton. According to an email message arranging the meeting, the meeting did not amount to a criminal offense, in part, because Mueller was unable to establish “willfulness,” that is, that the participants knew that their conduct was illegal.
Google is your friend. And reading Meuller's report helps too.
We know it's true.
They were able to prove a financial relationship that Trump and those around him lied about, and they proved that Putin did direct the resources of the Russian government to aid Trump in the election, and they proved that many people around Trump were in contact with Russian operatives and lied about it and they proved Trumps campaign manager did in fact collaborate with Russians, including oligarch Oleg Deripaska and “Russian intelligence officer” Konstantin Kilimnik, before, during, and after the election and that his “high-level access and willingness to share information with individuals closely affiliated with the Russian intelligence services... represented a grave counterintelligence threat.”
All of that was proven fact. What was never proven was the much higher bar of "criminal conspiracy" between Putin and Trump. That would essentially require tapes and transcripts of Trump meetings/conversations with Putin where he is spelling out the quid-pro-quo which likely, if they exist, do so only in Putin's archives so we may never have that kind of evidence unless it becomes convenient for Putin to release it.
So while there was clearly a desire from Trump and his campaign for aid from Russia, and Russia did in fact do whatever they could under the table to help like hacking email servers and releasing political party emails to damage Trumps opponents and spending $1.25m a month on fake Facebook ads and bots. But there is no smoking gun of Trump criminal conspiracy so apparently all that is above board to Republicans, which to me seems insane, unpatriotic and unAmerican bordering on treason, but that's the bar they're sticking to. To them apparently as long as it's only a wink and a nod, political parties receiving help from foreign enemies, let alone foreign allies, to win national elections is all above board.
“It isn't so much that liberals are ignorant. It's just that they know so many things that aren't so.”
― Ronald Reagan
Add this to your conspiracy theories DP - Obama, 1st term U.S. Senator, 4 months experience - elected in a "landslide"??? When there were 102 Democrats who were much more qualified and popular, how did Obama win?? Think Foreign - Soros and China. Biden, 95th term Senator, very little if any experience at being a leader/manager/innovative thinker, not real popular with his fellow Dems, sitting in his basement, on a couch, beating an incumbent president. How did he win??? Think Foreign - Soros and China.
Are you playing Devils Advocate, or are you off your rocker?
Obama won because he showed during a long primary campaign that he had tremendous personal charisma, and the time was ripe for a non white candidate to do well.
Biden won because Trump was the worst president in US history.
You really believe that crap?? Is that just because you're from Chicago?
Obama was/is a snake oil salesman whether he was white or non-white (he was a little of both) and the political world knew/knows it.
Biden is, by far, the worst President during my adult lifetime. Sure, he's done some good things - but he has done some major SNAFU's and just doesn't seem to learn from his constant mistakes.
You really believe that crap??
What conspiracy theories? I spelled out facts and then admitted we don't have the smoking gun of criminal conspiracy. The closest I got to a conspiracy theory was an "if they exist" Putin has them in reference to the missing evidence of criminal conspiracy.
Now that's the classic conspiracy theory format. Ask a rhetorical question and then answer with a completely unfounded conspiracy theory involving some shadowy 'deep state', a supposedly evil Jew and secret communist Chinese agents getting the first black American elected President. I'm almost surprised you didn't throw in Kenyans planting the notice of Obama's birth in Hawaii newspapers back in August 1961 in a very long con to put a Kenyan Muslim in the white house.
If you'd like to claim any of the facts I presented are "conspiracy theories" I highly recommend reading the conclusions the Republican Senate led investigation into the Trump campaign connections with Russia actually uncovered and concluded.
Hmmpphh - six years (2014-2020) the Dems threw everything they had about Trump on the wall to see what would stick - the results???? Nothing stuck - just typical, cry baby Jerry and Adam and Pelosi still demanding and stating "I'VE GOT PROOF" - which never showed up and never will show up.
Talk about wasting money - hell, the Dems have spent and wasted more money in the past 10 years of pure hypocrisy, day-dreams and fantasy island wishes to bury the "Orange Man" 'cause they don't like him.
Durham, I think, is getting ready to unload and the Dems are going to scream bloody murder when they get shellacked.
Getting ready to unload?
What's taking so long?
You mean shoot himself in the foot.
Ain't gonna happen John - ain't gonna happen. His advances beat the hell outta Mueller's and the course for the Dems ain't gonna be smooth.
The only thing that moosh noosh chimook is going to unload is his diaper.
Ain't gonna happen 1st - ain't gonna happen
Clearly that had nothing to do with what was being thrown, Republicans simply refused to acknowledge any wrongdoing.
We had tape of dirty Donald saying "I did try and fuck her. She was married. And I moved on her very heavily." "I don't even wait. And when you're a star, they let you do it. You can do anything. Grab 'em by the pussy.", but supposedly religious conservatives laughed it off as "locker room talk".
It was proven that Trump paid off multiple porn stars to keep their mouths shut during the campaign about their affairs they had with Trump while his current wife was home with their new born, but supposedly religious conservatives laughed it off.
It was proven that Russia did in fact hack Democrat email servers then illegally released emails that put Trump opponents in a bad light. Russia also spent millions on ads and bots that were intended to look domestic that spread all sorts of lies about Hillary and Democrats while also stoking racial tensions. When asked "did you want President Trump to win the election and did you direct any of your officials to help him do that?" Putin replied "“Yes, I did. Yes, I did. Because he talked about bringing the U.S.–Russia relationship back to normal.”, supposedly patriotic religious conservatives laughed it off and some even wore T-shorts claiming they'd rather be Russians than Americans of the opposite party.
It was proven that multiple members of Trumps campaign team including the campaign manager had multiple ties and communications with Russian operatives and did provide sensitive election data to Russia and presented a "grave security threat"., just more eye rolling from supposedly patriotic religious conservatives.
It was proven that Trump clearly attempted to extort Ukrainian President Zelensky to dig up dirt on his domestic political opponent for which he was impeached. The only reason he wasn't removed at the time is that the Republican majority refused to let the facts stick and shrugged their shoulders along with the rest of religious conservatives. Clearly the law, facts and a President abusing his power for his own political gain doesn't mean shit to them unless its a President of the opposing party.
Trump bragged that he protected Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman after the assassination and dismembering of the Washington Post columnist Jamal Khashoggi, and supposedly freedom of speech and freedom of the press loving conservatives shrugged their shoulders and dismissed the killing of a journalist and their own President protecting the killers.
And that's the tip of the iceberg. Lot's of valid complaints were made against Trump, his actions, his campaign and his administration, it's just that half the nation decided they'd rather be deplorables siding with a immoral cesspool than to work with other fellow Americans who don't share their supposed "conservative values". Considering how low they put the bar for their own candidates and the vile shit they're not only willing to put up with but seem to prefer, I'm not sure if many conservatives have any "values" left.
Think you need to read the Mueller Report again - none of your statements were "proven" - all subjecture.
Please point out any "subjecture" or conjecture for that matter. You claim nothing was proven yet everything I stated as fact has been proven and is easily verifiable. Pick one you don't think is true and I'll respond with the proof, but I don't want to waste my time responding to each and every point when they are clearly factual and you provide zero evidence to the contrary.
When more Clintonites start getting charged the left will just cry illegitimate, just like they already are on the impending drubbing they have coming in November 2022.
It’s all they got. False accusations.