The Michael Sussmann case is heating up.
On
February 11, 2022, Durham filed the Government’s Motion to Inquire into
Potential Conflicts of Interest in the Michael Sussmann case. Read it here.
As you might recall, Sussmann was charged with giving false statements
to then-FBI General Counsel James Baker regarding the interests he was
representing in pushing to the FBI the Alfa Bank/Trump Organization
hoax. More background information on the Sussmann indictment can be found here.
The
basis for the latest motion is that Sussmann’s current counsel, Latham
& Watkins LLP (Latham) might have a conflict of interest because
Latham previously represented Perkins Coie and Mark Elias “in this
investigation.” It is alleged that Latham “likely possesses confidential
knowledge about Perkins Coie’s role in, and views concerning,
Sussmann’s past activities.” (Cleaned up.)
There might also be a
conflict because Latham was representing both the Clinton Campaign and
Hillary for America in the Special Counsel’s investigation. Durham
observes that Latham’s duties to these former clients “might cause its
interests to diverge from those of [Sussmann].”
Why might there be a conflict?
Because
Durham might offer evidence at trial he obtained from the Clinton
Campaign and Hillary for America. And because certain employees of the
Clinton Campaign and Hillary for America might be witnesses at
Sussmann’s trial. (Theoretically, a Clinton Campaign witness could be
called by the prosecution to prove-up billing records and payments made
to Sussmann. I’d guess they might have already testified to a grand jury
about this.)
Another
conflict issue is that Latham helped Perkins Coie draft and issue
public statements concerning Sussmann’s 2016 meeting with the FBI
General Counsel. Per Durham, “Those statements – which [Sussmann]
appears to have reviewed or assisted in drafting – were at least
partially inaccurate and/or misleading.” Thus, “Latham may encounter
potential conflicts of interest in advising the defendant concerning
past events in which Latham played a significant role.”
The Exploited Data.
We previously discussed
how Rodney Joffe (identified as Tech Executive-1 in the Sussmann
indictment and in the latest filing discussing the conflict) exploited
proprietary – and perhaps classified – data provided by DARPA to further
their own political attacks, and how that might result in charges. This
latest filing summarizes Joffe’s activities, stating Joffe asked his
researchers “to mine Internet data to establish ‘an inference’ and
‘narrative’ tying then-candidate Trump to Russia.” It was later confirmed that two former DARPA employees have given grand jury testimony, so it appears Durham is following this track.
I
provide that background because of what we have now learned. Durham
just divulged, to an extent, that contractors and tech experts (meaning
Joffe and his cohorts) – those same people involved in the Alfa Bank
hoax – essentially spied on President Trump.
According
to Durham, Joffe and his associates exploited internet data from “the
Executive Office of the President of the United States” to further their
own political agenda and damage President Trump. They had come to
possess this data as part of a “sensitive arrangement” with the U.S.
government. As Durham explains:
Joffe
and his associates obtained the information because they had “come to
access and maintain dedicated servers for the Executive Office of the
President.” They then manipulated this information to further a
conspiracy theory that Trump and those in Trump’s orbit were continuing
their secret backchannels with the Russians.
This was repackaged with the Alfa Bank hoax and given to Sussmann, who then laundered it to the CIA
on February 9, 2017. (Apparently Sussmann was done dealing with the
FBI.) Sussmann alleged to the CIA that the data showed “that Trump
and/or his associates were using supposedly rare, Russian-made wireless
phones in the vicinity of the White House and other locations.” Durham
“identified no support for these allegations.”
One can’t help ask why Joffe (via Sussmann) risked legal exposure to continue to push false Trump-Russia allegations before and
after the 2016 election. First to the FBI in 2016 then to the CIA in
2017. It seems that Joffe was desperate, and his desperation only
increased after Trump’s election.
The source of Joffe’s
desperation? It’s speculation at this point, but perhaps it goes to the
origins of the purported Russia/DNC hack. To revise a previous question
we have asked:
What if Crowdstrike was a patsy, there
to unknowingly reach false conclusions of a “Russian hack” based on
fraudulent information provided to them by Rodney Joffe and Perkins Coie
and the DNC/Hillary Campaign?
We don’t have an
answer to that question - yet. Maybe we never will. But that question
becomes more reasonable the more we learn about Joffe. At a minimum, it
seems likely that we will see Joffe’s indictment. Don’t ask if Joffe was
involved in a conspiracy. Ask how deep that conspiracy went, and who
else was involved.
Source: https://technofog.substack.com/p/durham-clinton-allies-spied-on-the
Be the first to Comment.
Blogger's note:
subterrnews.blogspot.com does not send cookies, or collect any information on
those using the blog. However, the blogspot is on google, and google may
collect information, and send cookies. Many of the links that we
connect to do not send out cookies or collect information, but some do.
You are keying in to this blog, and you have agreed to this.
The views of the author do not
necessarily represent the opinions of this blog. They are the views, and opinions of the
author(s) of the article.
