So anon, what's your take on the DNC/Clinton being fined by the FEC for lying about the Steele thingy, and the revelations that leak out of the Durham investigation?
If even part of it is true, it would appear Clinton and the DNC are the real throne stealers here.

 

The Durham investigation has repeatedly faced criticism for trying to keep alive "right-wing grievances" about the Russia probe. Conservatives are ready for another round of The Times, Washington Post, CNN, et al. all telling us why the Durham investigation doesn’t matter. After all this, isn’t this just a case of lying to a federal agent? Forget about the vicious Clinton Campaign/DNC made up smears that swirled around Trump for years.

Actually though, it's everything. If Hillary Clinton or one of her spokespeople went to the media in 2016 and said Donald Trump was a Russian agent, they'd have gotten a half-hour on MSNBC, but others (hopefully) would have asked for proof, curious if whether or not this wasn’t just a political hit job. But what if you can get the FBI to open an investigation? That gives the whole thing a veneer of credibility. Then you have someone leak it to the press and you’ve now weaponized the nation’s justice system without (you hope) anyone knowing.

But will anything come of this investigation in the end? Like most on the Right, I have my doubts.

Clinton 2016 campaign, lawyer, tech exec in ‘joint venture’ to smear Trump, Durham alleges
By Samuel Chamberlain and Mark Moore
April 5, 2022

Hillary Clinton’s campaign, its lawyer and a tech executive took part in a “joint venture” to gather and spread dirt about Donald Trump during the 2016 presidential campaign, special counsel John Durham charges in a new filing. The bombshell claim was made in a 48-page motion filed late Monday arguing for the admission of additional evidence ahead of Clinton campaign lawyer Michael Sussmann’s pending trial for allegedly lying to the FBI.

At the heart of the case is a Sept. 18, 2016, text message Sussmann sent to then-FBI general counsel James Baker, which was reproduced in Monday’s filing. “Jim – it’s Michael Sussmann. I have something time-sensitive (and sensitive) I need to discuss,” the lawyer wrote. “Do you have availability for a short meeting tomorrow? I’m coming on my own – not on behalf of a client or company – want to help the Bureau. Thanks.”

In fact, prosecutors say, Sussmann — then a cybersecurity lawyer at powerhouse Democratic law firm Perkins Coie — had deceived Baker and was acting on behalf of the Clinton campaign when the two met the following day. During that sitdown, Sussmann allegedly gave Baker information suggesting that servers at the Trump Organization were communicating with servers at Moscow-based Alfa-Bank. That claim was amplified by the Clinton campaign to suggest that Trump was colluding with the Kremlin.

According to Monday’s filing, preparation for Sussmann’s meeting with Baker began in “late July and early August,” when “Tech Executive-1,” who has since been identified as Rodney Joffe, began telling employees at Virginia-based Neustar — where he was a senior vice president — to “mine and assemble Internet data that would support an ‘inference’ or ‘narrative’ tying Trump to Russia.”

Joffe, who is not named in the filing, allegedly said the point of the effort “was to please these ‘VIPs,’” which Durham says refers to Sussmann, his Perkins Coie colleague Marc Elias — the Clinton campaign’s general counsel — and the campaign itself. Prosecutors also allege that Joffe ordered an executive at two other companies he owned to do a data deep-dive into Trump, saying “he was working with a person at a firm in Washington, D.C. with close ties to Hillary Clinton campaign and the Democratic Party.”

The document adds that Joffe even emailed the executive the home addresses, email addresses, IP addresses and other personal information of “various Trump associates,” including spouses and other family members. According to Durham, the CEO was “highly uncomfortable” with Joffe’s ask, but complied because he “was a powerful figure.” The dive into Trump was given the code name “Crimson Rhino.”

Eventually, prosecutors say, Joffe and his associates “exploited” internet traffic relating to a health care provider to assemble information from Trump Tower and Trump’s Central Park West apartment building. Among the allegations made by Sussmann were that Trump and his associates were using a type of Russian-made cellphone near the White House and other locations. At the same time, Sussman and Perkins Coie allegedly connected Joffe to Fusion GPS, the opposition research firm that hired former MI-6 agent Christopher Steele to compile his now-infamous dossier of explosive, debunked allegations about Trump’s supposed links to Russia. The most notorious of those claims was that Moscow security services possessed a tape of Trump in a Moscow hotel room with prostitutes who were supposedly urinating on a bed where Barack and Michelle Obama had previously stayed.

The Clinton campaign kept quiet about its engagement with Fusion GPS — so quiet that last week, the Federal Election Commission fined the campaign and the Democratic National Committee $8,000 and $105,000, respectively, for mislabeling payments to the firm that were routed through Perkins Coie as “legal advice and services” rather than opposition research.

According to the filing, Sussmann even met with Steele himself (identified as “U.K. Person-1”) and Fusion GPS employees at Perkins Coie’s offices in the summer of 2016. Prosecutors say that while Sussmann told Congress in 2017 that he only meant to “vet” Steele, the onetime British spy testified under oath in a UK legal proceeding that Sussmann shared the Alfa-Bank allegation with him and Fusion GPS ordered Steele to “research and produce intelligence reports” about Alfa-Bank.

Allegations about the Trump Organization and Alfa-Bank server ties also allegedly were shared by Steele with State Department officials, while Fusion GPS passed them on to at least one Department of Justice official. After these introductions were made, Durham alleges, Sussmann and Fusion GPS employees shopped the Alfa-Bank allegations to the mainstream media. The claims about the server traffic between Trump Tower and Alfa-Bank were the subject of several contemporary reports ahead of Election Day 2016. The most notable story, by Franklin Foer, was published by Slate that October and bore the headline: “Was a Trump Server Communicating With Russia?”

Finally, the Alfa-Bank claims were allegedly compiled by Joffe and Sussmann into a “white paper” that Sussmann turned over to Baker when the two met. According to the indictment of Sussmann, the lawyer billed the Clinton campaign for the time spent drafting the document. On the same day the Slate story about the Trump Organization and Alfa-Bank came out, the New York Times reported that the FBI had looked into Sussmann’s allegations and concluded that “there could be an innocuous explanation, like a marketing email or spam, for the computer contacts.”

According to the indictment, Sussmann pursued the Alfa-Bank angle even after Clinton’s defeat by Trump in the 2016 election. In February 2017, he allegedly provided an “updated set of allegations” about the Russian bank and its relation to the Trump campaign to another US government agency that has since been identified as the CIA.

Sussmann was indicted in September 2021 and has pleaded not guilty to the charge of making false statements.

Durham’s motion seeks the admission of documents including notes of conversations two other FBI officials had with Baker about his Sept. 19, 2016, meeting with Sussmann; emails involving Sussmann, Joffe, Elias, Clinton campaign officials and Fusion GPS employees; and a deposition by Sussmann before the House Intelligence Committee in December 2017. In that testimony, Sussmann was asked if he was acting on his “own volition” when he contacted Baker and the CIA about the Alfa-Bank allegations. He answered: “No.”

“So did your client direct you to have those conversations?” he was asked.

“Yes,” he replied, before attempting to backtrack moments later.

“[W]hen you say my client directed me, we had a conversation, as lawyers do with their clients, about client needs and objectives and the best course to take for a client,” he said. “And so it may have been a decision that we came to together. I mean, I don’t want to imply that I was sort of directed to do something against my better judgment, or that we were in any sort of conflict.”

---------

In a separate filing, Sussmann’s attorneys argued that the judge in the case should force Durham to offer Joffe immunity from prosecution or dismiss the case. “While Mr. Joffe is prepared to testify in Mr. Sussmann’s defense—and to offer critical exculpatory testimony on behalf of Mr. Sussmann, including that Mr. Joffe’s work was not connected to the Clinton Campaign—the Special Counsel is making it impossible for Mr. Sussmann to call Mr. Joffe as an exculpatory witness at trial,” the document read. “It is simply inconceivable that Mr. Joffe faces any real continuing criminal exposure in connection with the Special Counsel’s investigation. The Special Counsel is yet again overreaching, and doing so in violation of Mr. Sussmann’s Fifth and Sixth Amendment rights.”

https://nypost.com/2022/04/05/clint...-joint-venture-to-smear-trump-durham-alleges/

 

@shootersa I am amazed how is it that Durham is still able to go through with this investigation it cannot believe the Clintons and Bidens haven’t shut this down yet tell me what’s your theory

 

Durham is an independent investigation, like Mueller. Or Starr.
It would be political suicide to shut down Durham, plus neither Clinton or Biden have the power to simply shut it down.

Nixon had the same problem.

 

Former Attorney General Barr Says Obama Likely Won’t Be Charged in Durham Case

Former President Barack Obama will likely not be charged through special counsel John Durham’s inquiry into the origins of the federal Russia investigation, said former Attorney General William Barr in a recent interview.

“If he can prove criminal acts beyond a reasonable doubt, he’ll bring the case. I don’t suspect that they’re going to involve someone at Obama’s level,” Barr told Fox Business on April 8 in response to a line of questions about the case. Barr, as attorney general under the Trump administration, appointed Durham as special prosecutor in the case in October 2020.

The FBI had opened the Russia inquiry amid the 2016 election when Donald Trump was still a Republican candidate. Durham has charged three individuals in the case and was able to secure a conviction of former FBI lawyer Kevin Clinesmith, while two others—Igor Danchenko and Michael Sussmann—have pleaded not guilty on charges of lying to the FBI.

During the interview with Fox News, Barr suggested that Durham, a former U.S. attorney from Connecticut, will come out with a report.

“He is going to, I think, go through everything that happened. Some things he may be able to prove beyond a reasonable doubt,” the former attorney general said, adding that “people can read what happened, and even though you cannot prove it beyond a reasonable doubt … I think most Americans will understand what’s going on.”

On April 4, Durham submitted a court filing alleging that Sussmann lied to the FBI in writing when he communicated with the bureau’s former general counsel, James Baker, in late 2016. Sussmann is accused of telling Baker that he was not working for any client when he was, in fact, working for the Clinton campaign and the Democratic National Committee at that time.

Sussmann’s lawyers denied that their client made those claims to Baker.

 

Well, we know for sure that the whole Steele dossier thingy was bullshit (we had lots of reason to think that before, but with Durham wrapping up, we now know it was bullshit). What the DOJ does with that will depend on more than proof beyond a reasonable doubt. It will depend on what the implications will be going forward.

But whether Clinton or anyone goes to jail over it, America will know. And it will play out at the polls.

 

Durham probe: Judge denies Sussmann motion to dismiss case; trial to begin next month
The trial for former Clinton campaign lawyer Michael Sussman is set to begin on May 16


The federal judge presiding over the case of former Clinton campaign lawyer Michael Sussmann denied his request to dismiss the case brought against him by Special Counsel John Durham Wednesday, ordering that the trial go forward as planned next month.

Sussmann, in February, filed a motion to dismiss the case against him. Sussmann was charged with making a false statement to a federal agent, and has pleaded not guilty.


In a court filing Wednesday, U.S. District Judge Christopher Cooper outlined the charges against Sussmann brought by the Durham impaneled grand jury last year.

Cooper detailed Durham's indictment, which alleges that Sussmann told then-FBI General Counsel James Baker in September 2016, less than two months before the 2016 presidential election, that he was not doing work "for any client" when he requested and held a meeting in which he presented "purported data and 'white papers' that allegedly demonstrated a covert communications channel" between the Trump Organization and Alfa Bank, which has ties to the Kremlin.


John Durham and Michael Sussmann (Sussman pic: Perkins Coie)

"Specifically, Sussmann allegedly told Baker that he was not attending the meeting on behalf of any client when, in fact, he had assembled and was conveying the information on behalf of two specific clients: (1) a technology-industry executive named Rodney Joffe and (2) the Hillary Clinton presidential campaign," Cooper wrote.


"The FBI opened an investigation based on the information Sussmann provided, but ultimately determined that there was insufficient evidence to support the existence of a communication channel between the Trump campaign and the Russian bank," Cooper wrote. "Sussmann has pled not guilty to the charge and denies lying to the FBI."

Cooper wrote that Sussmann’s "sole argument for dismissal" of his case is that "even taking the allegations in the Indictment as true, his purported misrepresentation to Baker was immaterial as a matter of law and therefore cannot support a conviction" under U.S.C. 1001 – making false statements to a federal agent.

"The court will deny the motion," Cooper wrote, noting that the standard for materiality under U.S. code is "whether the statement has ‘a natural tendency to influence, or is capable of influencing, either a discrete decision or any other function of the [government] agency to which it was addressed.’"


Cooper explains that Sussmann argued that his alleged statement to Baker – that he was not at the meeting on behalf of a client – "could not have possibly influenced what was, in his view, the only ‘discrete decision’ before the Bureau at the time: whether to initiate an investigation into the Trump campaign’s asserted communications with the Russian bank."

Cooper said that Sussmann "largely ignores the second part of the test: whether the statement could influence 'any other function' of the agency."

"Sussmann seeks to cabin this holding to statements made during the course of an ongoing investigation, but the Court sees no basis for that bright-line divide," Cooper wrote. "As the Special Counsel argues, it is at least possible that statements made to law enforcement prior to an investigation could materially influence the later trajectory of the investigation. Sussmann offers no legal authority to the contrary."


Cooper notes that whether Sussmann’s alleged statement "was in fact capable of influencing either the commencement or the later conduct of the FBI’s investigation is a very different question, and one that the parties hotly dispute."

"The battle lines thus are drawn, but the Court cannot resolve this standoff prior to trial," Cooper wrote.

Meanwhile, Cooper, last month, rejected Sussmann's motion to "strike" a "factual background" section in a Durham filing in February.


Sussmann’s legal team filed that motion in February demanding that the court "strike" portions of Durham’s Feb. 11 filing, including the "Factual Background" section, claiming it would "taint" a jury pool.

"I’m not going to strike anything from the record," Cooper said during a status hearing last month. "Whatever effect the filing has had has already passed."

Durham, in the Feb. 11 filing with the "Factual Background" in question, alleged Sussmann provided two U.S. government agencies with information from a tech executive that attempted to tie Donald Trump, who was a presidential candidate at the time, to Russia-based Alfa Bank.

The tech executive has since identified himself as Rodney Joffe. Joffe is not named in Durham’s filing and has not been charged with a crime.

Durham alleged that Sussmann, Joffe and Joffe’s associates "exploited" internet traffic about a "particular healthcare provider," Trump Tower, Trump’s Central Park West apartment building and the Executive Office of the President of the United States in order to "establish ‘an inference’ and ‘narrative’" tying Trump to Russia.

Durham alleges Sussmann’s "billing records reflect" that he "repeatedly billed the Clinton campaign for his work" on the Alfa Bank allegations.


U.S. Attorney John Durham outside federal court in New Haven, Connecticut. ( Bob MacDonnell/Hartford Courant/Tribune News Service via Getty Images)

Sussmann’s legal team, in its motion to "strike" the allegations, said Durham had "done more than simply file a document identifying potential conflicts of interest."


"Rather, the special counsel has again made a filing in this case that unnecessarily includes prejudicial – and false – allegations that are irrelevant to his motion and to the charged offense, and are plainly intended to politicize this case, inflame media coverage and taint the jury pool," Sussmann’s lawyers said.

In a separate motion, Durham argued there was "no basis" to "strike" any part of his filing and pushed back against claims that his office "intentionally sought to politicize" the case. He defended the "additional factual detail" he included, which he argued is "central to proving" Sussmann's "alleged criminal conduct."


While he did not grant Sussmann’s motion to strike, Judge Cooper on Thursday appeared to criticize the prosecution, saying the latest "dust-up" strikes him "as a sideshow."

Sussmann’s trial is set to begin on May 16.

 

Durham has ONE indictment, as compared to the numbers of indictments and convictions from Mueller?

Also, there is no evidence to suggest that Trump was targeted politically.

Maybe they should treat this like they do other investigations. Keep investigating until you get the answer you want or run out of money doing it!

 

Shooter is willing to bet neither Mueller or Durham knew they were in a contest to see who got the most indictments.

Oi! Anon! Did you burst into flames when you said there is no evidence the trump investigations were motivated by politics? Did someone talk you into saying that, or did they pay you?

 

Ok, exactly what evidence is there to prove it was a political witch hunt. Concrete evidence.

And I wasn't pitting them against each other, I just find it so funny that the right is waving Sussman around like he's the proverbial black sheep that proves everything Trump said.

 

Oh no.
The lack of clarity is because anon is the dumbest member of XNXX. He couldn't have a clear thought beyond what his handlers give him if his life depended on it. We've seen it here so many times, we just think "There he goes again, the babble machine."

Shooter very highly doubts that anyone, well, with the exception of a few far left despicables, would dare push the narrative that the 2 impeachments and the witch hunts on trump that started when he came down the Trump tower escalator weren't politically motivated.

And we know that because despite the 6 plus years of investigations on the Federal, state, and local level, Trump has not been indicted for any criminal act.
Not one.
Zip.
Nada.
Zilch.
So.
We now have the answer to the question; is trump squeaky clean, or are his pursuers incompetent?
The answer is;
YES.

 

Gotta love those that whine about personal attacks, and yet you are not above them.

 

Shooter very highly doubts that anyone, well, with the exception of anon and a few far left despicables, would dare push the narrative that the 2 impeachments and the witch hunts on trump that started when he came down the Trump tower escalator weren't politically motivated.



6 years. Multiple investigations. Not a single criminal indictment.
Not one.

So yes, Trump really is that squeaky clean, and yes, his pursuers really are that incompetent.

 

Durham keeps on digging and the Dems are finally beginning to sweat.
But I have a question. Why did DARPA claim no DARPA-funded researchers assisted the FBI’s or Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation of the DNC hack?
https://thefederalist.com/2022/04/2...department-of-defense-involvement-in-spygate/

Durham: Five Witnesses Connected to the Clinton Campaign’s False Russian Claims Have Refused to Cooperate
Jonathan Turley
4/17/22

Special Counsel John Durham continues to drop bombshells in filings in the prosecution of former Clinton campaign lawyer Michael Sussmann. Just last week, Durham defeated an effort by Sussmann to dismiss the charges. He is now moving to give immunity to a key witness while revealing that the claims made by the Clinton campaign were viewed by the CIA as “not technically plausible” and “user created.” He also revealed that at least five of the former Clinton campaign contractors/researchers have invoked the Fifth Amendment and refused to cooperate in fear that they might incriminate themselves in criminal conduct. Finally, Durham offers further details on the involvement of Clinton campaign general counsel Marc Elias and former British spy Christopher Steele in the alleged false claims.

Recently, Durham revealed extremely damaging evidence against Sussmann. However, this is the first full description of the Clinton associates refusing to cooperate under the Fifth Amendment. Durham noted that he gave immunity to an individual identified only as “Research 2.” He then noted that this was made necessary by the refusal to cooperate by key Clinton associates: “The only witness currently immunized by the government, Researcher-2, was conferred with that status on July 28, 2021 – over a month prior to the defendant’s Indictment in this matter. And the Government immunized Researcher-2 because, among other reasons, at least five other witnesses who conducted work relating to the Russian Bank-1 allegations invoked (or indicated their intent to invoke) their right against self-incrimination. The Government therefore pursued Researcher-2’s immunity in order to uncover otherwise-unavailable facts underlying the opposition research project that Tech Executive-1 and others carried out in advance of the defendant’s meeting with the FBI.”

[Emphasis added] For his part, Sussmann and the Clinton associates have sought to use attorney-client privilege to keep evidence from Durham.

Durham also detailed how the false Russian collusion claims related to Alfa Bank involved Clinton General Counsel Marc Elias and Christopher Steele. Indeed, the new requested immunized testimony would come from a Tech executive who allegedly can share information on meetings with Elias and Steele.
The Alfa Bank hoax and Sussmann’s efforts paralleled the work of his partner Elias at the law firm Perkins Coie in pushing the Steele Dossier in a separate debunked collusion claim. The Federal Election Commission recently fined the Clinton Campaign and the DNC for hiding the funding of the dossier as a legal cost by Elias at Perkins Coie.

“Durham notes that both the CIA and FBI were sent on an effective wild goose chase by the Clinton campaign. He notes that the government found the allegations to be manufactured and not even technically possible. He refers to the CIA in the following passage: Agency-2 concluded in early 2017 that the Russian Bank-1 data and Russian Phone Provider-1 data was not “technically plausible,” did not “withstand technical scrutiny,” “contained gaps,” “conflicted with [itself],” and was “user created and not machine/tool generated.”

This dovetails with the statements of the Clinton associates themselves who were worried about the lack of support for the Russian collusion claims. “Researcher 1” features prominently in those exchanges.
According to Durham, the Alfa Bank allegation fell apart even before Sussmann delivered it to the FBI. The indictment details how an unnamed “tech executive” allegedly used his authority at multiple internet companies to help develop the ridiculous claim. (The executive reportedly later claimed that he was promised a top cyber security job in the Clinton administration). Notably, there were many who expressed misgivings not only within the companies working on the secret project but also among unnamed “university researchers” who repeatedly said the argument was bogus.

The researchers were told they should not be looking for proof but just enough to “give the base of a very useful narrative.” The researchers argued, according to the indictment, that anyone familiar with analyzing internet traffic “would poke several holes” in that narrative, noting that what they saw likely “was not a secret communications channel with Russian Bank-1, but ‘a red herring,’” according to the indictment.

“Researcher-1” repeated these doubts, the indictment says, and asked, “How do we plan to defend against the criticism that this is not spoofed traffic we are observing? There is no answer to that. Let’s assume again that they are not smart enough to refute our ‘best case scenario.’ You do realize that we will have to expose every trick we have in our bag to even make a very weak association.”

“Researcher-1” allegedly further warned, “We cannot technically make any claims that would fly public scrutiny. The only thing that drives us at this point is that we just do not like [Trump]. This will not fly in eyes of public scrutiny. Folks, I am afraid we have tunnel vision. Time to regroup?”

It appears that the “time to regroup” has passed with the issuance of immunity deals to compel testimony.

Here is the filing:

US-v-Sussmann-04162022-US-Filing

https://jonathanturley.org/2022/04/...fused-to-cooperate-under-the-fifth-amendment/

 

The Daily Wire adds:

Allegations of collusion with Russia dogged former President Donald Trump during his campaign and throughout his presidency. Ex-special counsel Robert Mueller for three years investigated claims that the Trump campaign had illegally coordinated with Russian agents to influence the 2016 election. Mueller eventually concluded that no such evidence exists.

Attorney Michael Sussmann, who previously worked for the Seattle-based law firm Perkins Coie, approached the FBI, under what Durham alleges were false pretenses, with information on potential Trump/Russia collusion. Sussmann took what he said could be evidence of coordination between Trump Tower in New York and Alfa-Bank, one of the largest private banks in Russia.

The CIA, identified in the filing as “Agency-2,” knew in 2017 that at least part of the information that Sussmann had given to federal investigators was not “technically plausible” and was “user-created,” according to Durham’s Friday filing.

 

Latest Durham report finds CIA knew Clinton’s lawyer was giving them phony evidence about Trump in 2017

OAN Newsroom
UPDATED 10:54 AM PT – Friday, April 22, 2022
The latest findings from Special Counsel John Durham’s investigation into the Russian collusion narrative reveal the CIA knew Hillary Clinton’s lawyer was giving them fake information all the way back in 2017. One America’s Pearson Sharp has more.
https://www.oann.com/latest-durham-...ving-them-phony-evidence-about-trump-in-2017/

 

5 years.
5 years of lies and propaganda.

No despicable who twirled and spewed about trump/russia can ever hold their head up again.
"Shithole country" indeed.

 

Is there any wonder why I call them all hack fucks?...31 or 32 democrats are bailing out on their own accord for various reasons...it's gonna be a very dismal election season for the hack fucks this year.

 

Hillary Clinton-hired oppo research firm must turn emails over to Durham probe, judge rules
Clinton campaign lawyer Michael Sussmann is one of three people charged so far

GPS Fusion, the research firm Hillary Clinton’s 2016 campaign hired to dig up dirt on Donald Trump’s supposed ties to Russia, must turn over nearly two dozen emails to special counsel John Durham, a federal judge ruled Thursday.

Those emails – which are largely exchanges between Clinton campaign lawyer Michael Sussman and Fusion GPS – are part of a batch that prosecutors subpoenaed last year.


Photo of John Durham and Michael Sussmann. Sussman pic: Perkins Coie (Perkins Coie)

U.S. District Judge Christopher "Casey" Cooper blocked prosecutors from getting 16 of those emails but allowed Durham to obtain 22. Cooper ruled that the 16 emails in question were protected by attorney-client privilege and attorney-work-product while the remaining 22 were not.

Still, the judge ruled that those emails will not be admissible in the impending trial of Sussman – who is charged with lying to the FBI during a September 2016 meeting – because of the untimeliness of Durham’s request.

Sussman is accused of relaying to the FBI concerns from cybersecurity researchers about a potential secret back channel of communications between servers of the Trump Organization and Russia-based Alfa Bank. The FBI investigated the matter but ultimately found no such suspicious links.

Prosecutors allege that Sussmann misled the FBI's then-general counsel by saying that he was not attending the meeting on behalf of a particular client when he was actually presenting the information on behalf of the Clinton campaign and a technology executive with whom he had worked. Sussman’s trial is set to begin on Monday in Washington's federal court. He has pleaded not guilty.


Christopher Steele, a former British spy who wrote a 2016 dossier about alleged links between Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin, leaves the High Court in London following a hearing in the libel case brought against him by Russian businessman Aleksej Gubarev. (Aaron Chown/PA Images via Getty Images)

Durham, a former U.S. attorney in Connecticut, was appointed in 2019 by then-Attorney General William Barr to look for government misconduct during the investigation into Russian election interference in 2016 and possible ties to Donald Trump's presidential campaign.

Sussmann is one of three people charged so far. The other two are Kevin Clinesmith, a former FBI lawyer who pleaded guilty to altering an email and received probation, and Igor Danchenko, a Russian analyst and source of information for Christopher Steele, the former British intelligence operative who assembled a dossier of anti-Trump research. Danchenko was charged in November with lying to the FBI during a 2017 interview.

The Associated Press contributed to this report.

 

Durham Drops Another Bombshell, Reveals FBI Lied About Hillary Clinton-Supplied Disinformation
By Bonchie | May 23, 2022 8:45 PM ET


AP Photo/Seth Wenig

The trial of Michael Sussmann began another week on Monday, with more witnesses being called as Special Counsel John Durham continues to build his case against the former Hillary Clinton lawyer.

Sussmann is charged with lying to the FBI, something he allegedly did when he hid who he was working for while sharing the now-debunked Alfa-Bank story. That disinformation campaign, which was meant to falsely assert Donald Trump was colluding with the Russians during the 2016 election, has now been directly tied to Hillary Clinton during the trial after it was revealed that she approved its dissemination.

But apparently, Sussmann and Hillary Clinton by proxy weren’t the only ones lying. According to documents presented by Durham, the FBI lied about the Alfa Bank smear’s provenance, telling agents it had come from the DOJ. In reality, Sussmann had brought it directly to the FBI, with the leadership being aware of its origins as badly done political opposition research.

https://twitter.com/nypost/status/1...llary-clinton-supplied-disinformation-n568924

FBI agents probing since-debunked claims of a secret back channel between Donald Trump and a Russian bank believed that the allegations had originated with the Department of Justice — when in fact they came from Hillary Clinton campaign attorney Michael Sussmann, who had shopped them to the bureau’s then-general counsel days earlier.

In the latest revelation to emerge from Sussmann’s trial in DC federal court on a count of lying to the FBI, special counsel John Durham’s prosecutors revealed that investigators had received an electronic communication citing a referral from the DOJ “on or about” Sept. 19, 2016, the same day Sussmann met with James Baker, then the FBI’s top lawyer.

To pull back the layers here, it appears the FBI purposely misrepresented the situation by using a false DOJ referral to make it seem as if the Alfa Bank had come from an anonymous third party. In reality, it came from Hillary Clinton, and the FBI was well aware of who had told them the information and his connections to her campaign.

I won’t pretend to be an expert on this. Obviously, there are times when investigators are kept in the dark in order to keep separation from a source. Still, how was such a hold justifiable given the origins of the information?

In fact, FBI Agent Ryan Gaynor, who testified for the prosecution on Monday, noted that the decision to keep the agents in the dark on the source was made by the highest levels of the FBI. He also said that had he known Sussmann was working for Hillary Clinton, he would have possibly handled the matter differently, including not volunteering to run point in the first place.

In one Oct. 3, 2016, email, agent Heide wrote to Gaynor, “We really want to interview the source of all this information. Any way we can track down who this guy is and how we’re getting this information?”

Supervisory Special Agent Daniel Wierzbicki followed up: “An interview with the source of info … may allow us to understand the ‘what’ and ‘why’ of the white paper.”

Gaynor responded that it was being discussed at headquarters, but did not provide the identity of the source.

On Monday, he said he may have come to a different conclusion about the hold hindering the investigation if he had known Sussmann was acting as an attorney for the Clinton campaign when he turned over the information.

To summarize, the lower-level agents were asking to interview Sussmann (though, they didn’t know who he was at the time) in order to garner more information about his claim. Instead of allowing that, Gaynor kept the hold in place because his superiors did not give him all the information on who Sussmann was. Had he known Sussmann was motivated by politics, it would have changed things.

That leads to the obvious question. Why did former FBI Director James Comey and the rest of the FBI leadership purposely obfuscate the source of the Alfa Bank story? Why lie about it coming from the DOJ? I certainly have my suspicions, and that’s putting it lightly. The only reason to do those things is to push a false narrative that otherwise wouldn’t hold up under nominal scrutiny. Comey and his lackeys obviously wanted the Alfa Bank story to be true, and they did what they had to do to keep it in the fold

In the end, it feels like everyone was in on this scam, and no one is paying a price. It’s a travesty, and hopefully, Durham continues to expose it for all to see.