Perspectives; Thoughts; Comments; Opinions; Discussions

Posts tagged ‘Special Counsel John Durham’

Merrick Garland’s J6 Juries Prove Durham’s Point: Conservatives Can’t Get A Fair Trial In D.C.



AG Merrick Garland

Author Margot Cleveland profile




Special Counsel John Durham breached neither ethics nor etiquette when he highlighted the difficulty of obtaining a conviction in a politically charged case when the jury holds opposing partisan views. He merely stated the reality on the ground in D.C.-area federal courts. And by his own actions prosecuting the J6 defendants solely in the nation’s capital, Attorney General Merrick Garland has confirmed that assessment by proving the corollary: Criminal cases against individuals viewed by the local populace as political pariahs make for easy convictions. 

“Did the Durham Report’s Criticism of Juries Go Too Far?” The Washington Post’s headline from last week asked rhetorically. It was quite an ironic concern coming from the legacy outlet serially guilty of publishing fake news to propagate the Russia-collusion hoax. A better question for the “democracy dies in darkness” rag would be: Did Clinton and Democrats’ Dirty Politics Go Too Far?

But no, instead of focusing on the substantive content contained in the 300-plus pages of Durham’s report detailing malfeasance by the Department of Justice and FBI and the Clinton campaign’s responsibility for the scandal, The Washington Post focused on Durham’s introductory remarks explaining the “special care” the special counsel’s office used in making criminal charging decisions — decisions Durham stressed were “based solely on the facts and evidence developed in the investigation and without fear of, or favor to, any person.”

After noting the high burden the Constitution places on the government in criminal cases, Durham explained why, in numerous instances, he did not seek criminal charges even though the conduct deserved “censure or disciplinary action.” 

“In examining politically-charged and high-profile issues such as these, the Office must exercise — and has exercised — special care,” Durham explained. “First, juries can bring strongly held views to the courtroom in criminal trials involving political subject matters,” Durham continued, “and those views can, in turn, affect the likelihood of obtaining a conviction, separate and apart from the strength of the actual evidence and despite a court’s best efforts to empanel a fair and impartial jury.”

Those taking umbrage at Durham’s remarks, claiming they erode faith in our justice system, seem to have missed that the Justice Department’s manual, “The Principles of Federal Prosecution,” quoted in the special counsel report, makes the same point. Sometimes while “the law and the facts create a sound, prosecutable case,” the manual explained, there is still “the likelihood of an acquittal due to unpopularity of some aspect of the prosecution or because of the overwhelming popularity of the defendant or his/her cause…” It continues:

For example, in a civil rights case or a case involving an extremely popular political figure, it might be clear that the evidence of guilt viewed objectively by an unbiased factfinder would be sufficient to obtain and sustain a conviction, yet the prosecutor might reasonably doubt, based on the circumstances, that the jury would convict.

Prosecutors in such cases, the manual explained, might assess a guilty verdict unlikely “based on factors extraneous to an objective view of the law and the facts.”

In other words, biased juries and politics, rather than an “objective view of the law and the facts,” may dictate whether a defendant is convicted or acquitted. These are not merely the sentiments of Durham or Republicans, but the Department of Justice. So it isn’t Durham’s words that erode trust in the legal system, but rather insular juries.

It also isn’t merely the unsuccessful cases Durham brought against Michael Sussmann in the D.C. federal court and Igor Danchenko in the nearby federal court in Virginia that foster Americans’ distrust of the justice system. It is also the DOJ’s insistence that the scores of J6 prosecutions remain in the nation’s capital.

D.C. Jury Pool Is Biased

Following the Jan. 6, 2021, breach of the U.S. Capitol, the Department of Justice has charged hundreds with federal crimes. Because the alleged offenses occurred in D.C., federal law provides that “venue,” meaning the physical location for the criminal proceedings, is proper in the federal D.C. district court. 

Congress, however, has provided two bases to change venue. First, a federal court must transfer the criminal proceedings if the defendant requests a change of venue and “so great a prejudice against the defendant exists … that the defendant cannot obtain a fair and impartial trial there.” 

While many J6 defendants have moved for a change of venue based on such prejudice, the DOJ has uniformly opposed the transfers. And because the “so great prejudice” standard is nearly insurmountable, the federal D.C. district court has denied the change of venue requests, even against evidence that 90 percent of D.C. voters cast their ballots against Trump in both 2016 and 2020. Furthermore, while almost everyone in D.C. knows about the indictments, polls show more than 70 percent of them — which is 15 percent higher than the national average — have formed an opinion about guilt or innocence.

Nor have the D.C. federal courts granted a change of venue “for convenience” — a second statutory basis Congress provided — which would allow the J6 defendants to be tried in their home states for their convenience, the convenience of witnesses, and “in the interest of justice.” Given that the DOJ farmed out the J6 cases to field offices throughout the United States, tasking local agents with surveilling and arresting the defendants, and that there are U.S. attorney offices in every state, trying the defendants across the country is also no inconvenience to the federal government. 

So even if the prejudice is not “so great” that it is mandatory to change the venue of the case, why does the DOJ oppose the discretionary transfer for convenience? 

Because Garland — like Durham — knows D.C. juries “bring strongly held views to the courtroom in criminal trials involving political subject matters and those views can, in turn, affect the likelihood of obtaining a conviction.” In fact, so great is the concern of a pro-DOJ bias that several defendants have made the nearly unheard-of decision in a criminal case to waive their right to a jury trial and have the judge decide their fate.

Americans likewise recognize the effect biased juries have on case outcomes. The attorney general ignoring the public perception of Lady Justice peaking from behind her blindfold will further erode respect for the judicial system and likely prompt future jurors to convert the trial process to a payback system — convicting the innocent or acquitting the guilty in a misguided attempt to right the scales of justice.

What Courts and Congress Should Do

The courts and Congress can and should respond. When faced with discretionary venue changes for “convenience,” courts should weigh more the “convenience” of the defendants and “the interest of justice.” When a question of mandatory transfers based on “great prejudice” arises, the courts should stop pretending our partisan divide is passable based on jurors’ promises.

Congress has several options too. While it has authorized the Supreme Court to promulgate rules governing federal criminal procedures, it retains the power to enact its own rules. At a minimum, in high-profile criminal cases, Congress should grant both the prosecution and the defense more “peremptory challenges” — challenges to members of the jury pool that can be used for any reason (except invidious discrimination). This will eliminate some of the most concerning situations. 

For instance, in Durham’s trial against Hillary Clinton’s former lawyer, Sussmann, the federal judge rejected several of Durham’s “for-cause” challenges against jurors who had contributed to the Clinton campaign. When for-cause challenges fail, attorneys must rely on a limited number of peremptory challenges, six for the special counsel’s legal team and 10 for Sussmann. Expanding the number of peremptory challenges would allow for the removal of more potentially prejudiced jurors, and without a venue change, this represents the best mechanism for ensuring an unbiased jury.

More significantly, though, Congress should amend the venue rules to give defendants a better opportunity to relocate highly politicized cases to less partisan locales. While the courts already have that power, they have proved themselves too parsimonious to date. 

But what about when partisanship prejudices the prosecution? Here, the Sixth Amendment places limits on venue, providing that in “all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law…”

In other words, while a defendant may consent to a change of venue, he can also demand a trial in “the State and district wherein the crime” was committed. 

However, the Constitution also gives Congress the authority to “ascertain” the districts. To counter the overwhelmingly parochial D.C. populace, redrawing the borders of the district to limit venue there to the physical Capitol buildings, and then have the rest of D.C. subsumed by the surrounding districts in Virginia and Maryland, would ensure a broader jury pool.

Only so much can be done, however, to ensure juries don’t supplant the rule of law with their political passions, acquitting the guilty because they prefer the defendant’s politics to the prosecutor’s. But that’s the reality that comes from a constitutional system that protects individual rights against government abuse and believes “that it is better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer.”

That’s a good thing, especially as the current DOJ frames pro-lifers and parents as domestic terrorists. But that doesn’t mean it’s a bad thing to remind Americans that juries may not convict because of strongly held political passions rather than actual innocence. Nor is it a bad thing to push Congress to ensure the venue statutes counter bias to the largest extent possible.

Margot Cleveland is The Federalist’s senior legal correspondent. She is also a contributor to National Review Online, the Washington Examiner, Aleteia, and, and has been published in the Wall Street Journal and USA Today. Cleveland is a lawyer and a graduate of the Notre Dame Law School, where she earned the Hoynes Prize—the law school’s highest honor. She later served for nearly 25 years as a permanent law clerk for a federal appellate judge on the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals. Cleveland is a former full-time university faculty member and now teaches as an adjunct from time to time. As a stay-at-home homeschooling mom of a young son with cystic fibrosis, Cleveland frequently writes on cultural issues related to parenting and special-needs children. Cleveland is on Twitter at @ProfMJCleveland. The views expressed here are those of Cleveland in her private capacity.


FBI Ignored ‘Clear Warning Sign’ of Clinton-Led Effort to ‘Manipulate’ Bureau for ‘Political Purposes’

Brooke Singman

By Brooke Singman | Fox News | Published May 16, 2023 2:43pm EDT


The FBI “failed to act” on a “clear warning sign” that the bureau was the “target” of a Hillary Clinton-led effort to “manipulate or influence the law enforcement process for political purposes” ahead of the 2016 presidential election, Special Counsel John Durham found. Durham was referring to intelligence on a plan stirred up by Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign in July 2016 to tie then-candidate Donald Trump to Russia in an effort to distract from the investigation into her use of a private email server and mishandling of classified information.


A photo of John Brennan
WASHINGTON, DC – MAY 16:  Former CIA director John Brennan (2nd L) and former director of National Intelligence James Clapper (R) arrive at a closed hearing before the Senate (Select) Intelligence Committee May 16, 2018 on Capitol Hill in Washington, DC.  (Alex Wong/Getty Images)

Durham found that then-CIA Director John Brennan “realized the significance” of the intelligence that Clinton was stirring up a plan to tie Trump to Russia—so much so, he “expeditiously” briefed then-President Barack Obama, then-Vice President Joe Biden, and other top national security officials. But nothing came of that briefing or of his subsequent referral of the information to the FBI, according to Durham’s final report.

“The aforementioned facts reflect a rather startling and inexplicable failure to adequately consider and incorporate the Clinton Plan intelligence into the FBI’s investigative decision-making in the Crossfire Hurricane investigation,” the report states.

Hillary Clinton rally
Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton speaks at a campaign rally in Raleigh, North Carolina November 8, 2016. REUTERS/Chris Keane – D1BEULPJOPAC (REUTERS/Chris Keane)

“Indeed, had the FBI opened the Crossfire Hurricane investigation as an assessment and, in turn, gathered and analyzed data in concert with the information from the Clinton Plan intelligence, it is likely that the information received would have been examined, at a minimum, with a more critical eye,” the report continued.

In October 2020, Fox News Digital first reported the Brennan briefing to Obama and administration officials, after then-Director of National Intelligence John Ratcliffe declassified Brennan’s handwritten notes memorializing that meeting.

The FBI on July 31, 2016, opened a counterintelligence investigation into whether candidate Donald Trump and members of his campaign were colluding or coordinating with Russia to influence the 2016 campaign. That investigation was referred to inside the bureau as “Crossfire Hurricane.”


Durham found, after years of investigating, that the FBI did not have any actual evidence to support the start of that investigation. But on July 28, 2016, then-CIA Director John Brennan briefed Obama on a plan from one of Hillary Clinton’s campaign foreign policy advisers “to vilify Donald Trump by stirring up a scandal claiming interference by the Russian security service.” Biden, former Attorney General Loretta Lynch, former FBI Director James Comey, and former ODNI James Clapper were in the Brennan-Obama briefing, the report says. 

US President Barack Obama speaks with FBI Director James Comey (R).  (Getty)

After that briefing, the CIA properly forwarded that information through a Counterintelligence Operational Lead (CIOL) to then-FBI Director James Comey and then-Deputy Assistant Director of Counterintelligence Peter Strzok, with the subject line: “Crossfire Hurricane.”

Fox News first obtained and reported on the CIOL in October 2020, which stated: “The following information is provided for the exclusive use of your bureau for background investigative action or lead purposes as appropriate.”

“Per FBI verbal request, CIA provides the below examples of information the CROSSFIRE HURRICANE fusion cell has gleaned to date,” the memo continued. “An exchange [REDACTED] discussing US presidential candidate Hillary Clinton’s approval of a plan concerning US presidential candidate Donald Trump and Russian hackers hampering US elections as a means of distracting the public from her use of a private email server.

The memo was heavily redacted.

Durham interviewed a number of Clinton campaign officials, including then-foreign policy advisor, now-Biden National Security Adviser Jake Sullivan. Sullivan, when asked about the Clinton Plan intelligence, said he had not seen the reporting, and called it “ridiculous.” 

“Although the campaign was broadly focused on Trump and Russia, Sullivan could not recall anyone articulating a strategy or ‘plan’ to distract negative attention away from Clinton by tying trump to Russia, but could not conclusively rule out the possibility,” the report states. 

Jake Sullivan
FILE – White House national security adviser Jake Sullivan speaks at a press briefing at the White House in Washington, Sept. 20, 2022. (AP Photo/Andrew Harnik, File)


Durham, in his report, said the FBI “failed to act on what should have been—when combined with other incontrovertible facts— a clear warning sign that the FBI might then be the target of an effort to manipulate or influence the law enforcement process for political purposes during the 2016 presidential election.”

“Whether or not the Clinton plan intelligence was based on reliable or unreliable information, or was ultimately true or false it, it should have prompted FBI personnel to immediately undertake an analysis of the information and to act with far greater care and caution when receiving, analyzing, and relying upon materials of partisan origins, such as the Steele Reports, and the Alfa Bank allegations,” Durham’s report states.

Durham also said the FBI “should have disseminated the Clinton Plan intelligence more widely among those responsible for the Crossfire Hurricane investigation so that they could effectively incorporate it into their analysis and decision-making and their representations to the OI attorneys, and, ultimately, the FISC.”

Christopher Steele
Christopher Steele authored the infamous anti-Trump dossier first published by BuzzFeed News. (Photo by TOLGA AKMEN/AFP via Getty Images)

The anti-Trump Steele dossier was also linked to the Clinton campaign. The dossier contained allegations of purported coordination between Trump and the Russian government. It was authored by Christopher Steele, an ex-British intelligence officer. The Clinton campaign and the DNC funded the dossier through the law firm Perkins Coie, where both Elias and Sussmann were employed at the time. 

The Justice Department inspector general revealed that the unverified anti-Trump dossier helped serve as the basis for controversial Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) warrants obtained against former Trump campaign aide Carter Page. 

And the 2017 Intelligence Community Assessment (ICA) on Russian election interference revealed that the dossier had, at the time, only “limited corroboration.” CIA officials at the time pushed back, arguing the dossier should not be included in the assessment, casting it as simply “internet rumor.” 

John durham special counsel
Special Counsel John Durham, who then-United States Attorney General William Barr appointed in 2019 after the release of the Mueller report to probe the origins of the Trump-Russia investigation, arrives at the United States District Court for the District of Columbia on May 17, 2022, in Washington, D.C.  (Ron Sachs/Consolidated News Pictures/Getty Images)

The dossier has been largely discredited. 


The FBI’s investigation was handed off to Special Counsel Robert Mueller after Trump was elected. Mueller was appointed on May 17, 2017. But Mueller’s team, like the FBI, did not investigate the allegations linked to Clinton-affiliated individuals.

But Durham’s team could not charge anyone related to omission or failure to act on the “Clinton Plan Intelligence.”

“Whether these failures by U.S. officials amounted to criminal acts, however, is a different question,” Durham’s report states.

“Although the evidence we collected revealed a troubling disregard for the Clinton Plan intelligence and potential confirmation bias in favor of continued investigative scrutiny of Trump and his associates, it did not yield evidence sufficient to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that any FBI or CIA officials intentionally furthered a Clinton campaign plan to frame or falsely accuse Trump of improper ties to Russia,” the report states.


Former President Donald Trump
Former U.S. President Donald Trump speaks during a rally in at the Waco Regional Airport in March 2023. (Brandon Bell/Getty Images)


Durham said his team also was not able to find sufficient evidence to prove that the “omission” of the Clinton Plan intelligence from applications to the FISC “was a conscious or intentional decision, much less one intended to influence the Court’s view of the facts supporting probable cause.” 

“In sum, the government’s handling of the Clinton Plan intelligence may have amounted to a significant intelligence failure and a troubling instance in which confirmation bias and a tunnel-vision pursuit of investigative ends may have caused government personnel to fill to appreciate the extent to which uncorroborated reporting funded by an opposing political campaign was intended to influence rather than inform the FBI,” the report states.

It added: “It did not, all things considered, however, amount to a provable criminal offense.” 

Reacting to Durham’s report, the FBI said in a statement: “The conduct in 2016 and 2017 that Special Counsel Durham examined was the reason that current FBI leadership already implemented dozens of corrective actions, which have now been in place for some time. Had those reforms been in place in 2016, the missteps identified in the report could have been prevented. This report reinforces the importance of ensuring the FBI continues to do its work with the rigor, objectivity, and professionalism the American people deserve and rightly expect.”

Brooke Singman is a Fox News Digital politics reporter. You can reach her at or @BrookeSingman on Twitter.

Durham finds DOJ, FBI ‘failed to uphold’ mission of ‘strict fidelity to the law’ in Trump-Russia probe

Brooke Singman

By Brooke Singman | Fox News | Published May 15, 2023 3:28pm EDT


FIRST ON FOX: Special Counsel John Durham found that the Department of Justice and FBI “failed to uphold their mission of strict fidelity to the law” when it launched the Trump-Russia investigation.

Fox News Digital obtained Durham’s report Monday afternoon after his years-long investigation into the origins of the FBI’s original investigation, known as “Crossfire Hurricane.” That investigation looked into whether the Trump campaign coordinated with Russia to influence the 2016 presidential election.

Durham was set to release his report Monday afternoon – the report spans more than 300 pages.

“Based on the review of Crossfire Hurricane and related intelligence activities, we conclude that the Department and the FBI failed to uphold their mission of strict fidelity to the law in connection with certain events and activities described in this report,” the report said.

Durham added that his investigation also revealed that “senior FBI personnel displayed a serious lack of analytical rigor towards the information that they received, especially information received from politically-affiliated persons and entities.” 

This information in part triggered and sustained Crossfire Hurricane and contributed to the subsequent need for Special Counsel Mueller’s investigation,” the report states. “In particular, there was significant reliance on investigative leads provided or funded (directly or indirectly) by Trump’s political opponents.” 

“The Department did not adequately examine or question these materials and the motivations of those providing them, even when at about the same time the Director the FBI and others learned of significant and potentially contrary intelligence,” the report states. 

Durham said there is a “continuing need for the FBI and the Department to recognize that lack of analytical rigor, apparent confirmation bias, and an over-willigness to rely on information from individuals connected to political opponents caused investigators to fail to adequately consider alternative hypotheses and to act without appropriate objectivity or restraint in pursuing allegations of collusion or conspiracy between a U.S. political campaign and a foreign power.” 

“Although recognizing that in hindsight much is clearer, much of this also seems to have been clear at the time,” Durham’s report states. “We therefore believe it is important to examine past conduct to identify shortcomings and improve how the government carries out its most sensitive functions.” 

Special Counsel Robert Mueller completed his investigation in April 2019, which yielded no evidence of criminal conspiracy or coordination between the Trump campaign and Russia to influence the 2016 election.

John durham special counsel
Special Counsel John Durham was appointed in 2019 after the release of the Mueller report to probe the origins of the Trump-Russia investigation. ((Photo by Ron Sachs/Consolidated News Pictures/Getty Images))

Durham indicted three people as part of his investigation: former Clinton attorney Michael Sussmann in September 2021, Igor Danchenko in November 2021 and Kevin Clinesmith in August 2020. Sussmann and Danchenko were found to be not guilty. Clinesmith pleaded guilty and served community service time.

The report states that Clinesmith “committed a criminal offense by fabricating language in an email that was material to the FBI obtaining a FISA surveillance order.”

“In other instances, FBI personnel working on that same FISA application displayed, at best, a cavalier attitude towards accuracy and completeness,” it says. 

“FBI personnel also repeatedly disregarded important requirements when they continued to seek renewals of that FISA surveillance while acknowledging – both then and in hindsight – that they did not genuinely believe there was probable cause to believe that the target was knowingly engaged in clandestine intelligence activities on behalf of a foreign power, or knowingly helping another person in such activities,” the report continued. “And certain personnel disregarded significant exculpatory information that should have prompted investigative restraint and re-examination.”

Durham’s report “does not recommend any wholesale changes in the guidelines and policies that the Department and the FBI now have in place to ensure proper conduct and accountability in how counterintelligence activities are carried out.” 

This is a developing story. Please check back for updates.

Brooke Singman is a Fox News Digital politics reporter. You can reach her at or @BrookeSingman on Twitter.

‘Bigger crime than Watergate’: Trump issues statement on Durham report on Clinton campaign spying

Reported by By Anugrah Kumar, Christian Post Contributor | Monday, February 14, 2022


Hillary Clinton, Donald Trump
REUTERS/Mike Segar

Former President Donald Trump said special counsel John Durham’s court filing provides “indisputable evidence” that Hillary Clinton’s 2016 presidential campaign spied on his campaign and presidency to “develop a completely fabricated connection to Russia,” which is a “bigger scandal” than Watergate.

“This is a scandal far greater in scope and magnitude than Watergate and those who were involved in and knew about this spying operation should be subject to criminal prosecution,” Trump said in a statement, referring to the scandal that forced President Richard Nixon to resign in 1974.

The statement comes after Durham’s team alleged that a Democrat-aligned tech executive was paid to spy on Trump’s residences and the White House while he was president.

“In a stronger period of time in our country, this crime would have been punishable by death. In addition, reparations should be paid to those in our country who have been damaged by this,” the former president added.

Durham’s motion is about potential conflicts of interest related to the representation of former Clinton campaign lawyer Michael Sussmann, who has been charged with making a false statement to the FBI that he was not working on behalf of Clinton at the time. According to the filing, lawyers for the Clinton campaign allegedly paid the technology executive to infiltrate servers that belonged to the Trump Tower and the White House to establish an “inference” and “narrative” to tie Trump with the Russian government, The Epoch Times reported.

Sussmann “assembled and conveyed the allegations to the FBI on behalf of at least two specific clients, including (i) a technology executive (“Tech Executive-1”) at a U.S.-based Internet company (“Internet Company1”), and (ii) the Clinton Campaign,” the filing reads.

Sussmann’s “billing records reflect that” he “repeatedly billed the Clinton Campaign for his work on the Russian Bank-1 allegations” and that the technology executive met and communicate with Mark Elias, a lawyer and operative who has filed numerous election-related lawsuits on behalf of the Democrats, said the Times.

In 2017, Sussmann came out with “an updated set of allegations” about Trump’s Russian connection to another government agency, the filing said, according to Fox News.

Sussmann alleged at the time that “Trump and/or his associates were using supposedly rare, Russian-made wireless phones in the vicinity of the White House and other locations,” based on suspicious DNS lookups by Russian-affiliated IP addresses.

Durham said in the filing his office found “no support for these allegations.”

Kash Patel, former chief investigator of the Trump-Russia probe for the House Intelligence Committee under then-Rep. Devin Nunes, R-Calif., told Fox News that the filing provides “definitive” evidence that the Clinton campaign put together “a criminal enterprise to fabricate a connection between President Trump and Russia.”

Damning statements from Hillary Clinton’s campaign resurface after explosive filing from John Durham

Reported by CHRIS ENLOE | February 14, 2022


Statements Hillary Clinton made just one week before the 2016 presidential election resurfaced over the weekend after a damning new report from special counsel John Durham. After a news report alleged in October 2016 that a server in Trump Tower was communicating with the Kremlin-linked Alfa Bank, the Clinton campaign seized on the moment and claimed it was proof that then-candidate Donald Trump was colluding with Russia.

“This could be the most direct link yet between Donald Trump and Moscow,” said Jake Sullivan, the current national security adviser, who at the time worked as Clinton’s senior policy adviser, in a statement after the story broke.

“This secret hotline may be the key to unlocking the mystery of Trump’s ties to Russia. It certainly seems the Trump Organization felt it had something to hide, given that it apparently took steps to conceal the link when it was discovered by journalists,” Sullivan added. “This line of communication may help explain Trump’s bizarre adoration of Vladimir Putin and endorsement of so many pro-Kremlin positions throughout this campaign.”

In a second social media blast, Clinton’s campaign claimed Trump “has a secret server” that was “set up to communicate privately with a Putin-tied Russian bank,” the server was shut down when discovered, but a new one was later created under a new name with the same purpose as the first one.

The “smoking gun” story broke on Oct. 31, 2016. That is important because it came three days after then-FBI Director James Comey informed Congress the FBI was investigating new information related to the Clinton email scandal. Thus, Clinton’s campaign seized on the story to distract from its own problems.

The allegations, of course, were completely false.

What is this important now?

According to an explosive new filing by Durham, who is investigating the origins of the Trump-Russia probe, lawyers connected to the Clinton campaign reportedly paid a technology company to penetrate servers in Trump Tower to fabricate a “narrative” linking Trump’s campaign to Russia.

The filing was first reported by Fox News.

In a motion filed on Feb. 11, Durham revealed that Michael Sussmann — a lawyer who advised the Clinton campaign who has been charged with lying to the FBI — brought allegations to the FBI about a connection between Trump and Alfa Bank. Sussmann, according to Durham, “assembled and conveyed the allegations to the FBI on behalf of at least two specific clients, including a technology executive (Tech Executive 1) at a U.S.-based internet company (Internet Company 1) and the Clinton campaign.”

Durham alleged that Sussmann worked with the tech executive, a law firm retained on behalf of the Clinton campaign, and other cyber researchers in July 2016 to prepare the information that Sussmann eventually turned over to the FBI.

“In connection with these efforts, Tech Executive-1 exploited his access to non-public and/or proprietary Internet data,” Durham’s filing reportedly states. “Tech Executive-1 also enlisted the assistance of researchers at a U.S.-based university who were receiving and analyzing large amounts of Internet data in connection with a pending federal government cybersecurity research contract.”

“Tech Executive-1 tasked these researchers to mine Internet data to establish ‘an inference’ and ‘narrative’ tying then-candidate Trump to Russia,” the filing says. “In doing so, Tech Executive-1 indicated that he was seeking to please certain ‘VIPs,’ referring to individuals at Law Firm-1 and the Clinton campaign.”

Kash Patel, who worked as the chief investigator on the Trump-Russia probe for the House Intelligence Committee, told Fox News that Durham’s filing shows that lawyers associated with Clinton’s campaign worked to “infiltrate” Trump Tower and shows that “the Hillary Clinton campaign directly funded and ordered its lawyers at Perkins Coie to orchestrate a criminal enterprise to fabricate a connection between President Trump and Russia.”

New report by Durham ‘definitively shows’ Hillary Clinton funded the Russia collusion hoax

Reported by SAMUEL MANGOLD-LENETT | February 12, 2022


According to a report just filed by Special Counsel John Durham, lawyers for Hillary Clinton’s 2016 presidential campaign paid a technology company to “infiltrate” servers belonging to Trump Tower and the White House in order to fabricate a narrative connecting Donald Trump to Russia.

Durham’s filing focuses on potential conflicts of interest related to the representation of Michael Sussman, a former lawyer for the Clinton campaign. Sussman has been charged with making a false statement to a federal agent. He has pleaded not guilty. The indictment against Sussman alleges that he told then-FBI General Counsel James Baker, less than two months before the 2016 presidential election, that he was not working “for any client” when he requested a meeting in which he provided the FBI with “purported data and ‘white papers’ that allegedly demonstrated a covert communications channel” between the Trump Organization and the Kremlin connected Alfa Bank.

In a section of Durham’s filing titled “Factual background,” it is revealed that Sussman “had assembled and conveyed the allegations to the FBI on behalf of at least two specific clients, including a technology executive (Tech Executive 1) at a U.S.-based internet company (Internet Company 1) and the Clinton campaign.”

Durham’s filing says Sussman’s “billing records reflect” that he “repeatedly billed the Clinton campaign for his work on the Russian Bank-1 allegations.”

Sussman and Tech Executive 1 had met and communicated with a law partner who served as General Counsel on the Clinton campaign. Fox News reports that this lawyer is Marc Elias. Per Durham, in 2016, Tech Executive 1 worked with Sussman, an American investigative law firm, several cyber researchers and employees at multiple internet companies to “assemble the purported data and white papers.”

The filing states, “In connection with these efforts, Tech Executive-1 exploited his access to non-public and/or proprietary Internet data. Tech Executive-1 also enlisted the assistance of researchers at a U.S.-based university who were receiving and analyzing large amounts of Internet data in connection with a pending federal government cybersecurity research contract.”

“Tech Executive-1 tasked these researchers to mine Internet data to establish ‘an inference’ and ‘narrative’ tying then-candidate Trump to Russia,” Durham states, “In doing so, Tech Executive-1 indicated that he was seeking to please certain ‘VIPs,’ referring to individuals at Law Firm-1 and the Clinton Campaign.”

Fox News reports that at Sussman’s trial, Durham will establish that among the ill begotten data foraged by Tech Executive-1 and his associates is the domain name systems (DNS) internet traffic pertaining to “(i) a particular healthcare provider, (ii) Trump Tower, (iii) Donald Trump’s Central Park West apartment building, and (iv) the Executive Office of the President of the United States (EOP).”

The former chief investigator of the Trump-Russia probe for the House Intelligence Committee, Kash Patel, said the filing “definitively shows that the Hillary Clinton campaign directly funded and ordered its lawyers at Perkins Cole to orchestrate a criminal enterprise to fabricate a connection between President Trump and Russia.”

Tag Cloud

%d bloggers like this: