John Durham

[GURPS]

Spygate Figure Whose Attorney Outed Him To The New York Times Now Wants His Name Hidden In Court Documents​

When Things Are Good, Go To NYT. When Bad, Sue​

In addition to these emails, others provided in response to a Right to Know request to Georgia Tech document anti-Trump vitriol that also doesn’t serve Joffe’s PR push. Such growing negative attention, coupled with the special counsel’s continued use of legal filings in the Sussmann case to detail how the Alfa Bank hoax (and the related Russian cell phone canard) went down, provide a backdrop to Joffe’s motion that seeks to force Durham to remove references to Tech Executive-1 in past (and likely future) court filings.

Although Joffe’s motion is sealed, the docket entry notes he presents a constitutional claim. That constitutional claim is likely premised on the due process clause of the Constitution, as courts have found due process violations when the government names an unindicted individual in an indictment or later court filings.

“The fundamental requirement of due process is the opportunity to be heard ‘at a meaningful time and in a meaningful manner,” precedent teaches. Yet a named, but unindicted, individual “is not afforded a forum in which he can attempt to vindicate himself.” Expungement of the individual’s name is appropriate in those circumstances, absent an important governmental interest to identifying the individual.

Joffe’s Attorney Named Him Publicly First​

The problem for Joffe, however, is that the government did not name him. To the contrary, the special counsel’s office complied with Department of Justice guidelines that provide that “federal prosecutors should remain sensitive to the privacy and reputation interests of uncharged third-parties,” and neither name them or provide an “unnecessarily-specific description” of the individual.

For instance, the guidelines explain, a third party can be referred to generically in most cases such as “a Member of Congress,” as opposed to “Senator X.” And uncharged third parties can be referred to as “an individual.”

 

[GURPS]

5 New Special Counsel Arguments Against A Russia Hoaxer’s Attempt To Escape​

Approximately two weeks ago, Michael Sussmann’s legal team filed a motion to dismiss the criminal charge the special counsel’s office brought against the former Hillary Clinton campaign attorney. On Friday, the special counsel filed a response that demolished Sussmann’s legal arguments, highlighted several significant facts related to the pending charge, and revealed the ridiculousness of the defense’s attempt to hide behind the First Amendment.


Here are five key takeaways from Durham’s response.

1. Sussmann’s Alleged Lie Was Material Even Under the Defense’s Screwy Standard

In September 2021, the special counsel’s office charged Sussmann in a one-count indictment with lying to former FBI General Counsel James Baker in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1001(a)(2). As I explained last month, “Specifically, the indictment charged that when Sussmann met with Baker on September 19, 2016, and provided him ‘white papers’ and data files purporting to show the Trump organization had established a secret communications channel with the Russia-connected Alfa Bank, Sussmann falsely claimed he was not acting on behalf of a client. In truth, the indictment alleged, Sussmann was working both for the Clinton campaign and an unnamed ‘U.S. technology industry executive,’ since identified as Rodney Joffe.”

Late last month, Sussman’s legal team filed a motion to dismiss the criminal charge, arguing that even if he had lied, his falsehood did not constitute a crime because Section 1001(a)(2) criminalizes only “a materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or representation.” Sussmann’s alleged lie, according to defense attorneys, was not material. The government’s response decimated that argument, laying out first the strawmen erected by Sussmann’s lawyers.

“Distilled to its core,” the special counsel began, the defendant’s argument rests on the premise that the only question is whether Sussmann’s alleged lie was material to the “discrete decision” of whether the FBI should launch an investigation into the Alfa Bank data and white papers. But materiality is not so narrow, Durham’s response stressed. Rather, “a false statement is material if it has the capability to influence a ‘discrete decision’ or ‘any other function of the agency.’”

2. Sussmann Was Not the Clinton Campaign’s Political Lawyer
3. The FBI’s Relationship With Joffe Proves His Use of Sussmann Was Suspect
4, Yes, Spying on The Executive Office of the President Concerned Trump
5. Sussmann Should Have Known Better—So Stop Hiding Behind the First Amendment

 

[PJay]

A pleasant reminder:

President Trump reinstated execution by firing squad and hanging on Christmas Eve, 2020.

 

[GURPS]

Well, Well, Well … Russia Hoax Special Counsel Is Investigating the 2016 DNC Server 'Hack' and That's Not All​

The Federalist is exclusively reporting that the Special Counsel investigating the origins of the Russia Collusion hoax — which so far, in filings, point directly to Hillary Clinton and her campaign hired guns — is also looking into the 2016 Democratic National Committee (DNC) computer server “hack.” At least one familiar name has coincidentally turned up.

This is the first inkling that John Durham is looking into the mystery of the DNC server hack, the contents of which were transmitted somehow to DC Leaks.

Published leaks showed that then-DNC chair Rep. Debbie Wasserman-Schultz (D-Fla.) used the supposedly objective political organization to favor the Hillary Clinton campaign over that of Bernie Sanders. Wasserman-Schultz lost her DNC job over the scandal right before the 2016 nominating convention.

After the leaks, the DNC immediately blamed “the Russians” to further buttress their fake story that Donald Trump was somehow colluding with Vladimir Putin to conduct the hack.
But the DNC hack story has never been quite that simple. It appears that Durham may see it that way, too.

 

[GURPS]

Researcher Tells Durham He Saw Holes In The Alfa Bank Hoax Before Democrats Shopped It To The FBI​

AGeorgia Tech researcher says he tried to politely throw cold water on a key part of the Russia collusion hoax before the Alfa Bank lie was eventually shopped to the media and government agencies, according to a newly obtained document. This new detail was one of several revealed in a document drafted by George Tech’s Manos Antonakakis—the man branded “Researcher-1” in Special Counsel John Durham’s indictment of Michael Sussmann on one count of lying to FBI General Counsel James Baker.

As I explained previously, “that indictment alleged that when Sussmann met with Baker on September 19, 2016, to provide the FBI attorney with data and ‘white papers’ that purported to establish a secret communication channel between the Trump organization and the Russia-connected Alfa Bank, Sussmann falsely claimed he was not acting on behalf of a client, when in reality Sussmann was working both for the Clinton campaign and an unnamed ‘U.S. technology industry executive’ since confirmed to be Rodney Joffe.”

After the Sussmann indictment dropped, Antonakakis emailed his private lawyers and an attorney and higher-ups at Georgia Tech a document entitled “fallacies” that purported to identify several portions of the indictment he claimed are false or misleading. Last week, The Federalist reported on several details contained in an abbreviated version of the “fallacies” document obtained from Georgia Tech pursuant to a Right-to-Know request.

 

[PJay]

 

[GURPS]

Durham releases former Clinton lawyer Michael Sussmann's text message, says he put 'lie in writing'​

In a filing late Monday, Durham motioned to admit evidence for the Sussmann trial—including a text message Sussmann sent to then-FBI General Counsel James Baker.

Durham contends that Sussmann was, in fact, working for the Democratic National Committee and the Clinton campaign at the time of the meeting.

Durham's original indictment 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.

The indictment alleges that Sussmann lied in the meeting, "falsely stating to the General Counsel that he was not providing the allegations to the FBI on behalf of any client."

 

[GURPS]

Text message makes case ‘materially’ worse for Clinton lawyer Michael Sussmann​

On a Sunday night just weeks before the 2016 presidential election, top Democratic lawyer Michael Sussmann allegedly texted his old friend, the FBI’s then-general counsel James Baker, to say that he urgently needed to convey “sensitive” information to the Bureau — “not on behalf of a client or company,” but just because he was a good citizen who wanted to help the government.

The information, it turns out, was sculpted to portray Donald Trump, then the Republican nominee for president, as if he were in cahoots with the Kremlin. I say “sculpted” advisedly. In reality, according to the false-statements indictment against him, Sussmann was actually representing two clients: Rodney Joffe, an information technology expert, and the Democratic campaign of Trump’s opponent, Hillary Clinton.

Joffe, to whom the Sussmann indictment refers as “Tech Executive-1” and describes as angling for a job in the anticipated Clinton administration, was then working with a team of IT pros to curate records of internet communications. His objective, according to the indictment, was to project the appearance of a communications back-channel between Trump Tower in New York City and Alfa Bank, an important Russian financial institution with ties to Vladimir Putin’s regime. The Clinton campaign reportedly wanted to depict the allegation as so serious that the FBI was investigating it. Sussmann, the Washington insider who was billing his time on the Trump/Russia matter to the Clinton campaign, was the perfect messenger to get the FBI’s attention.

 

[GURPS]

On September 19, 2016, DNC/Clinton Campaign lawyer Michael Sussmann met with FBI General Counsel James Baker, where Baker was provided with data and “white paper” purporting to show covert communications (since proven to be bogus) between Russian Alfa Bank and the Trump Organization.

Special Counsel John Durham has just provided evidence that the night before – on September 18, 2016 – Sussmann sent Baker this text:



As it turns out, Sussmann was billing the Clinton Campaign for his work on the Alfa Bank hoax. This text from Sussmann to Baker is damning for Sussmann’s case, proving Sussmann’s efforts at deceiving a top official at the FBI about his clients, and demonstrating how Sussmann tried to convince Baker he was there to supposedly do the right thing.

John Durham, Michael Sussmann, and the Broader Clinton Conspiracy

Texts from Sussmann prove his lies

technofog.substack.com

 

[buddscreek]

nothing will happen to the guilty.. just another waste of money.

 

[GURPS]

5 Takeaways From The Newly Filed Motions In The Special Counsel’s Sussmann Case​

1. From Sussmann’s Fingers to Baker’s Eyes

2. Sussmann Wants the Handwritten Notes Implicating Him Excluded

The Priestap note includes the following notations: “Michael Sussman[n]—Atty: Perkins Coie—said not doing this for any client”; “Represents DNC, Clinton Foundation, etc.”; “Been approached by Prominent Cyber People (Academic or Corp. POCs)”; and “People like: [three names reacted.” Similarly, Anderson’s note stated “Sussman[n] Mtg w/ Baker” and “No specific client but group of cyber academics talked w/ him abt research,” “article this Friday-NYT/WaPo/WSJ.”

The government’s global motion in limine likewise addresses these notes, arguing they are both admissible. The government’s motion in limine also seeks a ruling from the court that several additional pieces of evidence are admissible: emails referenced in the indictment, statements Sussmann made to the CIA, statements Sussmann made during his congressional testimony, statements his former employer made to the media, and a Hillary Clinton tweet pushing the Alfa Bank hoax. The special counsel also seeks a ruling that the defendants may not present any argument suggesting Durham or the prosecution is politically biased. More on those points another time.

In arguing their positions on the admissibility of Priestap and Anderson’s notes, both Sussmann and the special counsel’s office focus on the hearsay rule. Sussmann’s lawyers argue that both notes and any questioning about the notes are inadmissible hearsay.

3. Immunize Joffe or Set Sussmann Free

4. Keep the Privilege Logs Away from the Jury

5. That Data I Gave the Government? Don’t Talk About It

 

[GURPS]

For all the ink spilled over the “you can’t prove Sussmann said he was not representing a client” defense of the former Clinton campaign attorney, 42 words dissolve that narrative: “Jim—it’s Michael Sussmann. I have something time-sensitive (and sensitive) I need to discuss. 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.”

Last week, the special counsel’s office revealed Sussmann sent that text to Baker at 7:24 p.m. on the night before the meeting at which Sussmann handed the Alfa Bank material to the then-FBI general counsel. Just like that, the thin gruel seems more like cement.

Of course, it will be for a jury to decide whether Sussmann lied to Baker and is guilty of the offense charged, but Sussmann’s text message dispatches one of the strongest defenses pushed by his cohorts in the court of public opinion, which raises an intriguing question: Why is this text only becoming known now?

It isn’t as if Durham’s team went light on the details, either in the indictment or follow-up legal filings. And from comments they made to the press, Sussmann’s attorneys seemed unaware that prosecutors possessed the text message—which would be bizarre if the special counsel’s office knew of the text before dropping the indictment. After all, the special counsel would want to show Sussmann the strongest evidence it had of the alleged crime, to push him to enter a plea deal and cooperate with prosecutors.

One Key Argument For Michael Sussmann’s Defense Has Crumbled

Michael Sussmann’s text message dispatches one of the strongest defenses pushed by his cohorts in the court of public opinion.

thefederalist.com

 

[GURPS]

Durham says CIA found data alleging Trump-Russia plot was ‘user created’​

Special Counsel John Durham asserted in a court filing Friday that the CIA concluded data from Clinton campaign lawyer Michael Sussmann alleging coordination between Donald Trump and Russia was “not technically plausible” and was “user created.”

[clip]

In February, Durham said data was exploited “by mining the EOP’s DNS traffic and other data for the purpose of gathering derogatory information about Donald Trump,” adding the data was used to establish “an inference” and “narrative” tying Trump to Russia.

But Sussmann is moving to preclude evidence concerning the “gathering” of that “DNS data” by “Tech Executive 1,” who has been identified as Rodney Joffe, and his associates.

In Friday’s filing, Durham argued that the gathering of the data is a “necessary factual backdrop to the charged conduct.”

[c;ip]

Durham also alleges that Sussmann in February 2017 provided an “updated set of allegations,” including the Alfa Bank claims, and additional allegations related to Trump to a second U.S. government agency, which Fox News has confirmed was the CIA.

In his filing Friday, Durham says the government expects to “adduce evidence at trial” that will reflect that the FBI and the CIA “concluded that the Russian Bank 1 allegations were untrue and unsupported.

“For example, while the FBI did not reach an ultimate conclusion regarding the data’s accuracy or whether it might have been in whole or in part genuine, spoofed, altered, or fabricated, 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,” Durham wrote.

 

[GURPS]

Clinton campaign's 11th hour attorney privilege ploy likely to backfire in Durham case​

But the sweeping requests for confidentiality — including research from former MI6 agent and opposition researcher Christopher Steele — face a high hurdle, experts told Just the News.

That's because the very subjects the Clinton campaign now seeks to protect — such as its now-discredited anti-Trump research — were widely distributed without regard to privilege for years.

The contents of the now-infamous Steele dossier, for instance, were shared with several news reporters, the FBI, and the State Department. Steele himself talked extensively about his 2016 conversations and dealings with the Clinton law firm, its research firm Fusion GPS and the FBI in a British court case

Sussmann shared much of a research project — which turned out to be untrue — alleging a secret communications channel at the Alfa Bank between Trump and the Kremlin.

 

[GURPS]

Durham unmasks alliance between media, Democrat dirt diggers that triggered false Russia story​

"Gents good to see you yesterday," a Fusion GPS executive wrote the reporters. "Sounded like you might be interested in some of the attached russia-related material. these are internal, open source research drafts, as agreed, pls treat this as background/not for attribution. as you'll see it's all easily replicated anyway."

The invitation to further dirty up Donald Trump continued: "Can also send you a [name]/Toronto memo once i dig it out. I'm skipping over [name] and [company name]. believe your guys have done that up ... leave it to you to distribute internally, or not, as you see fit. don't believe sunny isles/hollywood or panama or toronto have been touched by brands xy or z. amazingly, don't think anyone has done up the trump tower poker ring story either. pretty vivid color there."

The missive is one of hundreds of emails that Special Counsel John Durham has obtained between Clinton campaign operatives and journalists that spread "unverified derogatory information" about Donald Trump, spawning the false Russia collusion narrative shortly before Election Day 2016. They've now been made public in court filings.

File gov.uscourts.dcd_.235638.97.0.pdf


Durham recently disclosed several communications with reporters in a filing designed to reject the Clinton campaign's claim that its Steele dossier and other research should be shielded from public view at an upcoming trial because it was covered by attorney client privilege.

 

[GURPS]

Spygate Judge Tries To Protect Hillary Clinton In Latest Pre-Trial Rulings​

Overall, Cooper’s Saturday night opinion, like his previous rulings in this case, represented a studious and a balanced approach to the legal issues, with Sussmann prevailing at times, but the special counsel succeeding on other issues. For instance, in a victory for Durham, the court ruled that prosecutors could present evidence concerning how the Alfa Bank “data came into being and who was involved in its collection and analysis, as well as how Mr. Sussmann came to possess the data, what he did with it, and why.”

But the court also ruled in Sussmann’s favor, first reiterating its previous holding that unless Sussmann claims at trial that the Alfa Bank data is accurate, the government may not present evidence challenging its validity. Cooper further held that the government could not present evidence that Joffe inappropriately accessed proprietary or sensitive government information to gather the data or write the whitepapers, absent some evidence “showing that Mr. Sussmann had concerns that the data was obtained inappropriately.”

Judge Cooper further demonstrated his baseline when he confronted two more significant issues presented by the opposing parties. Sussmann scored a victory when the court held the government could not admit evidence concerning notes taken by former FBI Assistant Director Bill Priestap and former Deputy General Counsel Trisha Anderson unless they testified about their previous conversations with Baker. Even then, Judge Cooper indicated that at most the jury would likely only be read the contents of the notes, as opposed to receiving the notes themselves as exhibits to view.

Such a limitation will surely inure to Sussmann’s benefit because seeing in writing Priestap’s notation, “Michael Sussman[n]—Atty: Perkins Coie—said not doing this for any client” and Anderson’s note, “Sussman[n] Mtg w/ Baker,” “No specific client but group of cyber academics talked w/ him abt research,” would likely strike a more solid punch than merely hearing their testimony.

 

[GURPS]

Questions arise over DARPA allegedly investigating origin of 2016 DNC hack​

In March, The Federalist reported that Georgia Tech researcher Manos Antonakakis, who works with DOD's DARPA, was part of Durham's investigation into the investigation of the DNC hack.

Antonakakis wrote in a July 2021 email obtained through a Right-To-Know request, "During one of my interviews with the Special Counsel prosecutor, I was asked point blank by Mr. DeFilippis, 'Do you believe that DARPA should be instructing you to investigate the origins of a hacker (Guccifer_2.0) that hacked a political entity (DNC)?'

"Let that sync for a moment, folks. Someone hacked a political party (DNC, in this case), in the middle of an election year (2016), and the lead investigator of DOJ's special council [sic] would question whether U.S. researchers working for DARPA should conduct investigations in this matter is 'acceptable'! While I was tempted to say back to him, 'What if this hacker hacked GOP? Would you want me to investigate him then?', I kept my cool and told him this is a question for DARPA's director, and not for me to answer."

 

[GURPS]

Ex-Clinton lawyer Sussmann tries to block witness who could debunk Trump-Russia link​

A former Hillary Clinton campaign lawyer wants to prevent an expert witness from debunking computer research that purportedly showed a secret back channel between former President Donald Trump and Russia during the 2016 campaign.

In court papers filed Wednesday, defense lawyers for Michael Sussmann said special counsel John Durham apparently plans to use testimony from FBI agent David Martin “to cast doubt on the specific data and conclusions that Mr. Sussmann presented to the FBI.”

Durham also appears poised to have Martin discuss the “materiality” — or decision-making importance — to the FBI of Sussmann’s allegedly false claim that he wasn’t acting on behalf of the Clinton campaign and a tech-executive client at the time, the defense said.

 

[GURPS]

The biggest crooks in Special Counsel Durham’s investigation may be at the FBI​

But in a broader sense, this bag man is just a fall guy. The FBI surely knew all along that he, his partner Marc Elias and their firm Perkins Coie, a Seattle law firm with aspirations, were Democrat operatives. Everyone knew that.

So, if the FBI knew all along that Sussmann was lying, why did they generate numerous written records – in the form of otherwise irrelevant notes of the lie and Sussmann’s own text message (which may be something the FBI requested for this very purpose) – that he was not working for a client?

Here’s why. The FBI intended to, and did, present Sussmann’s bogus story to the FISA courts in order to obtain authorization and re-authorization to conduct surveillance on the Trump campaign. They knew the story would stink to high heaven if they told the court that it came from Hillary’s lawyers. So I speculate that they invited those lawyers – Sussmann et al – to say they weren’t representing Hillary in connection with the story.

Query: Why was the FBI this desperate to conduct surveillance on the Trump campaign? Another query: Why haven’t the DNC and the Hillary campaign been charged with anything yet? I’ll leave those questions for another column.

Sussmann’s initial defense was that he never told the FBI what he told them. Forensic and testimonial evidence has sunk that defense – it was yet another lie – and so now he’s left with the defense that his lie doesn’t matter – it was “immaterial.”

 

[Grumpy]

so, it looks like the fix is in..