WASHINGTON, DC- Bombshell…blockbuster…call it what you will. The felony indictment made obtained by Special Prosecutor John Durham should blow the lid off the 2016 Russia collusion hoax perpetrated by the Clinton campaign, furthered by corrupt assets within the FBI and now we are learning also had the involvement of big tech, which was always suspected.
National File reports that the indictment alleges that members of the Clinton campaign hatched a scheme which alleged then-candidate Donald Trump and his campaign had been receiving communications from Alfa Bank, a financial institution closely linked to the Kremlin.
Reports last week identified an attorney, Michael Sussmann in the scheme, a significant development in that Sussmann was attached to the Clinton campaign. Sussmann is alleged to have deliberately pushed the hoax to the FBI, media friendly to the FBI, and another federal agency (undisclosed) under false pretenses.
Now, the part of Durham’s case that is even more significant…the indictment identifies the so-called “mastermind” of the operation to create and spread the Alfa Bank hoax as an executive with one of the big tech companies in order to create the false Trump-Russia collusion narrative.
According to National File, this person is believed to be a man named Eric Schmidt, former executive chairman of Alphabet, the parent company of…Google.
The Russia collusion hoax was the favorite of anti-Trump zealots for years, breathlessly pushed by people such as MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow and congressional Democrats such as Adam Schiff (D-CA).
Those allegations continued even after it was debunked by both the FBI as well as Special Counsel Robert Mueller. In fact, Schiff to this day still rambles on about Russia collusion, like an obsessed schoolboy over the head cheerleader. He is hardly alone.
Durham’s indictment says that those who initially wrote the so-called “white paper” which outlined the conspiracy theory knew for a fact it was full of holes, however spread it anyway for the purposes of creating a “narrative” to trigger a federal investigation for the purposes of undermining Trump.
Now the rats are fleeing the Titanic…or more accurately, they’re being kicked off. After Durham’s indictment went public last week where Sussmann was charged with making false statements to the FBI, his now former law firm—Perkins Coie—issued the following statement:
“In light of the Special Counsel’s action today, Michael Sussmann, who has been on leave from the firm, offered his resignation from the firm in order to focus on his legal defense, and the firm accepted it.”
Perkins Coie has a rather entangled relationship with Clinton and the Democratic National Committee and was one of the primary law firms last year involved in filing numerous lawsuits in various states in order to circumvent election laws. Not so ironically, an overwhelming majority of those lawsuits were in swing states.
Perkins Coie also played a prominent role in “the fabrication and dissemination of the debunked Steele Dossier,” National File reported. That document which has been referred to as the “pee pee hoax” tape alleged that Trump had urinated on Russian prostitutes in a hotel room where the Obama family would end up staying.
The allegation was proven false, and it was later discovered that some assets of the FBI were aware of it, yet still perpetrated the hoax.
Perkins Coie, National File reported, that represented Arizona Senator Mark Kelly (D) in a failed lawsuit, which alleged that National File lied when they claimed Kelly had dressed as Adolf Hitler. Kelly ended up dropping the suit and the outlet stands by its story. The law firm has also argued in an attempt to stop the Arizona election audit.
The Russia collusion hoax was reportedly hatched by a Clinton campaign “confidant,” referred to in the Durham indictment as:
“Tech Executive-1,” who “claimed to have been previously offered a position in government in the event Hillary Clinton won the presidency,” and “exploited access to non-public data at multiple Internet companies to conduct opposition research concerning Trump…
By virtue of his position at Internet Company-1 and other companies, Tech Executive-1 maintained direct or indirect access to, and the ability to provide others access to, large amounts of internet and cybersecurity data,” emphasis added by National File.
The Durham indictment specifies “three tech companies which Tech Executive-1 leveraged influence over on behalf of the Clinton campaign.”
It reads that:
“Internet Company-1 “offers various Internet-related services and products, including Domain Name System (‘DNS’) resolution services”; Internet Company-2 “among other things, collected DNS data from various points on the internet”; and Internet Company-3 “received data that had been collected by Internet Company-2 or its parent company, and then used and analyzed that data in order to advise its private sector customers on cybersecurity and business risks.”
National File notes that the identity of the executive isn’t clear, however Schmidt seems to fit the description. “At the time, he was Executive Chairman of Alphabet, Inc, the parent company of Google and an unofficial advisor to the Clinton campaign, who founded the start-up, The Groundwork to serve as a top-tier tech contractor for the campaign.”
For those unaware, Alphabet is the parent company of Google, which owns the world’s largest public DNS service.
To tangle the web even more, “Alphabet also had an ownership stake in Crowdstrike, which provided cybersecurity services to the DNC and took a leading role in investigating alleged Russian cyber-attacks against the DNC as well as the Clinton campaign,” National File reported.
What a tangled web we weave.
Wikileaks published emails from 2014 in which John Podesta, then chairman of the Clinton campaign that Schmidt “clearly wants to be head outside advisor.”
— WikiLeaks (@wikileaks) November 1, 2016
National File reached out to a Google whistleblower, Zach Vorhies and asked him to look at the document released by Durham.
Do you want to join our private family of first responders and supporters? Get unprecedented access to some of the most powerful stories that the media refuses to show you. Proceeds get reinvested into having active, retired and wounded officers, their families and supporters tell more of these stories. Click to check it out.
“I strongly suspect that ‘Internet Company-1’ mentioned in the Durham indictment is Alphabet, ‘Internet Company-2’ is Google, and ‘Tech Executive-1’ is Eric Schmidt, Vorhies said.
“That would certainly fit the facts of the indictment, but I could be wrong. And since we are speculating, could ‘Internet Company-3 be CrowdStrike?”
While serving as a Google employee, Vorhies collected and released 950 pages of documents which he said proved Google’s use of an “AI-Censorship “ system called “Machine Learning Fairness,” which merged Critical Race Theory with artificial intelligence in order to “shape the views of Google users on its various platforms, including YouTube and its eponymous search engine.” After speaking with National File, Vorhies followed up on Twitter:
“It’s beginning to look like Google meddled in the 2016 election by whoring out privileged access to its user’s private data, in order to fabricate evidence against Trump to support Clinton’s Russian-collusion hoax.”
— Jeff Smith (@FairTaxNow) September 18, 2021
The basis for Durham’s sole criminal charge against Sussmann involves is lying to then-FBI General Counsel James Baker, where he lied about not “disseminating this information on behalf of any client. However at the time, he was billing the Hillary Clinton campaign for time spent drafting the white paper, speaking with Tech Executive 1 and pitching the story to reporters.”
In an amazing display of either chutzpah or stupidity, Baker billed his meeting with Baker to the Clinton campaign, describing the meeting as “work and communications regarding confidential project.”
In sworn congressional testimony, Baker would later say that he couldn’t’ remember if Sussmann identified a client he was working for. Sussmann also denied this under oath to Congress in 2017, whereby he said he was “working on behalf of an unnamed cybersecurity expert.”
National File says this may have been “technically” correct in 2017, since after Clinton’s presidential bid went down in flames, Sussmann in fact started billing his hours worked on the Russian disinformation scheme to Tech Executive-1.
In an interesting timeline, Sussmann’s testimony took place on Dec. 18, 2017, while only four days afterward, Schmidt resigned from his position at Alphabet with no explanation as to why.
Durham’s indictment does feature what National File refers to as a “smoking gun”…a note from Bill Priesetap, then serving as the assistant director of the FBI’s Counterintelligence Division. The notes say that Sussmann “explicitly said he was not doing this on behalf of the Clinton campaign, the DNC or any other of his firm’s clients.” Thou doth protest too much?
Priesetap’s notes go on to say that Sussmann identified the sources of the Alfa Bank hoax as “three concerned citizens in the tech sector.” However according to Durham, this appears to be a lie since he identified the authors of the paper as Tech Executive-1, the originator of the hoax, two computer researchers and Sussmann.
National File reports:
“The Durham indictment alleges that Tech Executive-1 assembled a massive tranche of private data from the technology companies he had influence over, then tasked researchers at a U.S. university to mine it for dirt on Trump. Tech Executive-1 also apparently leveraged his corporate authority to help the same U.S. university with a federal government contract.”
However the researchers were unable to come up with anything in order to substantiate the original Alfa Bank conspiracy theory, while agreeing that the allegations were “probably nonsense,” in particular a “red herring” that should be “ignored.”
Durham’s indictment details that the researchers, based on emails, suggested they could just “fake the documentation” in order to give the Alfa Bank hoax some validity.
“On the same day, “Tech Executive-1 clarified in an email to [them] that the ‘task’ he had given them was ‘indeed broad’, going on further to seemingly suggest that ‘the VIPS would be happy’ for any evidence—even fake evidence—that would justify ‘closer examination’ of an otherwise ‘true story.’”
After the so-called white paper was drafted, Tech Executive-1 asked the team to look at it “critically from the lens of a ‘security expert (NOT a dns expert)’” and specifically directed that the paper “did not have to pass muster to an expert in the relevant field—let alone be accurate in the first place—but simply be believable to a cybersecurity expert who didn’t have enough time to actually invest effort into researching DNS security and discovering the glaring flaws in their argument.” [emphasis added]
The people who looked at the white paper apparently agreed that it did a good job pushing the false narrative and appeared to be “authoritative”:
“A DNS expert would poke several holes to [sic] this hypothesis (primarily around visibility, about which very smartly you do not talk about). That being said, I do not think even the top security (non-DNS) researchers can refute your statements. Nice!” [emphasis in original]
While (of course) coverage of the Durham indictment has been rather limited, some people have in fact flagged it as a bombshell, including law professor and Epoch Times commentator Hans Mahncke:
“The Sussmann indictment is dynamite: The TLDR is that a lawyer acting on behalf of Hillary Clinton used fabricated evidence to get the FBI to investigate Trump.
No wonder the NYT was scrambling last night to spin this as being about a billing mistake.”
The Sussmann indictment is dynamite: The TLDR is that a lawyer acting on behalf of Hillary Clinton used fabricated evidence to get the FBI to investigate Trump.
No wonder the NYT was scrambling last night to spin this as being about a billing mistake.https://t.co/a8M7KGUHXM
— Hans Mahncke (@HansMahncke) September 16, 2021
Meanwhile, a constitutional lawyer, Ivan Raiklin spoke to National File about the severity of Durham’s indictment of Sussmann:
“Anything from John Durham needs to be looked at in the context of his relationships with current and former members of the House and Senate Judiciary Committees, particularly Mike Pence and Lindsey Graham—alongside his relationships with current and former officials in the FBI and DOJ: particularly Comey, Rosenstein, McCabe, Peter Strozk, Joe Pientka, and Andrew Weissmann,’ Raiklin said. “His prosecution path like a ‘sacrificial lamb’ situation like with [former FBI attorney] Kevin Clinesmith where [Sussmann] is just going to get a slap on the wrist to satisfy conservatives who rightly feel betrayed.”
“This could be a prelude to getting [Sussmann] into a plea to cooperate against the others, but I’m not holding my breath.
“At the very least, this opens up the Department of Justice and everyone named in this indictment to a lawsuit from anyone indicted as a result of Crossfire Hurricane (the federal spying on the Trump campaign), including Donald J. Trump, Roger Stone, Michael Cohen, Carter Page, General Flynn and others.
“The real question I’m asking is ‘Why isn’t he being charged with conspiracy?’ That’s what this indictment reads like. Maybe there are other conspirators who could be charged in the future and its worth keeping in mind that the statute of limitations for conspiracy doesn’t begin until the conspiracy is over.”
Stay tuned…there may be more shoes to drop.
Want to make sure you never miss a story from Law Enforcement Today? With so much “stuff” happening in the world on social media, it’s easy for things to get lost.