Five people from Hillary Clinton’s inner circle refusing to cooperate, invoke the 5th in Durham probe


The following contains within editorial content which is the opinion of the writer. 

WASHINGTON, DC- We’ve often heard when Republicans or conservatives invoke their Fifth Amendment rights, it means they are “guilty.” Well, since turnabout is fair play, what exactly are five associates of “the smartest woman in the world” Hillary Clinton and her campaign trying to hide?

According to Breitbart, those five have invoked their Fifth Amendment rights and are refusing to cooperate with Special Counsel John Durham, according to a federal filing in a Washington, D.C. courtroom from last week.

The filing by Durham came in response to an effort by former Clinton campaign attorney Michael Sussmann and the Clinton campaign to withhold some documents from evidence, using attorney-client privilege as a cudgel to avoid providing information to Durham.

You may recall that Sussmann has been charged with lying to the FBI in 2016 when the told the FBI about fraudulent ties between then-candidate Donald Trump and the Russian government via a Moscow based bank, Alfa Bank.

Instead of being truthful as to his true intentions, Sussmann attempted to portray himself as merely a “concerned citizen,” while hiding the fact he was indeed working for the Clinton campaign.

In his motion, Durham noted that one witness, identified as “Researcher-2,” was granted immunity in exchange for testimony, while “at least five other witness who conducted work relating to the Russian Bank-1 allegations invoked (or indicated their intent to invoke) their right against self-incrimination.”

George Washington University law professor Jonathan Turley commented on the filing as follows:

“[Durham] 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.”

Turley also wrote that Durham’s filing “also detailed how the false Russian collusion claims related to Alfa Bank involved Clinton General Counsel Marc Elias and Christopher Steele.”

Unless you’ve been under a rock (or tuning to CNN, MSNBC, CBS, ABC or NBC), Christopher Steele is of course a disgraced former British spy who worked for an opposition research firm, Fusion GPS to compile a phone Russian “dossier” which triggered bogus government surveillance on the Trump campaign and fueled the wider “Russia collusion” conspiracy theory.

Meanwhile Elias, a slip-and-fall attorney whose fingerprints are all over the plethora of last-minute changes to election laws in 2020, arranged funding for the dossier. Those election law changes took advantage of COVID-19 to force adoption of vote-by-mail schemes in a number of “battleground” states, which allegedly threw the election to Joe Biden.

Durham’s filing seems to show that the special counsel is looking to introduce evidence of communications between the “Clinton Campaign leadership” and “Campaign Lawyer-1,” widely presumed to be Elias, about the Alfa Bank hoax.

Seeing Elias led on a perp walk in handcuffs would prove sweet from supporters of former President Donald Trump, who believe Elias is largely responsible for Trump’s alleged close losses in key swing states.

Turley noted that the Federal Election Commission recently fined both the Hillary Clinton campaign and the Democratic National Committee for hiding the funding of the dossier, claiming it as a “legal costs” by Elias working at Perkins Coie.

Turley also wrote:

“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 supports statements made by Clinton associates, who were concerned about a “lack of support” for the bogus Russian collusion claims, with “Researcher 1” being a prominent component of those discussions.

Durham noted that the Alfa Bank allegations fell to pieces before Sussmann even brought it forward to the FBI. According to the indictment, an unnamed “tech executive” is alleged to have used his authority at a number of internet companies to develop the sensational claim. That executive later said he was promised a top cyber security job in a potential Clinton administration.

There were a number of individuals who expressed concerns about the tale, not only within those companies working on the “secret project,” but also among a group of “university researchers” (unnamed) who said the argument was phony.

In fact, the researchers were told they didn’t need to find solid “proof,” but only enough to provide the basis “of a very useful narrative.” Those researchers believed, according to the indictment that anyone familiar with analyzing internet traffic “would poke several holes” in the narrative, Turley wrote.

The indictment said researchers would realize that what they were looking at “was not a secret communications channel with Russian Bank-1,’ but a ‘red herring.’”

“Researcher-1” echoed those doubts, noting that it would have taken “every trick we have in our bag to even make a very weak association.”

Further, “Researcher -1” continued that:

“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 the eyes of public scrutiny. Folks, I am afraid we have tunnel vision. Time to regroup?”

Turley posted a copy of the filing here.

Five people from Hillary Clinton's inner circle refusing to cooperate, invoke the 5th in Durham probe

 For more on the Durham probe, we invite you to:


he following contains editorial content which is the opinion of the writer. 

WASHINGTON, DC- Just over a week or so ago, select media outlets, including Law Enforcement Today, broke the story of a stunning court filing by Special Counsel John Durham, where he tied the Hillary Clinton campaign into a domestic spying operation on candidate and then President Donald Trump.

Of course, if you were paying attention to state-run media outlets such as NBC, CBS, ABC, CNN, MSNBC, the New York Times, or The Washington Post, you got a completely different spin on it…if you heard anything at all.

If they in fact did report on it, the dutiful media basically blew the revelations off as of no great importance. What they did not do, as Margot Cleveland wrote in The Federalist last week, is deny the evidence Durham presented in his filings as follows:

“…enemies of Donald Trump surveilled the internet traffic at Trump Tower, at his New York City apartment building, and later at the executive office of the president of the United States, then fed disinformation about that traffic to intelligence agencies hoping to frame Trump as a Russia-controlled stooge.”

Ok, the last point was Cleveland’s, but you get the point.

The recent revelations of the Durham probe probably caught the mainstream media by surprise because they’ve invested the past five years trying to push the propaganda that it was Donald Trump, not Hillary Clinton who in fact colluded to interfere in the 2016 election.

They’ve spent the past nearly 14 months claiming January 6 was an attempt to overthrow the government, when in fact, the Clinton campaign apparently spied on a sitting president, the definition of treason. Yet, the so-called “legacy media” maintains its obsession with everything Trump—except the fact he was apparently spied on with the complicity of the highest levels of government.

Cleveland identified four areas where Durham tied the Hillary Clinton campaign to the Russia collusion hoax, which sidelined the Trump administration for the better part of four years. They are as follows:

The Clinton Campaign Paid for Russian Disinformation to be Peddled to the Feds and Media via the Steele Dossier.

It was revealed a while back that Perkins Coie, the law firm representing Hillary Clinton and her 2016 campaign, hired Fusion GPS to “provide opposition research”—otherwise known as spy—on Donald Trump.

That organization hired Christopher Steele and Orbis Business Intelligence, owned by Glenn Simpson to develop negative information on Trump. It didn’t matter whether it was true or not; as a matter of fact, the more bizarre and off-the-wall, the better.

Durham in November 2021 charged a Russian national, Igor Danchenko with five counts of lying to the FBI for his role as Steele’s “Primary Sub-Source,” Cleveland wrote.

In a 39-page speaking indictment, Durham elaborated on Danchenko’s connections. Not only did that indictment confirm Clinton’s campaign had been responsible for the Steele dossier, it alleged he had fed Steele false “intel” that Steele provided to the FBI, as well as other agencies in the Obama administration.

Among the false information Danchenko provided involved a man named Sergei Millian, a real estate broker based in New York who had served as president of the Russian-American Chamber of Commerce in 2016. According to Durham’s indictment, Millian “had occasion to work on real estate projects with Trump and staff at the Trump Organization.”

Danchenko told Steele about alleged conversations he had with Millian, which Steele included in the phony dossier. In that dossier, it said Millian was “an ethnic Russian close associate of Republican US presidential candidate Donald Trump, admitted that there was a well-developed conspiracy of co-operation between them and the Russian leadership.”

The dossier alleged the conspiracy “was managed on the Trump side” by Paul Manafort, his then-campaign manager with Carter Page serving as an intermediary.

When questioned about those claims, according to the indictment, Danchenko lied to the FBI, claiming in “the summer of 2016, he received a phone call from an anonymous Russian male who did not identify himself to Danchenko but who Danchenko claimed to believe was” Millian. He also falsely claimed, according to Durham, that he had arranged to meet Millian in New York, however Millian was a no-show. He (Danchenko) repeated those lies numerous times.

As far as Millian, he denied he ever spoke with Danchenko. The email included portions of emails which showed Danchenko never spoke with, or intended to meet with Millian. Despite that, Danchenko made the false claim he had met with Millian on several occasions. Steele also alleged that Danchenko had been able to source, in part, claims about “Trump’s purported salacious activity” to Millian.

Those lies served as a pretext for four of the five false statement charges leveled against the “Primary Sub-Source.” More significant than the pending criminal charges against Danchenko is how those charges tie into the Clinton campaign’s role in “Spygate.”

“In addition to allegedly lying to the FBI, the indictment asserts that Danchenko also fed Steele similar falsehoods about Millian—which Steele then included in the dossier,” Cleveland wrote. “In other words, the Clinton campaign paid for negative and false information about Trump that was sourced primarily to a Russian national.”

The Clinton campaign then made sure those false claims made their way to the media, and was used as a pretext for the FBI to obtain four FISA warrants in order to put Page under surveillance. As a result of that surveillance, the FBI’s “Crossfire Hurricane” team was able to obtain Trump campaign communications.

The Clinton Campaign Paid for Fake Intel Supplied by a Clinton Crony and Long-Time Democrat to Feed to the FBI and Press.

The fake intel pusher was a man named Charles Dolan, Jr., a long-time Clinton confidante and a committed Democrat, who provided that phony information to be included in the Steele dossier.

When Danchenko was charged with lying to the FBI, Dolan’s connection to the Steele dossier became public, being identified as PR Executive-1 in the indictment.

In that indictment, it charged Danchenko with lying about speaking to Dolan about information contained in the dossier, when in fact Danchenko had used Dolan as a source for at least a portion of the dossier related to Manafort’s separation from the Trump campaign.

The indictment showed that Danchenko told Dolan he was working “on a project against Trump,” and asked if he had “any thought, rumor, allegation” about Manafort’s resignation.

Dolan would later email Danchenko, telling him that a “GOP friend of mine who knows some of the players” confided in him that a campaign staffer with a dislike for Manafort played a role in his firing. “I think the bottom line is that in addition to the Ukraine revelations, a number of people wanted [Manafort] gone.”

Dolan’s statement to Danchenko about Manafort’s leaving the campaign made its way into the Steele dossier, however Dolan later admitted to the FBI that he had made up the entire conversation and simply repeated details about it he read in the news.

Then there was the story about the Moscow Ritz-Carlton, which was basically a figment of Dolan’s overactive imagination. Dolan had traveled to Russia in 2016, where hotel staff told him of Trump staying in the Presidential Suite. Nothing about any of Trump’s “sexual or salacious activities” there was relayed from hotel staff to Dolan, yet made its way into the dossier.

Durham’s team noted that a number of aspects of Steele’s reporting bore resemblance “to information that [Dolan] received during the 2016 time period.”

It was Danchenko’s false statement made to the FBI, that he hadn’t discussed any material he provided to Steele with Doan, was the basis for the final count filed by Durham against him. However, according to Durham’s latest filings:

The public knows “a Clinton crony in the person of Dolan fed Danchenko false information that Danchenko then presented to Steele as intel. Steele then regurgitated Danchenko’s claims in the Clinton campaign-funded dossier the former MI6 agent provided the FBI.”

The Clinton Campaign Peddled More than the Steele Dossier.

As we’ve learned from the recent filing as well as a prior indictment, the Clinton campaign paid for a lot more than just the phony dossier. The indictment of Clinton attorney Michael Sussmann, a partner at Perkins Coie was related to allegations connecting the Clinton campaign to the phony allegations about Trump’s alleged involvement with Russia’s Alfa Bank.

In addition to serving as a Clinton campaign attorney, he also represented tech executive Rodney Joffe. Sussmann was charged in September 2021 with making a false statement to the FBI on September 19, 2016, just two months before the 2016 general election, meeting with FBI General Counsel James Baker.

Durham alleges that during that meeting, Sussmann provided Baker with “purported data and ‘white papers’ that allegedly demonstrated a covert communications channel between the Trump Organization and  a Russia-based bank [Alfa Bank].” In that indictment, Durham alleged that Sussmann lied to Baker in that meeting, telling him “that he was not providing the allegations to the FBI on behalf of any client.”

That was a lie. Sussmann “had assembled and conveyed the allegations to the FBI on behalf of at least two specific clients,” namely Joffe and the Clinton campaign.

The Alfa Bank hoax is almost as egregious as the Steele dossier.

In case you’re not familiar, Joffe, in July 2016, told Sussmann of date which alleged a secret communications channel between the Trump organization and Russia.

According to Durham’s indictment, Joffe and Sussmann worked with Marc Elias, the Clinton campaign’s general counsel, “and individuals acting on behalf of the Clinton Campaign to share information about the Russian Bank Date with the media and others, claiming that it demonstrated the existence of a secret communications channel between the Trump Organization and [Alfa Bank].”

The indictment walked through a number of meetings that occurred between Sussmann, Joffe, and Elias between the end of July to mid-August 2016, where they discussed how best to coordinate and communicate the story about Alfa Bank.

Tying that effort directly into the Clinton campaign, the indictment showed that Sussmann in fact billed the Clinton campaign for time working with others to draft, review and revise a paper that summarized the Alfa Bank allegations, which Sussmann would later provide to the FBI and reporters.

In addition, the Clinton campaign was billed for time Sussmann spent meeting with Fusion GPS and with the media to push the Alfa Bank allegations. Finally, Sussmann billed the Clinton campaign for time spent coordinating with a Georgia Tech researcher about speaking to a reporter about the Alfa Bank allegations.

In his indictment against Sussmann, Durham wrote that Sussman, Joffe, and Perkins Coie “had coordinated, and were continuing to coordinate, with representatives and agents of the Clinton Campaign with regard to the data and written materials that Sussmann gave to the FBI and the media related to the Alfa Bank allegations.”

Sussmann wasn’t the only one who billed the Clinton campaign for time spent on Alfa Bank allegations. Marc Elias likewise billed the Clinton campaign and at one point exchanged emails with “the Clinton Campaign’s campaign manager, communications director, and foreign policy advisor” concerning the Alfa Bank allegations Sussmann had forwarded to the reporter.

The Federalist also noted that Fusion GPS, as a paid agent of the Clinton campaign, drafted a second “white paper” related to the supposed secret communication network, again which Sussmann provided to the FBI, and again while insisting he wasn’t working on behalf of a particular client.

In sum, the Clinton campaign apparently paid for the entirety of the Alfa Bank hoax, from the theory to the so-called “white papers” to the forwarding of those papers to both the FBI and a complicit media.

Durham’s team highlighted the fact that Sussmann was attempting “to conceal the Clinton Campaign’s ties to the [Alfa Bank] allegations from the FBI and others,” going back to October 2018.

In fact, Sussmann went to the point of insisting there was no ties between his meeting with Baker and his work with Perkins Coie, saying that “it [the meeting with Baker] was not connected to the firm’s representation of the Hillary Clinton Campaign, the DNC or any Political Law Group client.” Thou doth protest too much, Mr. Sussmann. A Wall Street Journal op-ed in October 2018 doubled down on Sussmann’s equivocation.

The mainstream media? Crickets.

Joffe’s Pro Bono Support of Clinton

The media, as expected, gave cover to Durham’s allegations, by ostensibly denying or minimizing Sussmann’s connections to the Clinton campaign, while focusing some attention on Joffe, aka “Tech Executive-1.”

The media has attempted to downplay the fact that the Clinton campaign had hired Perkins Coie, and in turn Joffe hired Perkins Coie, a mere coincidence, right? By so doing, the media attempts to distance the Clinton campaign from the situation. Joffe apparently worked in a pro-bono capacity for the Clinton campaign, but should that absolve them (the campaign) from the whole sordid mess? Durham’s investigation shows that no matter what, Joffe and his company were working for Clinton’s benefit.

Sussmann’s indictment is key. According to Durham’s indictment, Joffe told people working at one of his companies “that he was working with someone who had close ties to the Democratic Party and to Hillary Clinton.”

He explained further that “they’re looking for a true story that could be used as the basis for closer examination,” Joffe said in trying to explain the Alfa Bank scheme.

As soon as Joffe obtained intel that might prove beneficial to Clinton, he forwarded that information to Sussmann for him to then forward to a friendly media and an apparently corrupt FBI.

In addition, according to The Federalist, “Joffe also assisted Sussmann and others as they drafted, reviewed, and revised a paper summarizing the Alfa bank allegations.” Despite the fact Joffe didn’t bill all of his time to Clinton, Sussmann billed the campaign for time he AND Joffe had spend on those tasks.

Moreover, Joffe admitted, according to Durham’s filings, that he was trying to invent the Alfa Bank angle in order to win Clinton’s approval. He allegedly told two Georgia Tech researchers that his goal was to support an “inference” and “narrative” regarding Trump that would please certain “VIPs.”

Joffe also said he had “been previously offered a position in the government in the event Hillary Clinton won the Presidency, stating in an email days after the U.S. Presidential election: ‘I was tentatively offered the top [cybersecurity] job by the Democrats when it looked like they’d win.’”

Did Joffe get paid by the Clinton campaign? Not monetarily but it sure seemed like he was going to gain something out of the deal, in a complicit arrangement with Clinton’s lawyers. Rather than distancing the Clinton campaign from the Alfa Bank scam, Joffe’s pro-bono “donations” seem to tie him in.

Sadly, most people are currently unaware of much of this, and will remain so, because just as they did in October 2020 with the Hunter Biden laptop, the legacy media, along with Silicon Valley tech tyrants will see to it that this information is as hard to come by as Bigfoot. The media has been running cover for the Clintons for over thirty years. Why would they stop now?

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.  

Make sure you click “following” and then click “see first” so you don’t miss a thing!  (See image below.)  Thanks for being a part of the LET family!
Facebook Follow First
Submit a Correction
Related Posts