WASHINGTON, DC – An Obama-appointed judge has ruled that Special Counsel John Durham must limit evidence and testimony available during the trial of campaign attorney Michael Sussmann that Durham says shows a “joint venture” involving Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign, Democratic operatives, a private investigation firm and several technology researchers.
Sussmann, a cybersecurity lawyer, has been charged with making a false statement to a federal agent during a September 2016 meeting with the FBI.
He has been charged with failing to disclose his clients, including Clinton’s 2016 presidential campaign, to the FBI when he offered information that he claimed demonstrated a secret channel between The Trump Organization and Kremlin-allied Alfa Bank.
Judge Cooper delivered a blow to Special Counsel Durham in limiting evidence in the Sussmann trial. The court has denied Durham the ability to show the full extent of coordination with the Clinton campaign. https://t.co/t8BbD4dr5d
— Jonathan Turley (@JonathanTurley) May 9, 2022
The claim has since been debunked.
Sussmann is said to have claimed that he was not at the meeting on behalf of any client but his law firm, Perkins Coie, had, in fact, represented the Clinton campaign and the Democratic National Committee at the time.
Prosecutors asked U.S. District Court Judge Christopher Cooper to rule ahead of the trial, which is set to begin May 16, that Sussmann was “acting in concert toward a common goal” with the pro-Clinton operatives, researchers and others.
But, according to a report by The Federalist senior legal correspondent Margot Cleveland, Judge Cooper faltered in handling the special counsel’s argument that various emails were admissible under the “co-conspirator statement” exception to the hearsay rule. At issue were emails between tech executive Rodney Joffe and Georgia Tech researchers Manos Antonakakis, Dave Dagon and April Lorenzen, the “originators” of the Alfa Bank data.
Judge limits evidence from Clinton campaign in Sussmann trial – Washington Times. The game is rigged. https://t.co/9Zr2OZHAuz
— Brian Schnepf (@BrianSchnepf70) May 10, 2022
If the judge had granted the request, prosecutors would have been allowed to introduce more emails and information, including those sent between Sussmann, the Clinton campaign, Perkins Coie partner Marc Elias, tech executive Rodney Joffe, and the Georgia Tech researchers to show that they worked in concert to gather and spread the data in a smear campaign against Clinton presidential rival Donald Trump, according to Politico.
The ruling spares the Clinton campaign and the Democratic National Committee the embarrassment of a federal judge finding they were part of a coordinated effort to spread since-discredited allegations that Trump maintained a data link from Trump Tower to Alfa Bank, Politico reported.
Instead, Judge Cooper, appointed by Barack Obama in 2014 to the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, on Saturday wrote in a 24-page order that allowing prosecutors to include evidence of the political conspiracy would essentially be a “time-consuming and largely unnecessary mini-trial,” given that Sussmann is not charged with conspiracy. Judge Cooper wrote:
“The Court will exercise its discretion not to engage in the kind of extensive evidentiary analysis that would be required to find that such a joint venture existed, and who may have joined it. While the Special Counsel has proffered some evidence of a collective effort to disseminate the purported link between Trump and Alfa Bank to the press and others, the contours of this venture and its participants are not entirely obvious.”
Allowing prosecutors to present evidence trying to link Sussmann to the conspiracy, when he is not charged with conspiracy, would “essentially amount to a second trial on a non-crime,” the judge wrote.
The “conspiracy” need not be criminal, Cleveland noted, for a statement made by another member of the “conspiracy” to be admissible, with courts typically calling noncriminal conspiracies “joint ventures.” But before a court may admit a statement under this “co-conspirator” exception, it must find “by a preponderance of the evidence” that such a conspiracy or joint venture existed.
But, Cleveland reported, after announcing he would not consider the co-conspirator exception, Judge Cooper added that during trial he would consider whether those same emails might be admissible for a non-hearsay reason. This could have been the case with the co-conspirator exception.
Why he chose not to seems clear, Cleveland said:
“A court declaring that Hillary Clinton’s then-lawyer had engaged in a conspiracy to ‘gather and spread damaging information about a Presidential candidate shortly before the scheduled election’ would be a devastating blow to the Democrat.
“Judge Cooper’s efforts to counter the impact of the case on Clinton, and more broadly the Democratic Party, extend beyond merely declaring the ‘co-conspirator’ exception off limits. Rather, in his weekend opinion, after announcing his plan to punt, Judge Cooper proceeded to question the special counsel’s theory, saying the ‘contours’ of the joint venture and its participants ‘are not entirely obvious.’ He then noted he was ‘particularly skeptical that the researchers’ shared in this common goal.”
She noted that Judge Cooper’s analysis created a strawman argument, pointing out that:
“Durham’s team never claimed that the researchers joined in a conspiracy with Clinton directly, and never claimed they intended to peddle the Alfa Bank hoax to the FBI.
“Rather, the joint venture concerned the shared goal of gathering and spreading damaging information about Trump and involved agents of the Clinton campaign, such as Fusion GPS. And the evidence of that joint venture was overwhelming, easily satisfying the preponderance of the evidence test. But even if Judge Cooper was not so sure about that conclusion, waiting for the trial testimony was the proper procedure, as his many earlier rulings demonstrate.”
Sussmann’s lawyers argue that he contacted the FBI after he learned from Joffe about the possible connection between the Trump camp and the Russian bank and was bringing it to the attention of the FBI was a matter of national security.
But Durham charges that Sussmann was instead working on behalf of the Clinton campaign to smear Trump with opposition research data.
Despite mainstream media burying it, here are four Durham revelations tying Clinton campaign into ‘spygate’
February 23, 2022
The 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 longtime 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.