We can only hope that some major figures related to the 2016 Clinton campaign end up doing perp walks. What is now clear is that the Clinton campaign, through its lawyers, masterminded the manipulation of the 2016 election and the anti-Trump resistance through false and fabricated accusations and purported documentation of Russia collusion. The Clinton campaign was dirty as hell, put this country through hell for years, and people need to go to jail. But who knows if that ever will happen.
Special Counsel John Durham continues his work, but so far there haven’t been any bombshell indictments. The main indictment is of Michael Sussman, the Perkins Coie lawyer who worked for the Clinton campaign. Sussman’s then law partner, Marc Elias, is the leading Democrat election lawyer and was a conduit for funding the disgraced Steele Dossier.
Sussman is charged with one count of lying to the FBI by falsely stating that, in providing information about alleged Trump ties to a Russian bank, Alfa Bank, Sussman was acting alone. In fact, Durham alleges, he was working for the Clinton campaign.
I wrote at the time of Sussman’s indictment, Indictment of Campaign Lawyer Demonstrates How Hillary Clinton Is The Most Systemically Manipulative Politician Of Our Lifetime.
Yesterday, Durham filed a document that asserts that Sussman and another lawyer, believed to be Elias, hired a techincal expert to monitor internet traffic from Trump Tower, Trump’s apartment, and the “Executive Office of the President.” The purported purpose of the court filing was to put on the record that Sussman’s defense counsel, the firm of Lathan & Watkins, may have conflicts of interest, and that Sussman was waiving those conflicts. The government does this so that Sussman cannot later claim that any conviction was invalid because of his counsel’s conflicts.
From Durham’s court filing
1. The United States of America, by and through its attorney, Special Counsel John H. Durham, respectfully moves this Court to inquire into potential conflicts of interest arising from the representation of the defendant by his current counsel, Latham & Watkins LLP (“Latham”). The Government has discussed these matters with the defense and believes that any potential conflicts likely could be addressed with a knowing and voluntary waiver by the defendant upon consultation with conflict-free counsel as appropriate. The Government believes that any such waiver should be put on the record prior to trial. As set forth in further detail below, it is possible that conflicts of interest could arise from the fact that Latham and/or its employees (i) previously represented others in the Special Counsel’s investigation whose interests may conflict with those of the defendant, (ii) previously represented the defendant and his prior employer in connection with events that likely will be relevant at trial or at any sentencing, and (iii) maintained professional and/or personal relationships with individuals who could be witnesses in these proceedings. Accordingly, for the reasons set forth below, the government respectfully requests that the Court inquire into the potential conflicts of interest set forth herein. Defense counsel has advised that the defendant has been apprised of these issues, understands that he has the right to consult independent counsel, and presently intends to waive any potential conflict of interest.
Yet Durham seems to have gone beyond what was necessary in revealing some enticing details.
Fox News reports:
Lawyers for the Clinton campaign paid a technology company to “infiltrate” servers belonging to Trump Tower, and later the White House, in order to establish an “inference” and “narrative” to bring to government agencies linking Donald Trump to Russia, a filing from Special Counsel John Durham says….But Durham’s filing on Feb. 11, in a section titled “Factual Background,” reveals 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 said Sussman’s “billing records reflect” that he “repeatedly billed the Clinton Campaign for his work on the Russian Bank-1 allegations.”The filing revealed that Sussman and the Tech Executive had met and communicated with another law partner, who was serving as General Counsel to the Clinton campaign. Sources told Fox News that lawyer is Marc Elias, who worked at the law firm Perkins Coie.
From Durham’s court filing (emphasis added):
4. The Indictment also alleges that, beginning in approximately July 2016, Tech Executive-1 had worked with the defendant, a U.S. investigative firm retained by Law Firm-1 on behalf of the Clinton Campaign, numerous cyber researchers, and employees at multiple Internet companies to assemble the purported data and white papers. 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. 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.5. The Government’s evidence at trial will also establish that among the Internet data Tech Executive-1 and his associates exploited was domain name system (“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”). (Tech Executive-1’s employer, Internet Company-1, had come to access and maintain dedicated servers for the EOP as part of a sensitive arrangement whereby it provided DNS resolution services to the EOP. Tech Executive-1 and his associates exploited this arrangement by mining the EOP’s DNS traffic and other data for the purpose of gathering derogatory information about Donald Trump.)6. The Indictment further details that on February 9, 2017, the defendant provided an updated set of allegations – including the Russian Bank-1 data and additional allegations relating to Trump – to a second agency of the U.S. government (“Agency-2”). The Government’s evidence at trial will establish that these additional allegations relied, in part, on the purported DNS traffic that Tech Executive-1 and others had assembled pertaining to Trump Tower, Donald Trump’s New York City apartment building, the EOP, and the aforementioned healthcare provider. In his meeting with Agency-2, the defendant provided data which he claimed reflected purportedly suspicious DNS lookups by these entities of internet protocol (“IP”) addresses affiliated with a Russian mobile phone provider (“Russian Phone Provider-1”). The defendant further claimed that these lookups demonstrated that Trump and/or his associates were using supposedly rare, Russian-made wireless phones in the vicinity of the White House and other locations. The Special Counsel’s Office has identified no support for these allegations. Indeed, more complete DNS data that the Special Counsel’s Office obtained from a company that assisted Tech Executive-1 in assembling these allegations reflects that such DNS lookups were far from rare in the United States. For example, the more complete data that Tech Executive-1 and his associates gathered – but did not provide to Agency-2 – reflected that between approximately 2014 and 2017, there were a total of more than 3 million lookups of Russian Phone-Provider-1 IP addresses that originated with U.S.-based IP addresses. Fewer than 1,000 of these lookups originated with IP addresses affiliated with Trump Tower. In addition, the more complete data assembled by Tech Executive-1 and his associates reflected that DNS lookups involving the EOP and Russian Phone Provider-1 began at least as early 2014 (i.e., during the Obama administration and years before Trump took office) – another fact which the allegations omitted.
The monitoring of the White House is a little vague in this document as to the timeframe. Many people are asserting that it was while Trump was president, but that’s not crystal clear from the filing. It also is not alleged that this internet traffic monitoring was in itself illegal – the alleged illegality was Sussman lying to the FBI about it.
Let’s see where this leads, and what additional perp walks take place. I’ll believe it when I see it.
CLICK HERE FOR FULL VERSION OF THIS STORY