Did The Hillary Org Spy On President Trump

That’s the very interesting question that Techno Fog raised, just a couple of hours ago:

Durham: Clinton allies spied on the Executive Office of the President

And - will we see a Rodney Joffe indictment?

Please reread my title and realize what’s being said. When I say “President Trump” I don’t mean simply “Donald J. Trump.” I mean Donald J. Trump during his term as the 45th POTUS.

You’ll want to read Techno Fog’s article closely—it’s not overly long or technical—for any nuances. Here’s the basic scheme of things.

As we already know, John Durham has raised—in a motion to the court—the issue of what appear to be clear conflicts of interest for the law firm that’s representing Michael Sussmann—Latham & Watkins LLP (Latham). The conflicts arise from at least two previous representations on the part of Latham:

1. Latham previously represented both Perkins Coie and Marc Elias (Dem ueber election law operative), and

2. Latham also previously represented “both the Clinton Campaign and Hillary for America in the Special Counsel’s investigation.”

Durham’s contention is that Latham’s past representations (as listed) could be irreconcilable with Latham representing Sussmann’s best interests. Obviously, what Durham is suggesting is that Sussmann should have legal representatives who will present him with his best options for staying out of jail—in other words, will suggest that taking a fall for, say, Jake Sullivan or Hillary Clinton is not in Sussmann’s best interest. If Latham were to steer Sussmann in the direction of taking a fall for Latham’s past clients then Latham would not be doing their duty by Sussmann.

These issues are above my pay grade, so I can’t tell you whether a court can force a defendant to find other legal representation, or can require a law firm to withdraw. My guess is that the latter is the case, but I look forward to lawyers experienced in these matters to weighing in. It seems clear that the interests of justice are not served by collusive legal representation arrangements of this sort, which serve the purpose of shielding the principals in a conspiracy from accountability. We shall see. Durham is clearly trying to force Sussmann to cooperate.

OK, so that’s the background. What Techno Fog goes on to discuss is some partial information that Durham divulged to the court in connection with this conflict issue—it’s not the whole story, but it’s tantalizing in its implications.

It seems that Rodney Joffe’s firm had “a sensitive arrangement” whereby Joffe’s firm had access to DNS data pertaining to the Executive Office of the Presidency—in other words, given the time frame involved, DNS data pertaining to President Donald J. Trump. Durham makes no bones about this targeting of Trump, and that it was being used—and these are my words—in the hopes of forcing Trump from office:

What other purpose could there have been? Inflicting political damage. Well, yeah, but I’m convinced that at that relatively early date the goal was to force Trump out. Two words: Michael Flynn.

The tie-in to Sussmann is this: Sussmann is known to have gone to the CIA with “information” against Trump in February, 2017. A very reasonable hypothesis is that Sussmann went to the CIA, in a sense, fronting for Joffe and associates. But a further very reasonable hypothesis is that Sussmann would never in a million years have done that simply as front man for Rodney Joffe, because that involved revealing spying activity against the POTUS. Sussmann would only have taken that risk if he was acting on behalf of a person who could provide him with the necessary political protection that would also shield him from criminal liability. Can you say, Hillary R. Clinton? I can, because that’s where the logic of the situation inexorably leads us.

Now, Techno Fog floats an alternative theory, in the form of a question:

One can’t help ask why Joffe (via Sussmann) risked legal exposure to continue to push false Trump-Russia allegations before and after the 2016 election. First to the FBI in 2016 then to the CIA in 2017. It seems that Joffe was desperate, and his desperation only increased after Trump’s election.

Indeed, one cannot help asking that question! But why jump to the theory of personal desperation so quickly—which Techno Fog admits is speculation?

The source of Joffe’s desperation? It’s speculation at this point, but perhaps it goes to the origins of the purported Russia/DNC hack. To revise a previous question we have asked:

What if Crowdstrike was a patsy, there to unknowingly reach false conclusions of a “Russian hack” based on fraudulent information provided to them by Rodney Joffe and Perkins Coie and the DNC/Hillary Campaign?

We don’t have an answer to that question - yet. Maybe we never will. But if anything, it seems likely that we will see an indictment of Rodney Joffe.

As I read that, Techno Fog appears to be arguing that Joffe was desperate because he feared that Crowdstrike would reveal to some reputable and committed federal law enforcement organization that Crowdstrike had unknowingly relied on fraudulent data provided by Joffe. Color me unconvinced. Crowdstrike had its own deep political connections and, IMO, would only take such action under extreme pressure from an incorruptible federal law enforcement agency. Which is a roundabout way of saying: That wasn’t about to happen in DC as we know it.

Therefore, I‘ll stick with my very reasonable hypothesis until proven wrong.