Paul Sperry: Another Major Durham Article

This Time The Focus Is On The Computer Contractors

Paul Sperry’s latest investigative piece on John Durham’s Russia Hoax conspiracy probe is, as usual, information dense. This time around the focus is on the cybersecurity experts that the Clinton campaign—through intermediaries—hired to assemble ‘evidence’ of a nefarious Trump - Russia connection for Michael Sussmann to present to the FBI. The idea being that Sussman would use his contact with FBI General Counsel James Baker to induce the FBI to initiate an investigation of Trump, the existence of which could be leaked to the press weeks before the 2016 election.

Durham Probes Pentagon Computer Contractors in Anti-Trump Conspiracy

For our purposes I want to pull out a few nuggets from Sperry’s article. I refer readers to the article itself for the wealth of information about players who, till now, have largely been in the shadows.

Sperry leads with an overview of the role that the cybersecurity experts played in the conspiracy, and the conduct that Durham is examining with a view to possible criminal charges:

Cybersecurity experts who held lucrative Pentagon and homeland security contracts and high-level security clearances are under investigation for potentially abusing their government privileges to aid a 2016 Clinton campaign plot to falsely link Donald Trump to Russia and trigger an FBI investigation of him and his campaign, according to several sources familiar with the work of Special Counsel John Durham.

Durham is investigating whether they were involved in a scheme to misuse sensitive, nonpublic Internet data, which they had access to through their government contracts, to dredge up derogatory information on Trump on behalf of the Clinton campaign in 2016 and again in 2017, sources say — political dirt that sent FBI investigators on a wild goose chase. Prosecutors are also investigating whether some of the data presented to the FBI was faked or forged.

That last sentence is key. Durham hinted broadly in the Sussmann indictment that he suspects that some of the data in the ‘dossier’ that Sussmann presented to the FBI’s Baker was, in fact, “faked or forged.” The indictment included highly suggestive quotes form conspiratorial communications that would lead any reasonable person to to the belief that the conspirators knew that the documentation presented to the FBI did not support the Trump - Russia narrative. If Durham can show that any part of the data was faked—and one suspects that he wouldn’t have raised that issue in the indictment without a pretty good idea that he could do so—then it’s curtains for anyone who had a hand in it. Their lawyers should be beating a path to Durham’s door and pleading to allow them to cooperate.

Another important data point is this:

Government funding in hand, they continued mining nonpublic data on Trump after he took office in 2017 — as Sussmann, Sullivan and other former Clinton campaign officials renewed their effort to connect Trump to Alfa Bank. This time, they enlisted former FBI analyst-turned-Democratic-operative Dan Jones to re-engage the FBI, while Sussmann attempted to get the CIA interested in the Internet data, as RCI first reported. Investigators have also subpoenaed Jones, who did not respond to requests for comment.

This should put to rest to rest concerns about a Statute of Limitations that Durham is supposedly facing. I believe that what we’re seeing here is more than Durham looking at Sussmann’s approach to the CIA in February, 2017. That alone would, of course, extend the statute of limitations. However, this looks like Durham linking the original Clinton campaign conspiracy to an extended Clinton organization conspiracy. In other words, the campaign conspiracy may have ended with Trump’s inauguration, but the conspiring against Trump simply changed shape—while retaining its ties to the the original conspiracy. We know, for example, that Dan Jones—who formerly worked for Dianne Feinstein—obtained $50 million to do Trump ‘research’. It’s said that this came mostly from wealthy Californians. Friends of Dianne? Whatever the case, if Sperry is right in believing that Jones’ activities were connected to the original Clinton conspiracy, then the conspiracy extends almost indefinitely in time.

This leads to another important point. Much of Durham’s case appears to be built on documentary evidence: emails, money transfers, phone metadata, law firm billing records. That’s the stuff of prosecutors’ dreams—and defense attorneys’ nightmares. Get a few cooperators to expand to a jury on what that all meant and … it’s not a pretty picture for any defendants. For example:

That indictment, which details a conspiracy involving widespread deception, was followed by a flurry of fresh subpoenas aimed at Perkins Coie itself, rocking the Democratic political machine in Washington. Millions of dollars secretly flowed through Perkins to the Clinton campaign’s opposition-research projects against Trump, leaving an extensive money trail for Durham’s investigators to trace and check for possible Federal Election Commission and other violations, the sources say.

…

However, Durham's investigation uncovered emails revealing that Joffe knew the narrative they were creating about Trump having a secret hotline to Russian President Vladimir Putin was tenuous at best. In fact, Joffe himself called the data used to back up the narrative a "red herring." In another email, Joffe said he had been promised a high post if Clinton were elected, suggesting he may have had a personal motivation to make a sinister connection between Russia and Trump. He added that he had no interest working for Trump: “I definitely would not take the job under Trump.”

There’s much, much more in Sperry’s article about the possibility of faking the evidence, that draws in several more people—some of whom were referred to in the indictment. Note this passage:

The sources familiar with the investigation note that Durham is also using the grand jury to probe whether some of the Internet data files the Clinton campaign shopped to the FBI were forged or fabricated to create the appearance of suspicious Internet communications between the Russian bank and Trump.

Providing the FBI false evidence is a crime. Former assistant FBI director Chris Swecker told RCI that statutes enforcing mail and wire fraud may be invoked as part of the "criminal conspiracy case” Durham is building.

…

Emails the independent prosecutor uncovered reveal that Joffe and the research team he recruited actually discussed “faking” Internet traffic.

When it comes to a trial, I believe that Durham will be able to introduce those emails. The impact on the jury—or multiple juries—should be devastating. Once the fraudulent intent of any defendant is established in a specific instance, the skepticism with regard to the defendant’s credibility in any other matter will increase dramatically.

Speaking for myself—but also for most ordinary Americans—those cybersecurity experts who were involved in this hanky panky are probably fairly well off by our standards. But they’ve all had to hire lawyers with at least some level of expertise to put them in the game with Durham, with all his years of experience. They’ll go broke very quickly, is my view. The pressure on them, in a very personal sense, will be enormous: cooperate. And that’s very bad news for everybody else who was involved.

My sense is that Durham is dealing from a position of strength. The actions of Sussmann’s attorneys suggest that they know that. After all, how many of these defendants or potential defendants do you think operated as if they were part of a criminal conspiracy? That’s like asking, Did Strzok and Page ever imagine that their texts were going to go public? Organized crime figures take sensible precautions. So do espionage agents. These people? Not so much—all you need to do is read the quotes from emails in Durham’s indictment. And know that there’s likely so much more.

So, with that in mind, I’ll close with a series of tweets from SWC:

shipwreckedcrew.substack.com @shipwreckedcrew

That's why in the business this would be called a "place-holder" indictment. Durham has no intention of actually going forward on this particular indictment in this particular court. The defense gets a "Bill of Particulars" only if discovery doesn't address the issues they raise.

Eric Tucker @etuckerAP

Lawyers for Michael Sussmann laid out elements of their defense in a biting motion tonight for a bill of particulars. They call the false statement allegations vague, confusing, ill-defined and contradicted by other info in the indictment. Story here: https://t.co/41G0O6gkRP

shipwreckedcrew.substack.com @shipwreckedcrew

Bill of Particulars is a very "dated" motion practice and they are almost never granted. The purpose of this motion is 99.9% PR. Its to get Sussmann -- and friends -- narrative in the media and to communicate to everyone "Hang together so we don't hang separately."

shipwreckedcrew.substack.com @shipwreckedcrew

This is a PR exercise. They don't even have discovery yet. The response from Durham will be "Much of what they are asking for is covered in the discovery, and what is not in the discovery they aren't entitled to at this point." This motion preys upon the ignorance of reporters.

Titania @Titania977

@Larry_Beech Yup. His legal team is blind-- they are hesitant to formulate a defense strategy until they can gauge just how much Durham knows and how far he's gonna take this.

I particularly like Titania’s comment: His legal team is blind. Not a comfortable feeling.