Rodney Joffe Responds To Durham's Motion

Former Tech Exec and Hillary Campaign collaborator Rodney Joffe has issued a statement attempting to explain what he was up to in monitoring President Elect Donald Trump’s internet communications. A number of outlets are commenting on Joffe’s statement—you can find them here. However, without going on a lengthy chase I was unable to find the actual statement pure and simple. Therefore I’ll be quoting from a WSJ editorial (h/t Powerline). As was to be expected, Joffe’s statement—as far as I can make it out—raises more questions than it actually answers.

According to the WSJ:

Mr. Joffe’s response, in a Monday statement, is worth parsing. It describes Mr. Joffe as an “apolitical internet security expert” who “legally provided access” to the internet data from the White House.

“Under the terms of the contract, the data could be accessed to identify and analyze any security breaches or threats,” says the statement. And since there were “legitimate national security concerns about Russian attempts to infiltrate the 2016 election,” Mr. Joffe and “cyber-security researchers” prepared a “report of their findings,” which they gave to the CIA.

The Russians were a legitimate 2016 electoral threat, but Mr. Joffe’s statement doesn’t explain how or why he cooperated with Clinton representatives. If the contractor’s job was to monitor security threats to the U.S., then the responsibility was to report any suspicious activity to the government—immediately and in a classified manner.

But according to Mr. Durham’s filing, Mr. Joffe took his information to others—namely, lawyers for the Clinton campaign, who also brought in the oppo-research hit squad Fusion GPS. This partisan team spent months writing anti-Trump white papers full of unproven claims that they spread to the media. We doubt government contracts include: “In case of threats, first call Democrats.”

The first point isn’t surprising—that Joffe had legitimate access to the data from the Executive Office of the President (EOP}. However the phrasing of Joffe’s statement doesn’t explain everything to my satisfaction. For example:

Joffe says the EOP data “could be accessed to identify and analyze any security breaches or threats.” However, Joffe doesn’t say that he was properly engaged in routine monitoring of EOP data to discover “breaches or threats”. Was routine monitoring of EOP data part of his contracted duties, or would he need to be called in by persons in the administration? Or was it necessary for somebody attached to the EOP to request Joffe’s services? If so, who would that have been? Alternatively, should Joffe have been reporting his activities to some responsible person in the EOP? Durham’s motion states that Joffe’s activity with EOP data began in “late 2016”. Surely there was some Obama admin official whom he could have—should have—informed of “breaches or threats”. Did he do so and does that official have a name?

Then again, even supposing that Joffe’s access to EOP data was entirely proper, it would be helpful to Joffe’s defensive statement if he also specified that collection and analysis of data pertaining to:

1. A particular health care provider,

2. Trump Tower, and

3. Donald Trump’s Central Park West apartment building

was strictly limited to noting communications from the EOP to those locations—and probed no further. The wording of Durham’s motion suggests to me that Joffe’s probing of data did, in fact, go further into those locations that were personal to Donald Trump, rather than being limited to the EOP. If so, that could be problematic.

Note that Joffe states that there were “legitimate national security concerns about Russian attempts to infiltrate the 2016 election”. Presumably that’s what led him to analyze EOP data with a focus on Donald Trump. Did he make that determination on his own? Did he arrive at that conclusion from watching MSNBC, CNN, from reading the NYT? Did he consult with the FBI or the CIA in order to get their expert views on that issue before proceeding with his probing of EOP (and other) data? Durham’s motion certainly suggests that Joffe took these steps either strictly on his own or at the behest of the Hillary Campaign per lawyer Michael Sussmann.

Joffe’s “team” is said to have turned over some sort of report to the CIA—it’s good to have confirmation of that act. But why the CIA rather than the more obvious FBI—the FBI being the lead counterintelligence agency, and thus the natural choice? After all, it was to the FBI that Sussmann went with the Alfa Bank Hoax material that Joffe previously cooked up. Did the fact that Joffe’s probing—according to Durham—appears to have focused again on the Alfa Bank Hoax, and that the FBI had already rejected that hoax, play into Joffe/Sussmann’s decision to go to the CIA this time? Further, Durham’s allegation that much of Joffe’s material reprised the Alfa Bank Hoax suggests that Joffe was once again probing Trump-related properties, and not just EOP infrastructure as provided in his contract.

We now know that Joffe’s material (in some form) went to the CIA, but we also know that it went to the CIA through an intermediary—Michael Sussmann—who did not have authorized access to EOP data or infrastructure. How did that work? Did Joffe’s contract allow Joffe to share EOP data with non-government third parties at his discretion? Or did someone in the EOP approve that sharing? The WSJ editorial specifically states that Joffe’s statement offers no explanation.

We also know that Joffe and Sussmann made some claim about the use of a Russian cell phone and ISP. That information, if analyzed by the FBI and found to be relevant, would have been extremely relevant for any FISA application regarding “breaches or threats” at the EOP. Was the FBI called in to investigate any such allegations? The CIA? Was a FISA application made in that regard? Did NSA target Russian phones or ISPs based on these allegations?

Inquiring minds would like answers to all these questions. My guess is that Durham has asked the same or similar questions—and likely many more—and has come up with some answers. I’m not sure that Joffe’s statement will prove helpful to either him or to Michael Sussmann’s defense.