Durham’s New Theory of What Clinton Lawyer Sussman Did is Wild

Durham just dropped a new filing regarding his prosecution of Sussman, a lawyer who worked for the Clinton Campaign and was one of the main players involved in setting up President Trump as being somehow connected to Russia.

In this new motion, Durham drops quite the bombshell about what Sussman managed to do and how he managed to set up Trump.

First, Durham covers his bases, firmly arguing that Sussman was, in fact, working for the Clinton Campaign when he engaged in his nefarious activities, saying:

hese email headers constitute straightforward, non-privileged proof that the defendant was in fact working on behalf of two clients (i.e., the Clinton Campaign and Tech Executive-1) when he conveyed the Russian Bank-1 allegations to the FBI. Indeed, in a case about an alleged false denial of attorney-client relationships, there are few things more probative than non-privileged records evidencing communications between an attorney and his clients

The Russian Bank allegation, as a reminder, was the idea that Trump was having certain secret communications with Alpha Bank, a Russian financial institution. He wasn’t; that was made up by Sussman, who used the data collected from his spying on Trump to frame a one-time message (such as an email advertisement from the bank) as secret communications between the two. Sussman also alleged that Trump had a secret Russian phone that he used to communicate with the bank.

But, regardless, he took that info to the CIA and FBI in the hope that they’d bite and go after Trump.

And that’s where Durham’s new filing comes in. In it, he essentially argues that while the CIA managed to see through the ridiculousness of Sussman’s allegations and info, he did manage to dupe the FBI. Arguing that, Durham says:

The Government does expect to adduce evidence at trial reflecting (i) the fact that the FBI and Agency-2 concluded that the Russian Bank-1 allegations were untrue and unsupported and (ii) the primary bases for these conclusions, including the particular investigative and analytical steps taken by these agencies. (For example, while the FBI did not reach an ultimate conclusion regarding the data’s accuracy or whether it might have been in whole or in part genuine, spoofed, altered, or fabricated, Agency-2 concluded in early 2017 that the Russian Bank-1 data and Russian Phone Provider-1 data was not “technically plausible,” did not “withstand technical scrutiny,” “contained gaps,” “conflicted with [itself],” and was “user created and not machine/tool generated.” The Special Counsel’s Office has not reached a definitive conclusion in this regard.)

The Conservative Treehouse, noting why that narrative regarding Sussman duping the FBI and not managing to dupe the CIA is important, said:

The prosecutorial approach by John Durham positions all of the corruption outside the institutions of government, thereby protecting them.

The bad guys, the corrupt lawbreakers, are the people directly connected to the Clinton Campaign and all of the political and legal agents in/around the Clinton political machine. Read more