A court filing by John Durham from earlier in February regarding a motion to inquire about possible conflicts of interest in the Michael Sussmann case presents some interesting insights into the Durham probe – affording a deeper dive into the rabbit hole that is the Russia Hoax and spying done by some of Hillary Clinton’s allies during the lead-up and aftermath of the 2016 election.

Tired of the ads? Go Ad-Free and Get EXCLUSIVE Content, Become a PREMIUM USER

Back in September of 2021, Sussmann was indicted for allegedly giving false a statement to former FBI General Counsel James Baker back in 2016 during the lead-up to the election.

In short, Sussmann had handed over some “white papers” coupled with data files that purported contained evidence to promote the “Alfa Bank/Trump Organization hoax,” as Techno Fog referred to it in his Substack blog.

Per the charging document, during that September 2016 meeting with the FBI, Sussmann had “stated falsely that he was not doing his work on the aforementioned allegations ‘for any client,’ which led the FBI General Counsel to understand Sussmann was acting as a good citizen merely passing along information, not as a paid advocate or political operative.”

Obviously, Sussmann was later found to be acting on the behalf of numerous clients – including the Clinton campaign – thus, the charges that were doled out this past September.

But with the February 11th motion filed by Durham, Sussmann’s active legal representation for his current legal dilemma, Latham & Watkins LLP, represented past clients that could bear conflicts of interest.

“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.”

Apparently, Latham & Watkins had previously represented Perkins Coie and Mark Elias as well as the Clinton Campaign and Hillary for America – which, per the language of the filing featured above, any of these former clients of Latham & Watkins could have “interests” that “may conflict with” Sussmann.

Basically, Durham is raising a red flag that Sussmann’s legal representation may have “interests” that have little to do with seeking the best outcome legally for Sussmann.

But also noted in Durham’s February 11th filing is an allusion that “Tech Executive-1 and his associates,” reportedly Rodney Joffe, had been exploiting a “sensitive arrangement” to spy on Trump which likely provided the means to further the Alfa Bank/Trump Organization hoax.

** Join Our Community **

“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.)”

Clearly, Durham’s mentioning of this evidence planned to be introduced in Sussmann’s trial could also pave the way to seeing Joffe getting an indictment down the road – but that is mere speculation as of this time.

<Support Our Efforts To Keep Truth Alive>