Tag Archives: John Durham

Hillary Clinton Campaign Pays $113,000 FEC Fine in Admission of Guilt for Producing Steele Dossier — Now Hopes Media Will Assist Them in Killing the Story

Jim Hoft
Published April 4, 2022

The DNC and Hillary Clinton’s 2016 presidential campaign agreed to pay $113,000 to settle a Federal Election Commission investigation into whether they violated campaign finance law.

That is according to documents sent Tuesday to the Coolidge Reagan Foundation, which had filed an administrative complaint in 2018 accusing the Democrats of misreporting payments made to a law firm during the 2016 campaign to obscure the spending – Via Huffington Post.

Kash Patel, the former National Security Council Senior Director of Counterterrorism, and the lead investigator for Rep. Devin Nunes in exposing the FBI’s involvement in the debunked Trump-Russia dossier, says Hillary Clinton and the DNC now hope this massive scandal will all just go away.

Of course, they are counting on the fake news mainstream media in closing the curtains on this massive fraud they perpetrated on the American public.

The Epoch Times reported:

The lead investigator for the House Intelligence Committee’s 2018 probe into the FBI’s investigation of alleged Trump–Russia collusion, Kash Patel, said the fact that the Hillary Clinton campaign is paying a penalty to Federal Election Commission (FEC) is an admittance of guilt. Clinton and DNC are doing so to bury the narrative and prevent more media coverage of these illegal activities, said Patel.

“I think the public sees what that is. It’s their way of burying the narrative, because if they contested what happens, more media coverage, more people start looking into these things,” Patel said.

“So the Hillary Clinton campaign is not contesting it, they’re paying the fine. It’s basically admitting that they did this and they’re out is: ‘we just don’t want a protracted legal deal, as if the Hillary Clinton campaign and DNC ever shied away from taking something or someone to court,” Patel added.

Clinton’s campaign and the DNC agreed to pay a combined $113,000 to the FEC, according to documents made public on March 30, after the commission found probable cause that the entities violated federal law by describing payments that ultimately went to the Fusion GPS research group as going toward legal services and consulting.

Kash Patel Hopes to See New Durham Indictments in April or May – Says Durham Is Looking at Jake Sullivan Deposition (VIDEO)

Jim Hoft
April 3, 2022

Kash Patel served as chief of staff to the Acting United States Secretary of Defense under President Donald Trump. Before that Kash worked with Rep. Devin Nunes to reveal the origins of the Russia collusion scam on the American public.

Earlier this week Kash Patel sat down with author Lee Smith to discuss the latest developments in Special Counsel John Durham’s investigation into the origins fo the Trump-Russia scam.

Kash Patel insists that John Durham would not be doing what he’s doing unless he’s bringing a righteous case.

This is the largest conspiracy in US history. Kash Patel says he hopes April or May will bring new indictments.

Kash Patel: By the way you should look at these depositions I took on House Intel, especially the one used in the Sussman indictment and I deposed Jake Sullivan too. And I’m thinking he has to be looking at that one too.

Donald Trump Sues Hillary Clinton, Others Over Russian Collusion

Carmine Sabia
March 24th, 2022

Former President Donald Trump has filed a lawsuit against Hillary Clinton and other Democrats.

He is suing them, claiming that they attempted to rig the 2016 presidential election by tying his campaign to Russia, Reuters reported.

“Acting in concert, the Defendants maliciously conspired to weave a false narrative that their Republican opponent, Donald J. Trump, was colluding with a hostile foreign sovereignty,” the 45th President of the United States alleged in a lawsuit filed in federal court in Florida.

It just adds to the tough news that Clinton has had recently related to the 2016 presidential election.

The Department of Justice is set to produce a “large volume” of classified materials and documents this week pertaining to the ‘Russiagate’ case involving the main source for former British spy Christopher Steele’s dossier that attempted to sabotage then-GOP presidential nominee Donald Trump’s candidacy and subsequent presidency.

That’s according to special counsel John Durham, who made the revelation in a Tuesday filing in which he also asked a federal judge to extend a deadline for the production of classified discovery, in compliance with the Classified Information Procedures Act, a statute outlining the manner in which classified documents must be protected in criminal cases.

Durham said he needs more time due to agency personnel currently being involved in issues that relate to Russia’s ongoing war in Ukraine.

“To date, the government has produced over 60,000 documents in unclassified discovery. A portion of these documents were originally marked ‘classified’ and the government has worked with the appropriate declassification authorities to produce the documents in an unclassified format,” Durham said in the filing submitted to the federal court in the Eastern District of Virginia.

“However, recent world events in Ukraine have contributed to delays in the production of classified discovery. The officials preparing and reviewing the documents at the FBI and intelligence agencies are heavily engaged in matters related to Ukraine,” Durham added.

“Nevertheless, the government will produce a large volume of classified discovery this week and will continue its efforts to produce documents in classified discovery on a rolling basis, and no later than the proposed deadlines set forth below,” Durham wrote.

The Washington Examiner adds:

The case revolves around Igor Danchenko, a Russian researcher based in the United States, who was charged in November with five counts of making false statements to the FBI in 2017 about the information he provided to Steele for his discredited dossier during the 2016 election.

Danchenko, who has pleaded not guilty, signed a waiver in December agreeing to be defended by the same law firm representing members of Hillary Clinton’s 2016 presidential campaign despite a conflict of interest concerns raised by Durham.

Steele was working for Oleg Deripaska, an oligarch linked to Russian President Vladimir Putin, before, during, and after his time targeting then-candidate Donald Trump. The former MI6 agent was hired to put his anti-Trump dossier together by an opposition research firm, Fusion GPS, which was simultaneously working for Kremlin-linked lawyer Natalia Veselnitskaya of the now-infamous June 2016 Trump Tower meeting. His research received funding from the Clinton campaign and the Democratic National Committee.

Danchenko allegedly relied on a network of Russian contacts, undermined key Trump-Russia collusion claims when interviewed by the FBI, and had previously been investigated as a possible threat to national security due to potential Russian intelligence contacts.

According to Durham’s false statements charges, he anonymously sourced a claim about Trump campaign manager Paul Manafort to longtime Clinton ally Chuck Dolan, who spent many years, including 2016, doing work for Russian businesses and the Russian government.

In a report released in December 2019, Justice Dept. Inspector General Michael Horowitz concluded that the Steele dossier played a “central and essential” role in the FBI’s decision to launch a counterintelligence operation against the 2016 Trump campaign.

That included efforts to obtain wiretap orders against former Trump campaign associate Carter Page — efforts that were ultimately successful, but only after “serious missteps and errors” which included concealing “potentially exculpatory information from the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court,” the Washington Examiner reported.

Durham to Produce ‘Large Volume’ of Classified Materials on Steele’s Main Dossier Source Igor Danchenko

Cristina Laila
March 23rd, 2022

Special prosecutor John Durham will produce a ‘large volume’ of classified materials this week on Christopher Steele’s main dossier source, according to a new filing.

Recall, Steele’s main source, Igor Danchenko was arrested by the FBI in November 2021 on five counts of making false statements to the feds.

In June 2020 we broke the story that the Primary Sub-Source (PSS) for the Steele dossier was Igor Danchenko – the individual behind most of the made up lies in the Steele dossier.

The Washington Examiner reported:

The Justice Department plans to produce a “large volume” of classified materials this week in the Russiagate case against the main source for British ex-spy Christopher Steele’s anti-Trump dossier.

Special counsel John Durham made the assertion in a filing Tuesday asking a judge for a deadline extension for the production of classified discovery in accordance with the Classified Information Procedures Act, a law that establishes procedures for protecting classified information in criminal cases. Durham pinned the need for a delay on agency personnel being involved in matters related to Russia’s war in Ukraine.

“To date, the government has produced over 60,000 documents in unclassified discovery. A portion of these documents were originally marked ‘classified’ and the government has worked with the appropriate declassification authorities to produce the documents in an unclassified format,” Durham said in the filing submitted to federal court in the Eastern District of Virginia.

“However, recent world events in Ukraine have contributed to delays in the production of classified discovery. The officials preparing and reviewing the documents at the FBI and intelligence agencies are heavily engaged in matters related to Ukraine. Nevertheless, the government will produce a large volume of classified discovery this week and will continue its efforts to produce documents in classified discovery on a rolling basis, and no later than the proposed deadlines set forth below,” Durham added.

A new filing from Special Counsel John Durham reveals Perkins Coie allies connected to Hillary Clinton’s 2016 campaign spied on Trump’s internet traffic – WHILE HE WAS PRESIDENT.

The Durham investigators also uncovered evidence that shows Hillary Clinton’s team paid operatives to “infiltrate” the Trump Tower and then President Trump’s White House servers to link Trump to Russia.

Durham’s Trump-Russia Report Likely To Be Made Public: Justice Official

Martin Walsh
March 18, 2022

Government watchdog group Judicial Watch has filed a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit against the Department of Justice for “records of communication between Special Counsel John Durham and Attorney General Merrick Garland.”

In a press release, the lawsuit was filed after the DOJ failed to respond to an August 23, 2021, FOIA request.

Judicial Watch is requesting the following from the DOJ:

1. All records of communication, including emails and text messages, between Special Counsel John Durham and Attorney General Merrick Garland.

2. All budget records related to the operations of the office of Special Counsel John Durham.

The U.S. Department of Justice suggested that when Durham finishes his investigation into the origins of the Trump-Russia probe, his report will likely be made public.

Republican Sens. Chuck Grassley of Iowa and Ron Johnson of Wisconsin sent a letter to Attorney General Merrick Garland demanding answers about Durham’s investigation.

Deputy Assistant Attorney General Joe Gaeta sent a letter back saying that he could not comment on Durham’s ongoing investigation or its status.

However, that’s not all.

The GOP Senators stated in their letter that back in October 2020, then-Attorney General Bill Barr wrote that: “The Special Counsel, to the maximum extent possible and consistent with the law and policies and practices of the Department of Justice, shall submit to the Attorney General a final report, and such interim reports as he deems appropriate, in a form that will permit public dissemination.”

In his response letter, Gaeta wrote, “The Department agrees with this statement.”

There have been a few updates in recent weeks about Durham’s investigation.

Last week, GOP Rep. Devin Nunes, ranking member of the House Intelligence Committee, said that he expects Durham to release a “damaging report” on the FBI’s failed investigation into Trump’s alleged ties with Russia.

Nunes said he thinks prison sentences could fall on a number of former senior Obama officials.

“Nunes is one of the few members of the Republican Party that still believe justice will be served. He laid out his reasons on The Sara Carter Show and said he hasn’t given up faith in Durham’s investigation despite the enormous speculation that the Durham investigation will fail to deliver justice,” wrote Carter.

Durham was appointed last October by Barr to serve as special counsel to look into the origins of the FBI’s since-tarnished investigation into Trump.

During the course of the DOJ probe, numerous FBI officials who worked under President Obama were fired or resigned from their positions.

“As you know, the Republican conference has asked me to investigate this,” Nunes told the journalist.

“You know, I’d like to get back to the days when I was just dealing with foreign threats, and looking at what’s happening in Cuba, looking at what Putin’s doing, looking at what the Chinese are doing. But I’m always getting rolled back into this because the Democrats in this country have weaponized our institutions over the last five, six years,” Nunes added.

Nunes responded by saying that he expects the report to be delivered and fully expects those responsible for the probe to be charged.

“I just have to have faith ultimately, that there’s that, you know, there was a special counsel created, Durham does have the power, we’re fully expecting him to deliver the report,” said Nunes.

He added: “It may not be as broad as we want it to be. But look, there are some major perpetrators. I think as you and everybody else know, we’ve made over 14 criminal referrals. That doesn’t mean 14 individuals, that means 14 different criminal referrals involving multiple individuals… And this is one of the challenges.”

Durham Says Clinton Lawyer Engaged in a ‘Political Deceit’ When Giving Trump Dirt to FBI

John Solomon
 March 5th, 2022

Former Hillary Clinton campaign lawyer Michael Sussmann engaged in “political deceit” during his contacts with the FBI and deprived agents of critical information that could have influenced the course of the Russia probe, Special Counsel John Durham declared in a new filing asking a court not to dismiss his criminal case.

Sussmann recently asked the trial judge to dismiss a charge of lying to the FBI, arguing his alleged false statement to the FBI was not material to the case and was protected by the First Amendment. The lawyer is accused of lying to the FBI when he claimed he was not working on behalf of any clients when he delivered dirt on then-candidate Donald Trump to the FBI general counsel alleging the GOP nominee had a secret computer channel to the Kremlin.

In fact, FBI agents found no evidence that the computer channel existed, and Sussmann was in fact working on behalf of the Clinton campaign and a computer executive aligned with the campaign when he approached the FBI, his indictment last fall alleged.

Durham responded Friday with a sweeping rebuke of Sussmann’s conduct in 2016 and 2017, saying as a former Justice Deparyment lawyer he knew that giving false information to the FBI undercut the tenets of the legal system.

“Far from finding himself in the vulnerable position of an ordinary person whose speech is likely to be chilled, the defendant – a sophisticated and well-connected lawyer – chose to bring politically-charged allegations to the FBI’s chief legal officer at the height of an election season,” Durham wrote the judge.

“He then chose to lie about the clients who were behind those allegations. Using such rare access to the halls of power for the purposes of political deceit is hardly the type of speech that the Founders intended to protect,” he added. “The Court should therefore reject defendant’s invitation to expand the scope of the First Amendment to protect such conduct.”

You can read the full court filing here.

File: SussmannFiling.pdf

Durham also revealed that he plans to deliver testimony at trial from FBI and government witnesses that Sussmann’s false statement was material and relevant and could have influenced the course of the Russia collusion case.

“The expected testimony of multiple government witnesses will refute the defendant’s argument that the defendant’s false statement was immaterial,” Durham wrote. “As noted above, the government expects that current and former FBI employees will testify at trial that understanding the origins of data and information is relevant to the FBI in multiple ways, including to assess the reliability and motivations of the source.

“None of this is novel. An evaluation of a source can (and often does) influence the FBI’s decisions regarding its initial opening decisions and subsequent investigative steps. That alone is sufficient to establish materiality.”

You can read Sussmann’s indictment here.

File:  SussmannIndict.pdf

Panicked Left Using Old Tactics to Try to Derail Durham Probe

The Left is reviving old tactics from Bill Clinton-era Whitewater scandal in a panicked attempt to prevent the public from knowing the full scope of the Russia-collusion hoax, according to a report in Just the News.

During the 1990s investigation into the Clintons’ role in the Whitewater Development Corporation and its real-estate shenanigans, Hillary Clinton’s response — a trial balloon of her infamous invocation of the “vast right-wing conspiracy” involving Monica Lewinsky—was to attack government prosecutors as “politically motivated” and “allied with the right-wing opponents of my husband.”

Clinton and her allies in the media have recently trained similar fire on Special Counsel John Durham, Whitewater Independent Counsel Robert W. Ray told Just the News.

“I think one of the things that grew out of the [Whitewater investigation] is that everybody came to the conclusion that the best way to defend was to go on offense in the political realm to undermine the legitimacy of the prosecutor,” Ray said. “That’s the playbook.”

True to form, Hillary took to Twitter on Feb. 16 to describe as a “fake scandal” Durham’s evidence of the Clinton campaign’s involvement in the Russia hoax.


Date: February 23, 2022Author: Nwo Report0 Comments

‘Everybody came to the conclusion that the best way to defend was to go on offense in the political realm to undermine the legitimacy of the prosecutor…’

Source: Tony Sifert

(Tony SifertHeadline USA) The Left is reviving old tactics from Bill Clinton-era Whitewater scandal in a panicked attempt to prevent the public from knowing the full scope of the Russia-collusion hoax, according to a report in Just the News.

During the 1990s investigation into the Clintons’ role in the Whitewater Development Corporation and its real-estate shenanigans, Hillary Clinton’s response — a trial balloon of her infamous invocation of the “vast right-wing conspiracy” involving Monica Lewinsky—was to attack government prosecutors as “politically motivated” and “allied with the right-wing opponents of my husband.”

Clinton and her allies in the media have recently trained similar fire on Special Counsel John Durham, Whitewater Independent Counsel Robert W. Ray told Just the News.

“I think one of the things that grew out of the [Whitewater investigation] is that everybody came to the conclusion that the best way to defend was to go on offense in the political realm to undermine the legitimacy of the prosecutor,” Ray said. “That’s the playbook.”

True to form, Hillary took to Twitter on Feb. 16 to describe as a “fake scandal” Durham’s evidence of the Clinton campaign’s involvement in the Russia hoax.

Trump & Fox are desperately spinning up a fake scandal to distract from his real ones. So it’s a day that ends in Y.

The more his misdeeds are exposed, the more they lie.

For those interested in reality, here’s a good debunking of their latest nonsense.https://t.co/iYY8Uxuogx

— Hillary Clinton (@HillaryClinton) February 16, 2022

“Trump & Fox are desperately spinning up a fake scandal to distract from his real ones,” Clinton wrote. “The more his misdeeds are exposed, the more they lie.”

The media is eager to comply, with Newsweek claiming in a pro-Hillary piece that “Durham’s filing isn’t the damning evidence that Trump and other conservatives have claimed.”

Vanity Fair has also stepped into the fray, arguing in a Feb. 15 article that “Trump and company got the whole thing hilariously, mortifyingly incorrect.”

And the New Republic called for an end to the investigation altogether, as reported by the Gateway Pundit.

“It’s all fiction, straight out of the Josef Goebbels School of Political Communication,” claimed writer New Republic writer Michael Tomasky, implying that Trump was, in fact, colluding with Russia, contrary to all the evidence that indicates otherwise.

“If you are doing X—setting fire to the Reichstag, say, or cooperating with the Kremlin to win a presidential election—you accuse your opponent of doing the thing that you’re doing,” Tomansky acknowledged.

Such double-deflections have been standard in the leftist playbook, popularized by former Hillary Clinton mentor Saul Alinsky.

For his part, Ray argued that “the current Durham probe has raised serious questions that need to be answered about whether the Clinton campaign was able to lure the FBI and intelligence community into impacting the electoral process by investigating Trump on a false premise.”

On Fox News, meanwhile, former assistant FBI director Chris Swecker suggested that there may be a long and arduous road still ahead in unraveling the criminal misconduct.

Before reaching the very top—a takedown of Hillary, herself—Durham may need to flip a number of mid-level perpetrators, he said, according to the Blue State Conservative.

5 Media Lies About The Latest Special Counsel Revelations

MARGOT CLEVELAND
February 18th, 2022

One week ago today, Special Counsel John Durham filed a motion in the government’s criminal case against former Hillary Clinton campaign attorney Michael Sussmann. That motion, in requesting the court obtain Sussmann’s waiver of any conflicts of interest held by his lawyers on the record, provided in excruciating detail the factual basis for the purported conflicts.

In doing so, it revealed that “enemies of Donald Trump surveilled the internet traffic at Trump Tower, at his New York City apartment building, and later at the executive office of the president of the United States, then fed disinformation about that traffic to intelligence agencies hoping to frame Trump as a Russia-connected stooge.”

While earlier filings by Durham had revealed equally explosive facts, this time the special counsel’s motion generated enough attention that #Durham began to trend on Twitter. Not since the special counsel’s office indicted Sussmann in September 2021 for lying to the FBI’s former general counsel, James Baker, has the Durham investigation forced itself into the legacy press’ purview.

Rather than report on the latest developments, the corrupt media spun Friday’s filing as a big nothingburger, while parading several false narratives—just as it did when news of the indictment of the Clinton campaign’s lawyer broke.

Charlie Savage at the New York Times led the way in a Monday article headlined, “Court Filing Started a Furor in Right-Wing Outlets, but Their Narrative Is Off Track.” Amazingly, several of Savage’s talking points coincided with arguments presented by Sussmann’s attorneys in a document filed with the court that same day.

By Tuesday, Vanity Fair had joined in, quoting Savage’s “analysis.” That evening, Jimmy Kimmel turned the talking points into one-liners. Wednesday saw Brian Stelter at CNN further cribbing from the Savage’s initial take at the Times.

While the leftist press continues to fall in line to advance the unofficial defense of the Clinton campaign’s former attorney, the talking points the Durham deniers are pushing remain nothing but gibberish. Here they are and why they are wrong.

1. It’s Just Those Crazy Right-Wingers

In his opening salvo in the Sussmann counter-offensive, Savage began his New York Times column by noting that Durham’s Friday night filing “set off a furor among right-wing outlets about purported spying on former President Donald J. Trump.”

Framing the “furor” as right-wing proves a ready go-to for a corrupt media seeking to discount the substance of the reporting. Stelter likewise hit this talking point repeatedly over at CNN, in his article “Right-wing media said it was exposing a scandal. What it really revealed is how bad information spreads in MAGA world.”

Hillary Clinton likewise pushed the right-wingers angle, tweeting that “Trump & Fox are desperately spinning up a fake scandal to distract from his real ones.”

Of course, while casting coverage of Special Counsel Durham’s investigation as the cries of cray-cray conservatives might resonate with their readers, as a substantive counter to the most recent revelations in the Sussmann case it falls flat.

2. Pay No Attention to the Facts Behind the Filing

The second narrative pushed by Savage and then quickly parroted by his ilk is that the facts behind Durham’s most recent court filing are too dense for readers to bother using their brainpower to decipher. Yes, I am serious.

The facts “also tend to involve dense and obscure issues, so dissecting them requires asking readers to expend significant mental energy and time—raising the question of whether news outlets should even cover such claims,” Savage wrote in his Monday pro bono P.R. piece for Sussmann.

Amazingly, CNN quoted this passage in its coverage of the issue, demonstrating the utter lack of regard in which the leftist press holds its readers.

3. There Was No ‘Infiltration,’ So There Is No Story

A third counter pushed in response to Durham’s Friday court filing focused on Fox News’ coverage and its opener that read, “Lawyers for the Clinton campaign paid a technology company to ‘infiltrate’ servers belonging to Trump Tower, and later the White House, in order to establish an ‘inference’ and ‘narrative’ to bring to government agencies linking Donald Trump to Russia, a filing from Special Counsel John Durham found.”

Durham never said “infiltrate,” however, came the rejoinder. At least on this point, the press members suffering from “media vapors” have a point: Durham did not say “infiltrate.” Rather, Kash Patel, a former chief investigator for Devin Nunes on the House Intelligence Committee, used that word in an interview with Fox News, as the article later explained.

Durham said the data Sussmann provided to the CIA came from data tech executive Rodney Joffe obtained when he “exploited” his access to sensitive data from the Executive Office of the President (EOP).

It is likewise true that the special counsel’s Friday filing did not claim that the “Clinton campaign paid to ‘infiltrate’ Trump Tower, White House servers to link Trump to Russia,” as Fox News headlined its coverage of the developments in the Sussmann case. Rather, it appears that Joffe voluntarily exploited his access to the data and received no compensation from Clinton for his forays into the EOP and other databases.

These criticisms by the Times, CNN, and others might hold more weight if the same outlets hadn’t pushed the Russia collusion hoax for five years. But, in any event, correcting those two points does nothing to counter the serious allegations revealed in Durham’s latest filing revealed.

In fact, he exposed so many significant details that it required two separate articles to adequately cover the developments. Notwithstanding the concerted pushback against the Fox News article, The Federalist’s in-depth coverage remains unblemished.

4. But Trump Wasn’t Even President Yet

The next narrative launched to minimize the significance of the revelations contained in Durham’s motion focused on the data Sussmann presented to the CIA purporting to show “that Russian-made smartphones, called YotaPhones, had been connecting to networks at Trump Tower and the White House, among other places.”

The data relating to the White House “came from Barack Obama’s presidency,” the Times reported, quoting two lawyers representing one of the researchers who aided Joffe. Rather, “to our knowledge,” the lawyers claimed, “all of the data they used was nonprivate DNS data from before Trump took office.”

This counter is nothing but lawyerly wordsmithing, however, and anyone who read the actual court filing—that dense document Savage believed beyond the grey matter of his readers—would know that fact. As the motion explained, in providing the DNS data to the CIA, Sussmann told the government agents “these lookups demonstrated that Trump and/or his associates were using supposedly rare, Russian-made wireless phones in the vicinity of the White House and other locations.”

As a matter of pure logic, the data Sussmann presented to the CIA related to the White House must have somehow related to Trump or it would not “demonstrate” that “Trump and/or his associates were using” the Russian cell phones “in the vicinity of the White House.” Most likely, then, the data presented concerned the transition period. Further, there is nothing to say that after Trump took office Joffe stopped “exploiting” the data.

5. It’s Old News

The fifth response, which Savage again initiated, ran that the “news” was “old news.”

“But the entire narrative appeared to be mostly wrong or old news,” Savage wrote early in his Times coverage. He reiterated that point later: “for one, much of this was not new: The New York Times had reported in October what Mr. Sussmann had told the C.I.A. about data suggesting that Russian-made smartphones, called YotaPhones, had been connecting to networks at Trump Tower and the White House, among other places.”

Surprise, surprise: It was Savage himself who made passing reference to the YotaPhones in his October 1, 2021, Times article that focused primarily on the Alfa Bank aspect of the indictment. In retrospect, we should have foreseen Durham’s latest revelations because they were handed to the Sussmann-friendly reporters who penned the October article, in what is now an obvious attempt to get ahead of the bad news Sussmann’s legal team knew was coming.

What the Times did not report on October 1, 2021, however, was that Joffe’s internet company “had come to access and maintain dedicated servers for the [Executive Office of the Presidency] as part of a sensitive arrangement whereby it provided DNS resolution services to the EOP.”

Nor did the Times report, as Durham alleged, that Joffe 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.” Also missing from the October 2021 coverage was the fact that DNS data compiled, but withheld, from the CIA showed the DNS lookups involving the EOP and the Russian cellphone provider “began at least as early as 2014 i.e., during the Obama administration and years before Trump took office.”

In other words, this was new news, and those claiming otherwise serve, not as journalists, but as pushers of propaganda.

FEC Records: Biden Campaign Had Firm at Center of Trump Scandal on Payroll

Jon Dougherty
February 18, 2022

Federal Election Commission records indicate that a technology firm at the center of a court filing last week by Special Counsel John Durham involving the 2016 presidential campaign of Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton was also on the payroll of now-President Joe Biden’s 2020 campaign.

According to the Washington Free Beacon, Biden’s campaign paid Neustar Information Services almost $20,000 for accounting and compliance services, FEC records show.

The outlet adds:

According to Durham, Neustar’s chief technology officer, Rodney Joffe, accessed sensitive web traffic data that the company maintained on behalf of the White House executive office in order to collect “derogatory” information about Donald Trump.

Joffe allegedly provided the information to Hillary Clinton campaign lawyer Michael Sussmann, who in turn gave it to the CIA during a meeting in February 2017. Durham charged Sussmann in September with lying to the FBI about his investigation of Trump.

The Biden campaign’s payments raise questions about whether Joffe continued snooping on Trump in the most recent election. The Biden and Clinton campaigns are the only two presidential committees to have ever paid Neustar, according to Federal Election Commission records.

Biden’s campaign paid Neustar $18,819 on Sept. 29, 2020, the records show. The Clinton campaign paid the firm $3,000 in May 2015 for mobile phone services. The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee paid $3,000 to Neustar in 2017. Neustar executives and staffers contributed $17,906 to Biden’s campaign, FEC records show.

The outlet reported that it is not clear if Neustar executives were aware of Joffe’s work for the Clinton campaign.

The Biden campaign revelation comes on the heels of a Feb. 11 filing by Durham implicating Joffe and Clinton’s campaign in a plot to “infiltrate” servers in Trump Tower and later the White House under then-President Trump.

Following the filing, Trump blasted Clinton and her surrogates.

“The latest pleading from Special Counsel Robert Durham provides indisputable evidence that my campaign and presidency were spied on by operatives paid by the Hillary Clinton Campaign in an effort to develop a completely fabricated connection to Russia,” he said in a statement issued by his Save America PAC.

“This is a scandal far greater in scope and magnitude than Watergate and those who were involved in and knew about this spying operation should be subject to criminal prosecution. In a stronger period of time in our country, this crime would have been punishable by death. In addition, reparations should be paid to those in our country who have been damaged by this,” he added.

For her part, Clinton has denied the allegations in an attack on Trump.

“Trump & Fox are desperately spinning up a fake scandal to distract from his real ones. So it’s a day that ends in Y. The more his misdeeds are exposed, the more they lie. For those interested in reality, here’s a good debunking of their latest nonsense,” Clinton tweeted along with a story from far-left Vanity Fair that also ‘debunked’ the allegations and called Trump a “moron.”

Former Director of National Intelligence John Ratcliffe said during a Fox News interview on Wednesday he believes that Durham has unconvered a “criminal conspiracy.”

“What did John Brennan tell President Obama in the Oval Office in 2016?” Fox News anchor Bill Hemmer asked Ratcliffe during Monday’s interview.

“Well, I can talk about this because this part has been declassified,” he said.

“He briefed President Obama and Vice President Biden and other members of the national security team about this specific intelligence that John Durham now has about a Hillary Clinton plan to falsely accuse and vilify Donald Trump with a scandal, and the discussion around that and whether or not it was good intelligence,” Ratcliffe continued.

“Those are the issues that John Durham is looking at and I think there will be many more,” he predicted, adding: “I would expect there to be quite a few more indictments because of that. There wasn’t a proper predicate to begin that investigation and John Durham has said that publicly already.”

Sussmann Asks Court to Dismiss Charge of Lying to FBI, Says ‘Extraordinary Prosecutorial Overreach’

Attorney Michael Sussmann on Thursday asked a federal court to dismiss the federal indictment against him for allegedly making a false statement to the FBI in 2016 about his connection to the Clinton presidential campaign when talking to the agency about possible collusion between those associated with the rival Trump campaign and Russia – suggesting his statement was immaterial and saying the charge is a “case of extraordinary prosecutorial overreach.”

“This is a case of extraordinary prosecutorial overreach. It has long been a crime to make a false statement to the government. But the law criminalizes only false statements that are material – false statements that matter because they can actually affect a specific decision of the government,” Sussmann’s lawyers said in a 33-page filing in a Washington, D.C. federal court.

File:

 SussmannDismissalMotion.pdf

“By contrast, false statements about ancillary matters – false statements about what  Blackstone called “trifling collateral circumstances” –are immaterial and cannot give rise to  criminal liability.”

Durham was appointed by Trump administration Attorney General William Barr in 2020 to investigate false allegations about Russia collusion.

Last week, Durham made a filing that alleges Sussmann and other campaign lawyers paid a technology company to “mine” servers belonging to Trump Tower and the Trump White House to create an “inference” of Russia collusion in 2016-17, hoping to prod federal agencies to investigate.

On Monday, Sussmann and his legal team filed a response claiming the filing includes “false allegations” and tries to “taint the jury pool” for his upcoming trial.