Latest Durham filing may be ‘smoking gun’ in Russian collusion ‘conspiracy’ against Trump

by Trinity Cardinal

Chris Lange, FISM News


Special counsel John Durham has revealed potentially conclusive evidence that former Clinton campaign lawyer Michael Sussmann lied to the FBI in the Russia collusion smear campaign against Donald Trump. A bombshell Monday court filing reveals alleged text messages Sussmann sent to the FBI general counsel in which he claimed he was providing information to the Bureau independently.

Durham’s latest filing in the case against the cybersecurity lawyer essentially puts the courts on notice that prosecutors are prepared to show that the effort to harm Trump’s presidential election chances with Russian collusion allegations was indeed a “conspiracy.” For the first time, Durham is suggesting that Hillary Clinton’s campaign, her researchers, and other Clinton operatives formed a “joint venture or conspiracy” to create the hence-disproven collusion narrative to take then-presidential candidate Trump down ahead of the election and later harm his presidency. 

Durham’s team charged Sussmann with lying to the Bureau when he offered then-FBI general counsel James Baker information that Trump had secret ties to a Russian bank. Specifically, Sussmannn allegedly concealed the fact that he was working on behalf of Clinton’s 2016 campaign, the Democratic National Committee, and tech executive Rodney Joffe when he presented the allegations to Baker. The FBI later determined that the information was not credible.

“Jim – it’s Michael Sussmannn. I have something time-sensitive (and sensitive) I need to discuss,” Sussmannn allegedly wrote to Baker in a text, according to the court filing. “Do you have availibilty [sic] for a short meeting tomorrow? I’m coming on my own – not on behalf of a client or company – want to help the Bureau. Thanks.”

Baker responded: “Ok. I will find a time. What might work for you?” 

Sussmannn then replied, “Any time but lunchtime – you name it.”

Sussmannn’s lawyers previously denied that their client made a false statement to the FBI, asserting that no tangible evidence existed to support the allegations given that the discussion between Sussmannn and Baker was oral.

“The Special Counsel has brought a false statement charge on the basis of a purported oral statement made over five years ago for which there is only a single witness, Mr. Baker; for which there is no recording; and for which there are no contemporaneous notes by anyone who was actually in the meeting,” Sussmannn’s lawyers said last year.”

With Durham’s latest filing, however, it appears that Sussmannn may have actually put it in writing. 

“The defendant lied in that meeting, falsely stating to the General Counsel that he was not providing the allegations to the FBI on behalf of any client,” the motion said. “In fact, the defendant had assembled and conveyed the allegations to the FBI on behalf of at least two specific clients, including (i) a technology executive (“Tech Executive-1”) at a U.S.-based Internet company (“Internet Company-1″), and (ii) the Clinton Campaign.”

The prosecutor noted that Sussmann already admitted in testimony before the House that he made the FBI approach at the behest of “a client.” An excerpt of the exchange between then-House Intelligence Committee Republican investigative counsel Kash Patel and Sussmann included in the filing reads:

[Patel] “Okay. I want to ask you, so you mentioned that your client directed you to have these engagements with the FBI and – and to disseminate the information that client provided you. Is that correct? “

[Sussmann] “Well, I apologize for the double negative. It isn’t not correct, but when you say my client directed me, we had a conversation, as lawyers do with their clients, about client Case 1:21-cr-00582-CRC Document 61 Filed 04/04/22 Page 40 of 48 41 needs and objectives and the best course to take for a client. And so it may have been a decision that we came to together. I mean, I don’t want to imply that I was sort of directed to do something against my better judgment, or that we were in any sort of conflict, but this was — I think it’s most accurate to say it was done on behalf of my client.”

Patel said Durham’s latest filing is the most consequential in the investigation so far. 

“Durham has just shown the whole world what major pieces of our Russiagate investigation revealed,” Patel said, as reported by Just the News. “Hard evidence, emails and text messages, showing the Clinton Campaign, Fusion GPS, Perkins Coie, Joffe, and the media were all synced in August of 2016 pushing the false Alfa Bank server story, while also all working on the Steele Dossier matter. Durham submits all this evidence as ‘joint venture conspiracy’ under the rules of evidence.”

Sussmannn has pleaded not guilty to the charge and claims he committed no wrongdoing. His lawyers recently filed a motion to dismiss the case, arguing that Durham’s probe is politically motivated.

Durham, however, asserts that Sussmannn’s allegedly false statement to Baker is “plainly material because it misled the General Counsel about, among other things, the critical fact that the defendant was disseminating highly explosive allegations about a then-Presidential candidate on behalf of two specific clients, one of which was the opposing Presidential campaign,” according to court documents.

Durham’s team in October said prosecutors will call Baker, who now works for Twitter, to testify in the upcoming trial against Sussmann.