Durham's New Trump-Russia Revelation Says Clinton Camp Paid Tech Company to Spy on Trump, Even in White House
Share This article
Special Counsel John Durham's latest filing in his investigation into the origins of the Trump-Russia hoax alleges Hillary Clinton's presidential campaign in 2016 was on a crusade to find out any bad information about Donald Trump that it could – it even went so far as to pay an internet company to breach protocols not only at Trump Tower in New York but also at the White House.
Durham's filing has not only put the Democrats' now-debunked claims of collusion in the spotlight but has also shined a light on the "mainstream media" for relentlessly repeating those alleged claims as if they were a fact.
The latest information from the Durham investigation has created a firestorm among conservative media outlets, but the so-called "mainstream media" has so far ignored the story.
Durham, the former U.S. attorney in Connecticut, was appointed in 2019 by then-Attorney General William Barr to investigate possible misconduct by bad actors inside the U.S. government as it investigated Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election and any ties to the Trump campaign.
So far, he's only charged three people including Michael Sussmann, a prominent cybersecurity lawyer who represented the Clinton campaign during the 2016 election.
In September of 2016, Sussmann met with the FBI to relay concerns from cybersecurity researchers about an alleged digital backchannel between servers of the Trump organization and of Russia-based Alfa Bank — a tantalizing claim that, if true, could have signaled contact between the Trump orbit and Russia at a time when the FBI was already trying to determine if there was such a connection.
The FBI investigated but found those concerns unfounded. In 2021, Durham charged Sussmann with lying to the FBI during that 2016 meeting by saying that he wasn't sharing the Alfa Bank concerns on behalf of any particular client when actually, prosecutors allege, he was doing so as an attorney for the Clinton campaign.
He has pleaded not guilty to the charge.
Durham's team's new filing raises the prospect of a conflict of interest because the law firm representing Sussmann has had other clients in the Durham probe. Sussmann's lawyers responded Monday night by saying he would waive any potential conflict.
But they also struck back over the Durham team's inclusion in the filing of allegations they said were false and "intended to further politicize this case, inflame media coverage, and taint the jury pool." They argue it's part of a pattern beginning with the September indictment of Sussmann.
During an exclusive interview with Fox News, Trump said the Justice Department should "absolutely" declassify remaining records related to the original Trump-Russia probe, "especially in light" of Durham's latest filing.
"They (Justice Department) have the declassification order," Trump said. "And they should declassify, absolutely, especially in light of what has just happened and what has just been revealed."
So far, the Biden White House has not responded to Durham's filing.
As CBN News reported in November, Durham has already secured a conviction against former FBI lawyer Kevin Clinesmith. Clinesmith altered an email used to obtain a FISA warrant to spy on then-Trump Campaign Foreign Policy Adviser Carter Page, claiming he was a Russian agent.
The claim was false.
Who might be Durham's next targets, and how far up the ladder at the FBI or the Clinton campaign could the indictments continue to go? Only time will tell.
Meanwhile, The New York Post's editorial board on Monday in an op-ed called for The Washington Post and New York Times to give back the Pulitzers they won for "reporting" the fake news about Trump and Russia.
The Post's board wrote the Clinton campaign ordered up the "Steele dossier," and then "hacked Trump computers, including White House ones after he took office, to create another smear."
"That's all there ever was: A Team Clinton scheme to make her e-mail scandal look tame by comparison, and so win the 2016 election, followed by a longer drive to cripple the new president. It was a true "war on democracy," abetted by the two papers in endless, breathless "reporting," The Post's board said.
"Show a shred of decency, and give your Pulitzers back," The Post's editorial board concluded.
Share This article