Special Counsel John Durham has just dropped the hammer on Hillary Clinton in another Friday night filing.
This time, the bulldog prosecutor has revealed that investigators have found major “gaps” in the anti-Trump story being pushed by Clinton and her campaign.
Durham says that at least one government agency, “Agency-2,” probably the CIA or NSA, said the Alfa Bank Trump data exchange was not “technically plausible” and was “user created and not machine/tool generated.”
Durham continues to say that neither his office nor the FBI has reached a definitive judgment on whether this data was “fabricated” to hurt President Donald Trump but “Agency 2” concluded it “contained gaps, conflicted with itself,” and did not “withstand technical scrutiny.”
The agency concluded, and Durham put this in writing, that the data behind the anti-Trump hoax was not “technically plausible” and was “user created.”
Durham’s filing says:
At a minimum, however, 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.)
This leads to the question: Who would benefit if Trump was smeared with false ties to Russia.
The obvious answer is Hillary Clinton and her campaign.
However, Durham’s filing also says he has witnesses that he can call, meaning he won’t be solely relying on Clinton campaign lawyer Michael Sussmann to blow the whistle.
Durham’s filing continues:
Nor does the defendant’s attempt to distance himself factually from the origins of the purported data and allegations aid his argument. As an initial matter, the Government has already proffered to the Court and/or expects to offer at trial considerable evidence that the defendant – a former DOJ cyber lawyer who identified himself as an expert in privacy, cybersecurity, and technology law – was involved in and/or aware of the data’s origins.
For example: Days before his meeting with the FBI, the defendant emailed Researcher-2 – the author of one of the relevant white papers and one of the primary researchers who analyzed the Russian Bank-1 allegations – stating that they had a mutual friend, referring to Tech Executive-1.
Also in mid-September 2016, Researcher-2 left a voicemail for the defendant at his office seeking to speak with him.
If called as a witness, Researcher-2 would testify that soon thereafter, he spoke with the defendant and raised concerns about whether the data concerning Trump and Russian Bank-1 was being unlawfully collected and used.
Reflecting sufficient awareness of the data’s origins to opine on the issue, the defendant assured Researcher-2 that the data had, in fact, been lawfully collected and used.
Researcher-2 would testify, in particular, that the defendant stated that the data was collected under contracts for what is described as “passive DNS” collection, and that the use of the data complied with principles of “informed consent.”
Researcher-2 would further testify that he understood the defendant to be familiar with the “corporate sources” of the relevant data.
Billing records demonstrate that in September 2016, the defendant billed the Clinton Campaign for “drafting” a “white paper,” which, in context, referred to the Russian Bank-1 white paper—reflecting that the defendant had enough familiarity with the data and relevant subject matters to assist in crafting the relevant analysis.
Testimony at trial will further establish that during his meeting with Agency-2, the defendant described the relevant Russian Bank-1 and Russian Phone Provider-1 data as “private collection,” distinguishing it from Government-collected data.
This is something –
That data Michael Sussmann passed to the CIA in 2017?
The CIA concluded it was not “technically plausible” and was “user created and not machine/tool generated”
[Thread on latest Durham filing] pic.twitter.com/uvyu16Jlwh
— Techno Fog (@Techno_Fog) April 16, 2022
Durham has granted immunity to “Researcher-2” – identified as David Dagon.
Dagon raised concerns to Sussmann that the Trump data “was being unlawfully collected and used”
As we predicted here:https://t.co/KITN0b4Cio pic.twitter.com/I3ErkiPzVP
— Techno Fog (@Techno_Fog) April 16, 2022