There are holes in Sussmann’s story big enough to throw the CIA through. The so called Alfa Bank Trump data exchange was not “technically plausible.” Not only that, it was “user created and not machine/tool generated.” That means a “setup.” John Durham is one of those guys who likes to come in to the office when everyone else goes home. That way he doesn’t need to deal with a ringing telephone. His special team of lawyers hit the send button on another of those late night filings Friday night and Hillary Clinton is calling her spin doctor for an emergency prescription.
Spooks called data exchange fake
A document was filed electronically by Special Counsel John Durham on Friday, April 15, indicating his team “just dropped the hammer on Hillary Clinton.” His investigators “found major ‘gaps‘ in the anti-Trump story being pushed by Clinton and her campaign.” Uncle Sam’s professional spooks knew it was fishy from the beginning.
“Agency-2,” which could be either the CIA or NSA, reported that the alleged “Alfa Bank Trump data exchange” was not “technically plausible.” The reason for their assessment is because it wasn’t a log of automatic routing. The pings were “user created and not machine/tool generated.” That matters a lot to Hillary.
It’s still too soon, Durham explains to the court, to say for sure whether this data was specifically “fabricated” to hurt President Donald Trump. His office is dogging the FBI but haven’t been able to get them to cough up all the goods yet.
He can say for certain, though, that “Agency 2” concluded it “contained gaps, conflicted with itself,” and did not “withstand technical scrutiny.” That same alphabet intelligence agency concluded “that the data behind the anti-Trump hoax was not ‘technically plausible‘ and was ‘user created.’” Durham quoted that in the filing.
At a minimum, Durham argues, “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.” The FBI is terrified to write a report so they’re continuing the investigation.
That’s the trick Eric Holder used to hide Uranium One from the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States. The FBI still owes a final report on that investigation and William Campbell is still waiting to testify. 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.”
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 still digging
The Special Counsel’s Office adds in their filing that they haven’t got to the bottom of it yet either, but unlike the Federal Bureau of Instigation, they’re still digging.
The big question on everyone’s mind is “Who would benefit if Trump was smeared with false ties to Russia.” The data all points in only one direction, Hillary Clinton and her corrupt campaign. For now, Durham continues playing his cards close to the vest.
According to the Friday filing, he has “witnesses that he can call.” He’s not saying who just yet. It’s an assurance to the Judge that he “won’t be solely relying on Clinton campaign lawyer Michael Sussmann to blow the whistle.”
The shady data transfer was all Sussmann’s baby. The Clinton fixer’s “attempt to distance himself factually from the origins of the purported data and allegations” are more than just an insult to Durham’s intelligence, they help prove Durham’s point.
Durham notes he already turned in “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.” The FBI is taking the fifth because “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.” Researcher-2 left a voicemail.
“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.” He had more specific things to say and Hillary really won’t like to hear them in court. “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.” That’s what Sussmann billed Hillary for.