Thread by @DawsonSField

Thread on the new document from Durham explaining the Conflicts of Interest by Sussmann's lawyers from Latham & Watkins LLP.

courtlistener.com/docket/6039058…
#ButNothingsHappening

It starts with a rehash of the Sussmann indictment for trying to fool the FBI into investigating Trump using data from Joffe, representing Joffe & the Clinton Campaign, & billing the Clinton Campaign for the effort.

I have a detailed breakdown of that issue here.

NYT's broke the story in Sept that Joffe was spying upon the White House while Trump was President.
But it seems their access was much greater than the defensive leaks to the NYT's showed.

Neustar & Joffe had access to the White House servers as part of maintaining servers for the Executive Office of the President.
Note the language that they were "mining" DNS data from the White House. Which points to CIA's newly revealed data mining programs...

As we already knew, Sussmann forced CIA into taking a meeting with him (he threatened to leak it to the media if they did not meet him) providing Joffe's DNS data to the CIA.

More importantly, the findings Sussmann took to the CIA were false.
They also failed to mention that they had data showing Russian phone provider 1 DNS lookups back to early 2014. But they narrowed the data to point at Trump...

So Joffe & his team massaged the data to make it look like Trump was communicating with the Russians.
Then Sussmann lied to the CIA to try & get them to investigate Trump too.

Switching over to the conflict of interest with Sussmann's lawyers from Latham & Watkins.

That the lawyers may have a conflict of interest that would deny him a right to a fair trial.

That the judge will have to decide if Sussmann can waive the conflict of interest and if he tries, the judge may have to decide that the interest of preventing a rigged criminal case may require the judge barring the conflicted lawyers even if the client wants them.

First conflict, Latham represented Perkins Coie & Marc Elias in the Special Counsel's Investigation.
Concern they might throw Sussmann under the bus to protect his employers. Because Elias's instructions & conversations to bill Clinton's campaign & frame Trump & Alfa are relevant

Also claiming that Latham may already know about differences in the 'factual accounts' (testimony) between what Sussmann has testified to & what Elias & Perkins Coie testified to...
Giving them AC privileged access to know what their other clients tried to blame on Sussmann...

As Sussmann may later sue Perkins Coie in regards to his resignation from the firm & Latham may have to defend their representation of Perkins Coie against Sussmann in such a case.

Perkins Coie also represented the Clinton Campaign & Political Organization-1, almost certainly the DNC.
PC represented them from May 2021-July 2021 in regards to the Durham's investigation.
So Latham would be motivated to protect PC & their former clients the HRC campaign & DNC.

Latham also represented Sussmann when he testified to Congress. In that testimony, he admitted that he was representing Joffe when he met with the CIA & FBI. But he still failed to name the Clinton Campaign as his other client.

Latham also advised Perkins Coie in drafting inaccurate statements claiming that Sussmann was representing Joffe, not the Clinton Campaign when he met with FBI's James Baker. Sussmann reviewed that statement before release.

Perkins Coie's Managing Partner also published an Op-Ed claiming that Sussmann was not representing the Hillary Clinton campaign during the meeting with the FBI.

There are emails between Perkins Coie & Latham & Watkins about those false public statements in 2018.
SCO can't read them at the moment because of claimed attorney client privilege by PC, but they might become relevant to motions & the conflict of interests.

Durham is also concerned that Sussmann's attorney Michael Bosworth should be asked by the judge to declare if he has any conflicts of interests in this case that he should disclose.
Because he was Comey's Special Counsel for 7 months in 2013-14 & knows many of the witnesses

I documented this conflict of interest in October.

As I noted in October, Bosworth then worked in the Executive Office of the President from 2014-2017.
Though SCO says Latham has told the SCO office that Bosworth was not involved in getting Joffe access to Obama's White House DNS data during that time...

Trump wasn't the only 1!

Seems weird the way that is phrased, Latham & Watkins say Bosworth wasn't involved. But SCO wants the judge to call Bosworth before the court to tell that to the judge in person...

Wonder if he will recuse from the case to avoid that date with the judge?

This case just keeps getting curiouser & curiouser...
(sp)