Read @ProfMJCleveland ‘s piece on the filing made on behalf of Sussmann yesterday in response to Durham’s request that Sussmann be required to waive his attorneys’ conflict on the record: thefederalist.com/2022/02/15/wha…
As @ProfMJCleveland points out, Sussmann or his lawyers dost protest too much. Clearly the kitchen heat is going up. The response picks at a couple of nits regarding what Durham allegedly got wrong. The two biggest are that Durham never talked to a “full time” Clinton campaign
person until we’ll after Sussmann was indicted. As the article points out, the “full time” description appears to be lawyers’ wordsmithing. Sussmann also argues that Durham is wrong about the DNS data presented to the CIA in February. According to Sussmann the data didn’t cover
any of the time after Trump took office- as @ProfMJCleveland points out, the data presumably related to the transition. But the Sussmann filing says nothing about Durham’s main point: Joffe’s report and apparently Sussmann’s presentation to the CIA were misleading, in that they
failed to mention that Neustar picked up a far greater volume of DNS lookups involving Russian cell phones and the EOP during the Obama administration, beginning at least as early as 2014. That was Durham’s main point- that Joffe used Sussmann to try to mislead the CIA.
The fact that Sussman’s filing says nothing about the jist of what Durham was trying to explain about potential conflicts speaks volumes about what Sussmann must know by now: A conspiracy case involving presentation of false or misleading evidence to govt officials is coming.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
