Recently, Durham has filed a conflict pleading, saying that he has discovered that the indicted Michael Sussmann is represented by a law firm Latham and Watkins, that also represents other people and witnesses in Durham’s investigation and who he will call in Sussmann’s trial. Under the rule of law, in court and under ethical obligations of the prosecutors, it is incumbent for the prosecution to disclose any possible conflicts of interest. The consequences of failing to do that could mean that the defense (in this case Sussmann) could claim they were not made aware of conflicts of interest and the judge could essentially overturn whatever ruling had been made. Thankfully Durham disclosed the crucial potential conflict of interest so as not to give Sussmann any loopholes to take advantage of.
Kash explains that previously, the defense had filed a pleading to the court saying that Durham and the federal government wasn’t providing them all the information they believe they are entitled to under the federal rules of evidence discovery. Kash warned they may not have wanted to do that because Durham’s approach is typically to not reveal to the public all the information he has. When asked, Durham provided an extremely extensive discovery pleading, revealing information they may not have wanted the public to know. Now, Kash says Durham is displaying the same level of thoroughness. He could have filed a simple one page pleading that there was a conflict of interest, but he went above and beyond potentially because he anticipated that the defense would ask for more information like they had done once before. Kash believes it was a preemptive move on Durham’s part so as not to give the defense further tricks up their sleeve.
Kash served as the chief investigator for Chairman Nunes during the Russiagate scandal. It was Kash’s team that discovered the Clinton Campaign had paid for the Steele dossier to be produced and the FBI had intentionally misled a FISA court to get a surveillance warrant on Trump and that the FBI agents and lawyers working on the case were having inappropriate relationships and personalizing and politizing their investigation. However, Kash and his team had never heard of the information about the tech servers and other allegations made in Durham recent pleadings, making this information all the more shocking.
Kash explains the factual background for Durham’s pleading. Durham has said that Sussmann, who was the head lawyer for the DNC and Clinton campaign, paid for the dossier and hired Fusion GPS and Steele to try to tie Trump to Russia, was also working to obtain a relationship via the tech company so that he could infiltrate and surveil the white house.
How rock solid is this pleading? Kash says Durham has indicted three people under his special counsel tenure, yet he has stated that his investigation is far from over. Durham, a prosecutor for over 20 years, has been in charge of very serious investigations in the past, and he is now handling the largest criminal conspiracy in United States History. “I don’t think John Durham’s going to put anything in a federal pleading to a federal court that he hasn’t already proved,” says Kash. Kash explains that a person can’t allege something in a pleading that they haven’t already obtained the evidence to prove.
The pleading not only puts forth the allegation that the Clinton campaign infiltrated White House servers in order to spy on a sitting President, but also that the same tech company hired by Sussmann to find the false information tying Trump to Russia is the same tech company that Sussmann went back to to ask them to get a secure relationship so they could get into the white house. The tech company most likely could not hack the White House, so they had to obtain a relationship with someone who has access to it and then have a contract with them to ride off their servers. The only way that this could happen is if the tech company went into the NSA or intelligence community and said that they needed access. The Durham pleading refers to Sussmann’s request for a “sensitive arrangement” to gain access into the White House. “What this tells me is that this wasn’t a hack, it was more sophisticated than a hack.” Kash says this is shocking that “the US government and intelligence community would permit a political operative to gain access to the White House servers.”
Who did this? Who authorized it? Who got paid, and what information did the tech company get or give? These are all questions Kash says remain unanswered. However, the criminal conduct at the basis of this entire situation is that spying on a sitting U.S President is not legal.
Kahs says you don’t have to be a former federal prosecutor to know that money doesn’t lie. “There’s either a payment and a record of it or there isn’t.” He explains that what is almost as powerful as bank records are fancy law firms and their billing practices. Perkins Coie, where Sussmann and Elias worked, are bound to bill for the work they have done. Most likely Durham followed the billing history of Perkins Coie.
According to Durham’s pleading, Sussmann, Elias, and Perkins Coie directed the tech company to find “an inference” and “narrative” through a “sensitive arrangement” in order to gain access to the White House servers. Essentially, Kash explains that Sussmann was telling the tech company to find information that would prove their point, even if it didn’t exist. Kash says the next question he would like to know is who the person is who directed these lines of effort to happen and approved the money payments that made it happen.
Watch the full episode to learn more of the legal details unfolding and share this article so others can be informed.
