John Durham Hasn’t Ruled Out Charges Against ‘Tech Executive-1’: Prosecutor

John Durham speaks to reporters on the steps of U.S. District Court in New Haven, Conn., on April 25, 2006. Bob Child/AP Photo

Special prosecutor John Durham’s team suggested this week that a technology executive who was hired by a former Clinton campaign attorney may face criminal charges.

“Tech Executive-1,” who was confirmed to be Rodney Joffe, is currently being investigated by Durham’s team, according to a prosecutor. Prosecutors didn’t provide more details.

“We have not at this point charged [Mr. Joffe] with a crime, but as we’ve been saying all along, this is an ongoing investigation, and we can’t say no crime has been committed,” prosecutor Andrew DeFilippis said in a Washington courtroom this week. Durham’s team is now “looking closely” into the matter, he said.

Joffe had a government contract in 2016, according to DeFilippis, who noted that the statute of limitations for government abuse misconduct charges extends beyond five years. However, it’s not clear if Joffe will be charged or if those charges are being investigated.

DeFilippis’s comments were made in the context of Durham’s case against former Clinton campaign and Democratic National Committee attorney Michael Sussmann, who was indicted last year for allegedly making false statements to the FBI. Sussmann has pleaded not guilty, while his attorneys have recently suggested that aspects of Durham’s case are politically motivated.

A spokesperson for Joffe, in response to DeFilippis’s comment, told CNN on April 27 that the remarks in court are “baseless and reckless” while accusing Durham of pushing an “unfounded political narrative through false innuendo.”

“Mr. Joffe did not defraud or mislead any branch of the U.S. Government,” the spokesperson said. “Furthermore, the data at issue did not belong to the Government and did not contain private or personal information about any individual, nor was it manipulated in any way.”

Sean Berkowitz, one of Sussmann’s attorneys, argued this week that DeFilippis is trying to pressure Joffe into not providing testimony that could benefit Sussmann. What’s more, he said, prosecutors have shown no evidence that Joffe committed a crime.

“Telling a witness they continue to face criminal liability is federal government overreach,” Berkowitz told the court, according to the newspaper.

More than two months ago, a spokesperson for Joffe confirmed that he’s “Tech Executive-1” as mentioned in several of Durham’s filings.

“Contrary to the allegations in this recent filing, Mr. Joffe is an apolitical internet security expert with decades of service to the U.S. government who has never worked for a political party and who legally provided access to DNS data obtained from a private client that separately was providing DNS services to the Executive Office of the President (EOP),” the spokesperson said at the time.

Those comments were made after Durham alleged that Joffe conducted surveillance operations against former President Donald Trump’s campaign during the 2016 election. Prosecutors also said the surveillance continued after Trump was elected and became president.

Sussmann is accused of lying to then-FBI General Counsel James Baker in late 2016 when he said he wasn’t working for any client while providing the bureau with potentially damning information about Trump, including a now-discredited allegation that there was a secret backchannel between the Trump Organization and a Russian bank.

Earlier this month, Durham alleged that Sussmann, a cybersecurity attorney who had worked for Democrat-aligned Perkins Coie, made false statements to a second intelligence agency in early 2017. Reports have indicated that the agency was the CIA.

Around the same time, Sussmann’s attorneys accused Durham of trying to “put other people, other conduct, and other issues on trial that have nothing to do with the narrow false statement crime the special counsel has actually brought against Mr. Sussmann.” They requested U.S. District Court Judge Christopher Cooper to “deny the special counsel’s motion to admit Mr. Priestap’s and Ms. Anderson’s notes.”

The Epoch Times has contacted Steven Tyrell, an attorney for Joffe, for comment. Tyrell wasn’t in the courtroom when DeFilippis made his remarks.