Durham is back, and this time, he has Hillary Clinton in his sights.
Special counsel John Durham plans to go to a grand jury to try to indict a lawyer with ties to Hillary Clinton and the Democrat party for lying to the FBI.
Durham is going after Michael Sussman for his conversation on September 19, 2016, with FBI general counsel James Baker about a possible connection between a Russia-based entity called Alfa Bank and servers at the Trump Organization. Durham is now facing the problem that the statute of limitation for Sussman ends this Sunday. It is also unclear if Durham’s investigation will be funded past the last fiscal year, which ends on September 30th.
Lawyers for Sussman told reporters that he is a “highly respected national security and cyber security lawyer” “who served in the justice department during both republican and democrat administrations.”
His lawyers went on to say, “He committed no crime” they also said, “Any prosecution here would be a baseless, unprecedented, and unwarranted deviation from the apolitical and principled way in which the Department of Justice is supposed to do its work. We are confident that if Mr. Sussmann is charged, he will prevail and vindicate his good name.”
Part of Durham’s investigation is to uncover if Sussman was secretly working for Hillary Clinton’s campaign and the DNC during the 2016 Election.
Durham suspects that Sussman presented data from cyber security researchers who claimed that web traffic from the Trump Organizations servers and those of Alfa-Bank showed a link between the former President and Russia during the meeting. The FBI has since grossly disregarded those claims as having no merit. Baker told the FBI that Sussman said at the time he was not representing any clients. He later retracted, stating that he had been asked to do a meeting by an undisclosed client, a cyber security expert who had crunched all the Data. At the same time, the FBI unearthed bills from Sussman’s law firm to the Clinton campaign when he was working on matters relating to Alfa bank, the same entity in question.
But Sussman pushed back, saying that the meeting with Baker was not billed.
Sussmann’s lawyers argued that the billing records are “misleading” because Sussmann was not charging his cybersecurity expert client on the bank matter “but needed to show internally that he was working on something,”
THIS IS A DEVELOPING STORY, CHECK BACK SOON FOR UPDATES