Special Counsel John Durham told a Federal Court that his office is scrutinizing members of the Hillary Clinton Presidential Campaign from 2016 as a part of his criminal inquiry into the origins of the “Trump-Russia Collusion” hoax
The Special Counsel’s team asked a federal judge to “inquire into a potential conflict of interest” in relations with the legal counsel for Christopher Steele, the former British spy. Noting that a lawyer at that firm is “currently representing the 2016 ‘Hillary for America’ presidential campaign, as well as multiple former employees of that campaign, in matters before the Special Counsel.”
Igor Danchenko a Russian-born researcher, based in the U.S. was charged recently with five counts of making a false statement to the FBI. According to the special counsel team, Danchenko made false statements regarding the information he provided to Steele for his now-discredited dossier. The FBI and Department Of Justice under former president Obama relied on this same source and pursued authority for secret surveillance for aids connected to the Trump campaign from 2016.
Durham’s team is arguing that the interests of the Clinton Campaign and Danchenko “could potentially diverge in connection with any plea discussions, pretrial proceedings, hearings, trial, and sentencing proceedings.”
Citing five topics that could be relevant to the defense of Danchenko
“the Clinton Campaign’s knowledge or lack of knowledge concerning the veracity of information” in the Steele dossier; “the Clinton Campaign’s awareness or lack of awareness” of Danchenko’s “collection methods” for the dossier; “meetings or communications” between the Clinton campaign and Steele about Danchenko; “the defendant’s knowledge or lack of knowledge regarding the Clinton Campaign’s role in” the dossier; and “the extent to which the Clinton Campaign and/or its representatives directed, solicited, or controlled” Danchenko’s actions.
“On each of these issues, the interests of the Clinton Campaign and the defendant might diverge,” Durham said. “For example, the Clinton Campaign and the defendant each might have an incentive to shift blame and/or responsibility to the other party for any allegedly false information that was contained within the Company Reports and/or provided to the FBI.”
What do you make of the Special Council John Duhram’s decision of scrutinizing Clinton campaign members? Share your thoughts in the comments below!
Latest Comments