(Rallying Patriots) – One of the questions we all need to consider, years after the Russia probe into President Donald Trump started, is a “what if” question concerning the possibility that the FBI, along with other government agencies, might have known all along, from the very beginning, that the whole “Russiagate” conspiracy theory was just a political scheme and that it was funded by twice-failed Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton and her campaign and that the whole thing was made up.
Well, a new report from WND says there would have likely been a different course for the U.S., according to a new court filing from special counsel John Durham who was given the task of investigating the whole Russia probe’s origins, which is connected to now-debunked rumors circulating during the Obama administration and after, concerning Trump.
“Had the defendant truthfully informed the FBI General Counsel that he was providing the information on behalf of one or more clients, as opposed to merely acting as a ‘good citizen,’ the FBI General Counsel and other FBI personnel might have asked a multitude of additional questions material to the case initiation process,” Durham went on to write in the filing.
“Given the temporal proximity to the 2016 U.S. presidential election, the FBI also might have taken any number of different steps in initiating, delaying, or declining the initiation of this matter had it known at the time that the defendant was providing information on behalf of the Clinton campaign and a technology executive at a private company,” the special counsel added.
Durham has been working on this investigation, along with a grand jury, for quite some time now. He’s already brought about one conviction, from an FBI attorney who confessed to lying about evidence in order to make things look bad for Trump.
“Two others have been accused of lying, and the comments addressed the charges against Michael Sussman, who brought to the attention of federal investigators claims about Trump, as candidate and then president, and claimed he was doing so as a private citizen concerned about evidence he heard,” the WND report said.
But Sussman was reportedly working on behalf of Hillary Clinton’s campaign at that time.
Just The News stated, “It was an allegation that dogged Donald Trump for three years: a claim the Republican nominee-turned-president had a secret backdoor communications channel with the Kremlin. Repeated endlessly by the liberal media, the allegation was never true.”
“Sussman is facing a lying charge for claiming he was not working on behalf of any clients at the time – when he delivered to James Baker, then the general counsel for the FBI – wild claims about Trump’s purported links to the Kremlin,” the WND report continued.
“Sussmann recently asked the judge in his case to dismiss a charge of lying to the FBI, arguing his alleged false statement to the FBI was not material to the case and was protected by the First Amendment,” Just the News stated.
Durham has fired back with a scathing rebuke concerning Sussmann’s demands.
“Far from finding himself in the vulnerable position of an ordinary person whose speech is likely to be chilled, the defendant — a sophisticated and well-connected lawyer — chose to bring politically charged allegations to the FBI’s chief legal officer at the height of an election season,” Durham explained to the court,” he said.
“He then chose to lie about the clients who were behind those allegations. Using such rare access to the halls of power for the purposes of political deceit is hardly the type of speech that the Founders intended to protect. The Court should therefore reject defendant’s invitation to expand the scope of the First Amendment to protect such conduct,” he added.
He stated during the trial that he could deliver testimony from FBI and other government witnesses that Sussman’s false statement was material and relevant, noting that it might have influenced the whole course of the “Russia collusion” claims.
The “evidence” or material that was used in the case was crafted by Democrats against Trump using their own Russian sources. It is now currently being suspected of being the product, at least in some part, of Russia disinformation.
Just The News reported that Durham explained, “The expected testimony of multiple government witnesses will refute the defendant’s argument that the defendant’s false statement was immaterial. As noted above, the government expects that current and former FBI employees will testify at trial that understanding the origins of data and information is relevant to the FBI in multiple ways, including to assess the reliability and motivations of the source.”
“None of this is novel. An evaluation of a source can (and often does) influence the FBI’s decisions regarding its initial opening decisions and subsequent investigative steps. That alone is sufficient to establish materiality,” he stated.
“WND has documented that dozens of senators have told the current attorney general, Merrick Garland, not to interfere with Durham’s work,” WND reported.
“Warning that Durham’s investigation is revealing ‘highly concerning, and potentially criminal, manipulation and exploitation of federal law enforcement resources,’ 46 GOP senators have written to Garland insisting he respect the independence of Durham’s work,” the report added.
The warning comes about just as mainstream media outlets have turned from ignoring the latest court filings that suggest Hillary Clinton hired cyberspies to get inside computer servers at both Trump Tower and the White House after Trump took office, and are now saying that those statements are nothing but lies.
“Sussman was, in fact, Clinton’s campaign lawyer, and Durham has alleged there were campaign links to a tech company hired to ‘mine’ Trump servers ‘for the purpose of gathering derogatory information about Donald Trump,'” the report said.
“That conspiracy theory by Democrats, highlighted by the infamous Steele dossier of unfounded claims against Trump, triggered an earlier special counsel investigation by former FBI chief Robert Mueller, who spent years looking into the evidence and found no support for the Russiagate claims,” WND’s report continued.
Previous evidence revealed that former President Barack Obama was, at least at one point, briefed concerning a plan by Clinton, who was a presidential candidate at the time, to create the Russiagate lies against Trump in the hopes of distracting Americans from her email scandal that was unfolding at that time during the race.
The email scandal involved Clinton’s use of an unsecured email system to conduct state business which featured national security secrets, some of which were classified.
Copyright 2022. RallyingPatriots.com