Because of a conflict of interest involving two teams of defense lawyers, John Durham’s special investigation officially notified the court that members of the Hillary Clinton campaign team are part of his Obamagate criminal inquiry.
Noose tightens around Clinton
John Durham’s legal noose is tightening around Hillary’s throat. The public just learned on Monday, December 20, that Durham prosecutors moved the court to “inquire into a potential conflict of interest.” It seems that a lawyer for the “main” source of Christopher Steele’s dirty dossier works for a firm tied to Clinton.
A “separate lawyer” at the same 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.”
Durham already charged Igor Danchenko with lying to the FBI at least five times. He lied to them about the information he spoon fed to Steele. Specifically, Igor lied about where he got the invented information from in the first place. It was made up by someone tied to Hillary Clinton. The FBI used it to wiretap Trump through his associate.
According to Inspector General Michael Horowitz, “Steele’s dossier played a ‘central and essential‘ role in the FBI’s effort to obtain wiretap orders against former Trump campaign associate Carter Page.” He also said “Danchenko undermined Steele’s claims of a ‘well-developed conspiracy’ between former President Donald Trump and Russia.”
Igor Danchenko hired some new lawyers this month, Stuart Sears and Danny Onorato. They explained to District Court Judge Anthony Trenga that “Durham’s team was raising questions about Robert Trout, who is of counsel at their firm and represented Clinton campaign members in the past.” While admitting the facts are accurate, they “argued there is no conflict of interest.”
It turns out that Trout represented “campaign chairman John Podesta during his December 2017 appearance before the House Intelligence Committee.” Earlier that year his lawyer had been campaign general counsel Marc Elias, “who had hired the opposition firm Fusion GPS, which then contracted Steele to conduct his anti-Trump research.”
Could potentially ‘diverge’
Team Durham was ready for that. They argued back that, as their case progresses, the two teams could start seeing things from different and conflicting perspectives.
Prosecutors note “the interests of the Clinton campaign and Danchenko ‘could potentially diverge in connection with any plea discussions, pretrial proceedings, hearings, trial, and sentencing proceedings.'” They can think of at least five ways Hillary could try to call the shots her way.
First, it appears Hillary knew the information was bogus before they passed it down the food chain. The “Clinton Campaign’s knowledge or lack of knowledge concerning the veracity of information” in the Steele dossier” will definitely come up in court. The campaign also will be probed on “awareness or lack of awareness” about Danchenko’s “collection methods.”
Then, there were “meetings or communications” between Hillary’s “campaign and Steele about Danchenko.” Igor’s “knowledge or lack of knowledge” about the campaign’s role in the dossier creation and “the extent to which” the campaign “directed, solicited, or controlled” Danchenko’s actions are also sure to come up in court.
The law firm’s conference room could become the scene of bloody battle when 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.”
Also when they get former campaign members on the stand even more potential conflicts of interest will arise. The firm itself “already has obtained privileged information” from the Clinton campaign about Danchenko and the dossier.” How can anyone be sure the paperwork won’t get shared around between lawyers in the same office?