Part 1

What Sussmann and the defense want to be able to do is spin their own tale about DNS data and what the Alfa Bank white papers and thumb drives show.  

This is another reason they don’t want Martin testifying.  

They only want the jury hearing Sussmann and Joffe’s version of what they were doing and what the DNS data shows.

Well they had to try.  Sussmann’s defense team actually claims to the court that they are objecting to FBI Cyber Unit Chief David Martin testifying as an expert witness because they say the Durham SCO did not disclose to them how Martin is “qualified to testify specifically about DNS or TOR.” 


You are reading that correctly.  Sussmann’s team had the balls to say “You didn’t show us why the guy who is the Chief of the FBI’s Cyber Unit is qualified to testify as an expert witness on what DNS or TOR are to a jury.”  

Durham says: tell you what. I’ll drop a big report on Agent Martin’s qualifications in your lap before the trial gets here. But you know you’re reaching here, guys.”

In the last section of this rebuttal filing, Durham addresses the defense’s claim that the expert testimony FBI Cyber Chief Martin would give at trail would be prejudicial to the defendant.  

Defense claims Martin will ‘twist the evidence’ to make it say stuff it doesn’t actually say, that he will sell an inaccurate take of the DNS data and Alfa Bank papers and thumb drives to the jury in order to get Sussmann convicted. 

Durham counters this by noting that in previous discussions with the defense, they had informed the SCO that they did not intend to have Sussmann or any defense witness offer evidence or testimony that would imply or prove the authenticity of the DNS data as far as establishing a real line of communication between Trump Tower and Moscow.

One has to wonder why if the Sussmann team already made this claim to Durham, they are still seeking to prevent Martin’s testimony as a rebuttal witness. 

Martin’s only supposed to be brought in as such if Sussmann or another defense witness alleges the Trump/Russia communication allegation is true or was believed to be real.

That’s how Durham’s team ends the filing: noting that Martin will only be called as a rebuttal witness if the defense proffers the jury a claim attempting the prove the accuracy and/or reliability of the data the defendant provided to the FBI and the CIA.  

So as long as the defense keeps it’s word and doesn’t attempt to do that they have nothing to fear from David Martin.  😉

Thus I conclude my survey of the Durham rebuttal to the defense’s Motion To Exclude.

Memorandum in Opposition – #70 in United States v. SUSSMANN (D.D.C., 1:21-cr-00582) –

Memorandum in Opposition by USA as to MICHAEL A. SUSSMANN re 58 MOTION in Limine to Exclude Testimony or Evidence Pertaining to Former FBI Assistant Director Bill Priestap’s and Deputy General Counsel Trisha Anderson’s Notes, 60 MOTION in Limine to Preclude Evidence Regarding the Gathering of Data, the Accuracy of Data or Its Analysis, or the Steele Dossier and to Strike the Same, 59 MOTION to Dismiss Case if the Special Counsel Does Not Immunize Rodney Joffe, 57 MOTION in Limine to Preclude the Special Counsel from Presenting Evidence or Argument Regarding Matters Subject to the Attorney-Client Privilege (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B)(DeFilippis, Andrew) (Entered: 04/15/2022)

Am now taking a look at the 2nd filing Durham made late yesterday, the Government’s Rebuttal to Defense’s Opposition to handing over documents to which they have been claiming attorney/client privilege.

…let’s dive back into Durham’s filing on why Sussmann’s objection to handing over documents subpoenaed by a federal grand jury by claiming they are shielded by attorney/client privilege is without merit.

The first third of the filings is the same we’ve already covered in the past: 

1. Sussmann’s lawyers whining that they shouldn’t have to turn over documents because they are attorney/client privileged or work product.   Durham makes short work of it. 

2. Then Durham addresses Sussmann’s attempts to have Bill Priestap’s notes and other notes from FBI personnel excluded from the trial evidence.  Another argument that is easily turned back. 

Then on page 10, something interesting: Sussmann is attempting to force the SCO to grant Rodney Joffe complete immunity as a witness and if they don’t, demanding the judge dismiss the case.

Sussmann makes a gambit to force the Durham SCO to give Joffe immunity if he’s going to testify at Sussmann’s trial.  

This is a transparent gambit to keep Joffe from spilling the beans and testifying truthfully about his work with Sussmann on the construction of the Alfa Bank hoax. 

If Joffe is granted immunity in exchange for his testimony, then he can’t later be charged for any criminal conduct he’s forced to reveal under oath, should he not assert 5th Amendment rights.  

It should be kind of obvious that if Joffe is granted immunity, he’s got no compelling reason to tell the truth on the stand. He can say whatever he wants to, and Sussmann obviously hopes Joffee would use immunity to lie and help his defense.

But if he has no immunity, then under oath on the stand if he lies or tells the truth about criminal activity, he can be charged for that later.

Only in extraordinary cases has the court agreed that the prosecution must grant full immunity to a defense witness before trial.  

That circuit precedent was established in 1989 in the case US v. Lugg and the case US v. Praetorius. 

Only if the court has seen grievous and provable prosecutorial misconduct has immunity been granted to a defense witness.  

Needless to say, despite the Sussmann defense team’s remonstrations, Judge Cooper hasn’t caught the Durham SCO engaging any kind of misconduct, grievous or otherwise.

The applicable law here when it comes to demands to immunize a defense witness in order to keep them from invoking their Fifth Amendment rights is US v. Ebbers [2d Cir. 2006].

Here’s what’s happening: Sussmann wants to call Rodney Joffe to the stand as a defense witness because he thinks Joffe will give testimony that will help his case with the jury. 


Joffe has done nothing but invoke his 5th Amendment right ever since he was exposed in this scandal. 

Sussmann’s team knows if Joffe is not given immunity [and maybe even if he is] on the stand he’s not gonna say shit and he’s just gonna invoke his 5th amendment right against self-incrimination.

So Sussmann is demanding that DURHAM give Joffe immunity!

Needless to say, Durham has no interest in giving the guy who was quarterbacking the entire private federal contractor spy network for Hillary Clinton immunity just so he can testify for Sussmann’s defense in this trial. 

Durham says unless the court can find some gross prosecutorial misconduct by his team, there’s no precedent for granting a defense witness immunity.  

Durham points out ever since his office first contacted Joffe through his lawyers, he has consistently refused any cooperation and has invoked his 5th amendment rights.  

In fact, as you can see from footnote [4], the Special Counsel’s Office hasn’t even had one face to face meeting with Joffe’s lawyers.  The one time a meeting had been agreed upon, Joffe changed his mind and had his lawyer cancel the meeting.

This appears to mean that Joffe has never appeared before a grand jury to testify. He made it abundantly clear to the SCO he would invoke the 5th.  

Durham then says Joffe remains an ongoing subject of his criminal investigation.

Sussmann’s lawyers attempt to prove two examples of prosecutorial misconduct so the court will grant Joffe immunity so he can testify for Sussmann’s defense: 

1. They claim the SCO has threatened him.  

Which is absurd. Durham’s done nothing close to any of the examples in the cases they cite.  

2. Sussmann tries to claim the 5 year statute of limitations has expired so Joffe is being threatened by the SCO  for something that can’t be prosecuted anyway. 

Durham scoffs at this.  Defense does not know what evidence the government has collected and continues to collect, or what violations of the law the SCO is investigating.

Remember, the 5 year clock does not start ticking until the last overt act is taken to further the criminal conspiracy. 

You know what Sussmann’s last overt act was to keep the Trump/Russia hoax conspiracy going?  And since it’s a conspiracy, any of Sussmann’s coconspirators could have done something in 2018, 2019, 2020, hell maybe even THIS YEAR to try to cover up what they did.

Trying to continue covering up and hiding your criminal conspiracy is…guess what? 


So Durham quickly dispenses with the “statute already ran out!” dodge.

Sussmann then tries to argue that Durham has been discriminatory in how he grants immunity, only giving it to people who are cooperating and helping him build his case. 

[loud farting sound here as I laugh so hard I can’t help it]  

Here’s Durham revealing that in as far as the Alfa Bank hoax investigation goes, only ONE PERSON has been granted immunity thus far:  “Researcher-2”. 

And “Researcher-2” was granted this immunity back on July 28 of 2021. 

That was before Sussmann was indicted later in September of 2021.  

So Sussmann trying to argue that the SCO is discriminatory in how it is granting immunity doesn’t fly.  

Durham reveals they pursued Researcher-2’s immunity and granted a deal because 5 others involved stonewalled by pleading the 5th.

Key detail here. We know Joffe has done nothing but invoke the 5th. 5 others involved in this have done nothing but invoke the 5th.  

This led the SCO to pursue Researcher-2 and come to a deal with this person where they are immunized/granted immunity in exchange for their cooperation and testimony against the others.  

Sussmann’s whining to the court that it’s not FAIR that Durham granted a prosecution turncoat , a former member of his own Alfa Bank criminal conspiracy, immunity but is refusing to give it to Joffe so he can testify on Sussmann’s behalf at his trial.  

Sucks to be you, Sussmann.  


“I’ve made a terrible mistake.”

Right here, Durham explains why Joffe will NEVER GET IMMUNITY.  

He was literally quarterbacking a private federal contractor spy network for Hillary Clinton and her campaign that was spying on private citizens, stealing federal data and giving it to Hillary’s dirty trick operatives so they could construct Trump/Russia hoaxes with it.  

Because of Joffe’s “critical leadership role” he has “great criminal exposure” for any crimes the SCO has found or may find were committed. 

And another big revelation! 

Durham’s SCO currently intends to seek immunity at trial for a former Fusion GPS employee. But unlike Joffe, this person is only a witness, not a subject or target of the investigation.

This is a big clue.

Durham says this person “was employed at the U.S. Investigative Firm”.  

That  means this person for whom the Durham SCO is attempting to work out an immunity deal is no longer at Fusion GPS. 

This means this potential immunized witness can’t be either Glenn Simpson or Peter Fritsch, who are both still at Fusion. 

But you know who once worked for Fusion GPS and is no longer employed by them?  


Could STEELE be the mystery witness for whom Durham is seeking an immunity deal?  🤔

Or could the mystery former Fusion GPS employee for whom John Durham is presently trying to hash out an immunity deal be…NELLIE OHR?!

Finally, Sussmann’s team makes the argument that Durham is denying Joffe immunity in order to hide exculpatory evidence from the jury that Joffe would provide if he were to testify.  

Durham quickly points out that even if this was true, and Joffe did testify that he told Sussmann to take the Alfa Bank stuff to the FBI on his own and not for him as a client, this would mean Sussmann perjured himself when he testified in front of Congress back in 2017.

I am stunned that Sussmann and his lawyers would even attempt this argument. Nothing about this makes sense.  

This would be evidence for my theory that Sussmann is  engaged in a fake slap fight with Durham so the SCO can keep making bombshell revelations in these filings.

Sussmann wants Joffe to testify that he he…perjured himself to Congress? It doesn’t make any rational sense.