OPINION: This article contains commentary which may reflect the author’s opinion
Hillary Clinton and several other Democrats have been sued by former President Donald Trump for falsely associating him with Russians. Trump is seeking over $72 million in damages, a sum that is triple the $24 million in legal fees and other damages he claims he sustained.
“Acting in concert, the Defendants maliciously conspired to weave a false narrative that their Republican opponent, Donald J. Trump, was colluding with a hostile foreign sovereignty,” Trump claimed in a suit filed in federal court in his new home state of Florida.
The filing reads: “The Plaintiff, Donald J. Trump, by and through his undersigned counsel, hereby serves his suit against the Defendants, Hillary R. Clinton, HFACC, Inc., the Democratic National Committee, DNC Services Corporation, Perkins Coie, LLC, Michael Sussmann, Marc Elias,
“Debbie Wasserman Schultz, Charles Halliday Dolan, Jr., Jake Sullivan, John Podesta, Robert E. Mook, Phillipe Reines, Fusion GPS, Glenn Simpson, Peter Fritsch, Nellie Ohr, Bruce Ohr,
“Orbis Business Intelligence, Ltd., Christopher Steele, Igor Danchenko, Neustar, Inc., Rodney Joffe, James Comey, Peter Strzok, Lisa Page, Kevin Clinesmith, Andrew McCabe,
“John Does 1 through 10 (said names being fictitious and unknown persons), and ABC Corporations 1 through 10 (said names being fictitious and unknown entities),” and claims this:
“In the run-up to the 2016 Presidential Election, Hillary Clinton and her cohorts orchestrated an unthinkable plot – one that shocks the conscience and is an affront to this nation’s democracy.
“Acting in concert, the Defendants maliciously conspired to weave a false narrative that their Republican opponent, Donald J. Trump, was colluding with a hostile foreign sovereignty.
“The actions taken in furtherance of their scheme—falsifying evidence, deceiving law enforcement, and exploiting access to highly-sensitive data sources – are so outrageous, subversive and incendiary that even the events of Watergate pale in comparison.
“Under the guise of ‘opposition research,’ ‘data analytics,’ and other political stratagems, the Defendants nefariously sought to sway the public’s trust.
“They worked together with a single, self-serving purpose: to vilify Donald J. Trump. Indeed, their far-reaching conspiracy was designed to cripple Trump’s bid for presidency by fabricating a scandal that would be used to trigger an unfounded federal investigation and ignite a media frenzy,” the filing states.
Donald Trump has filed a sprawling RICO case against Hillary Clinton and others, alleging a conspiracy to make him look compromised by Russia.
(Fact check: A GOP-led Senate panel found Russia used Manafort and WikiLeaks to try to help Trump’s campaign)https://t.co/GzMjDpMT3C pic.twitter.com/vBEEuPJWjz
— Jan Wolfe (@JanNWolfe) March 24, 2022
In a filing on Friday, Special Counsel John Durham updated his case. The CIA concluded that the Trump Russia data is not “technically plausible,” that it was “user created and not machine/tool generated, contained gaps, conflicted with itself,” as well as not being able to “withstand technical scrutiny.”
A defense Hillary and her team have in their lawsuit against Trump is that ‘the data is the data’ and it can be interpreted in that way. However, if the CIA is correct and the narrative was fabricated (Durham makes it clear he doesn’t arrive at that conclusion, but the CIA did) it appears Trump is on the right track to prove the conspiracy in court.
Durham’s filing explains: “At a minimum, however, the Government does expect to adduce evidence at trial reflecting (i) the fact that the FBI and Agency-2 concluded that the Russian Bank-1 allegations were untrue and unsupported and
(ii) the primary bases for these conclusions, including the particular investigative and analytical steps taken by these agencies.
(For example, while the FBI did not reach an ultimate conclusion regarding the data’s accuracy or whether it might have been in whole or in part genuine, spoofed, altered, or fabricated, Agency-2 concluded in early 2017 that the Russian Bank-1 data and Russian Phone Provider-1 data was not “technically plausible,” did not “withstand technical scrutiny,” “contained gaps,” “conflicted with [itself],” and was “user created and not machine/tool generated.” The Special Counsel’s Office has not reached a definitive conclusion in this regard.)
Additionally, Durham claims to have witnesses to refute Hillary’s defense. Would he be willing to work out a deal then? Biden and Hillary do not have a great relationship, so it would probably be the only way to reach out to her. He is angry that everyone supported Hillary in 2016.
According to Durham’s filing: “Nor does the defendant’s attempt to distance himself factually from the origins of the purported data and allegations aid his argument. As an initial matter, the Government has already proffered to the Court and/or expects to offer at trial considerable evidence that the defendant – a former DOJ cyber lawyer who identified himself as an expert in privacy, cybersecurity, and technology law – was involved in and/or aware of the data’s origins.
For example: Days before his meeting with the FBI, the defendant emailed Researcher-2 – the author of one of the relevant white papers and one of the primary researchers who analyzed the Russian Bank-1 allegations – stating that they had a mutual friend, referring to Tech Executive-1.
Also in mid-September 2016, Researcher-2 left a voicemail for the defendant at his office seeking to speak with him.
If called as a witness, Researcher-2 would testify that soon thereafter, he spoke with the defendant and raised concerns about whether the data concerning Trump and Russian Bank-1 was being unlawfully collected and used.”
Source: The Republic Brief