The (Further) Problems With "Special Counsels"

Special counsel, Democratic lawyer clash over new allegations regarding data purported to tie Trump to Russia - @ABC News via @alex_mallin @JackDate https://t.co/9voFntbYCN

— John Santucci (@Santucci) February 15, 2022

Both lawyers maintain that the effort to bring this information to the attention of the FBI and CIA was appropriate, and say they're concerned that Durham's actions could have a chilling effect on researchers bringing cybersecurity information to the attention of law enforcement and intelligence agencies in the future.

"What you don't want to have happen, which we already see happening, is for researchers to be chilled in bringing concerns about cybersecurity threats to appropriate government agencies," they said. "And right now, the cybersecurity community is largely afraid to talk to law enforcement because of what has happened and how this case has been handled."

That's one problem; it's related to the other problem:

Late Monday, Sussmann's attorneys responded to Durham's new filing, accusing him of making "false" allegations that "are plainly intended to politicize this case, inflame media coverage, and taint the jury pool."

Sussmann's attorneys also dispute what they say appears to be Durham's leading theory, that Sussmann was acting in concert with the Clinton campaign when he took the DNS data to the CIA in February of 2017.

"...the Motion conveniently overlooks the fact that Mr. Sussmann's meeting with Agency-2 happened well after the 2016 presidential election, at a time when the Clinton Campaign had effectively ceased to exist," Sussmann's attorneys say in their filing. "Unsurprisingly, the Motion also omits any mention of the fact that Mr. Sussmann never billed the Clinton Campaign for the work associated with the February 9, 2017 meeting, nor could he have (because there was no Clinton Campaign)."

....

"This is not the first time in this case that the Special Counsel has sought to include allegations about uncharged conduct in public filings and done so using inflammatory and prejudicial rhetoric," the filing says. "The Indictment is 27 pages long and reads as though there was a vast conspiracy, involving the Clinton Campaign and Mr. Sussmann, to defraud the FBI into investigating Donald Trump as part of an 'October surprise.' But the Indictment does not charge anyone other than Mr. Sussmann; the Indictment does not charge a conspiracy; and the Indictment does not even charge a fraud."

Sussmann's attorneys have asked the judge in the case to strike from the record Durham's latest series of allegations.

Basically Durham has nothing but, a la Ken Starr, he's determined to make the most out of it that he can, because he has no oversight, no superior telling him to work on something important and let this non-investigation go.  This is on the order of Ken Paxton going after election officials in Texas for criminal violations of law which got smacked down by the Texas courts. All we can do here is wait for the courts to smack down Durham; but Durham is not the Attorney General of the United States (whom the President could reign in) nor is he accountable to the electorate (like Paxton is).  This is just a fucking legal obscenity, and it shouldn't be allowed to happen again.