2 Intriguing Points About Durham’s Allegations

There are few people who have followed the Russia collusion hoax as closely as Dan Bongino. That’s why I made sure to listen to his podcast the Monday after the story broke regarding John Durham’s allegations about the Hillary campaign spying on Trump Tower, Trump’s apartment, and the White House. Sure enough, Bongino had a couple of interesting points to make. Also, I’ll share with you my predictions about what’s going to happen on the Hillary side of things.

When I wrote about the Durham motion to investigate potential conflicts of interest between Michael Sussmann and his attorney, the law firm of Latham & Watkins, I focused on the core point, which was that Hillary’s campaign, acting through the Perkins Coie law firm, spied on Trump. Bongino, though, had a few more subtle points to make. You can watch his video here, of course, but here are the two main takeaways:

First, I missed something very important in Durham’s motion. Here’s what Durham wrote at paragraph 5: “The Government’s evidence at trial will also establish that among the Internet data Tech Executive-1 and his associates exploited was domain name system (DNS) Internet traffic pertaining to …”

What Bongino caught is that Durham wrote “among the Internet data … was domain name system … Internet traffic.” That strongly implies that DNS information, which simply means sites accessed, isn’t the only information involved. It’s possible that Durham can show that there rae other internet data that the Hillary camp exploited, things such as emails or shared documents.

Second, Bongino thinks the real bombshell in this is that Durham is warning Sussmann that Latham & Watkins is a very dangerous law firm to have representing him. The reason is that one of the top Latham & Watkins attorneys is a gal named Kathryn Ruemmler or, as Bongino calls her, “The Fixer.” He points out that Ruemmler has her finger in every single corrupt pie baked during the Obama administration.

Before moving to Latham & Watkins, Ruemmler was Obama’s White House counsel and ran interference for him. But before that, she worked on the Enron case with Andrew Weissmann, the man who really ran the Mueller “investigation.”

After leaving the White House, Ruemmler represented George Nader, a convicted pedophile who set up meetings between Trump people and representatives of the United Arab Emirates. He eventually pleaded guilty to having helped the UAE put millions of dollars illegally into Hillary’s 2016 presidential campaign. Ruemmler also represented Susan Rice. Rice was the one who sent a memo to self on her last day in the White House assuring posterity that, when the Obama administration was spying on people, it was doing everything “by the book.”

Bongino believes that both Obama and, probably, Biden knew about the spying. Ruemmler’s job, as always, will be to keep Obama clean. As a power partner at Latham & Watkins, she can be expected to force the “Sacrifice of Sussmann,” if need be.

Here are are a few more Latham & Watkins tidbits that Bongino didn’t mention. Someone else who’s a partner there is Liz Cheney’s husband. That same linked article points out that Latham & Watkins gets a lot of business from “Chinese entities and countries whose human rights abuses and authoritarian rule have troubled the U.S. for years[.]” The article details the Chinese companies, along with their connections to the CCP and the corrupt countries the firm represents. Cheney’s husband, if he is only an average partner at Latham & Watkins, brings home $4.5 million annually for his work.

Finally, what about Hillary? This Daily Mail article says the press is starting to ask her questions about spying on Trump, but she’s not answering. When last we heard from Hillary, she was making noises about running again in 2024, a surprisingly reasonable thing to do, considering that no one wants Biden or Kamala or, although he wishes it were otherwise, Pete Buttigieg.

However, with the Durham revelations, my guess is that the Democrats will offer Hillary up as a sacrificial lamb for the party. She’ll be asked to take responsibility with the promise that she’ll get no prison time. Instead, she’ll just retire from the public eye, having taken one for the party and protected both the Sainted Barack Obama and the current White House occupant.

The problem with this theory is that it’s hard to see Hillary going down quietly. There’s a meme circulating that quotes Hillary saying that if she goes down, she’ll take everyone else down with her. In fact, she never said that, but it’s just the kind of thing she’d do.

What I’m reminded of when I look at the potential fight between Hillary and Obama over culpability is the divorce of a power couple I knew. They were very, very rich, and if they’d cut the marital estate in half, each of them would still have been very, very rich. However, by the time of the divorce, they hated each other. Therefore, each was willing to risk having exposed horrible secrets about him- or herself if it meant he or she could publicize horrible secrets about the other. You can read about the divorce here.

Incidentally, I see the same possibility that mutually assured destruction will fail in Chris Cuomo’s $60-million suit against CNN (which really means against Jeff Zucker). They should keep silent because each has filthy dirty laundry, but the urge to destroy the other may override self-preservation.

••••

Read more articles by Andrea Widburg

••••

Click on the image below to visit & join site:

••••

••••

Stay tuned to …