Nunes says Durham probe uncovering docs ‘clearly hid from Congress,’ suggests criminal elusion

Many of the FBI documents that have in recent weeks been unveiled by special counsel John Durham were subpoenaed years ago by then-House Intelligence Committee chair Devin Nunes and his aide Kash Patel, only for their requests to be completely ignored.

“These notes were subpoenaed by chairman Nunes, and they were withheld from us during our investigation. But John Durham found them,” Patel revealed during an appearance Sunday on Fox News’ “Sunday Morning Futures.”

And with them in hand, Durham has been building a case against 2016 Clinton campaign attorney Michael Sussman — a case that could eventually wind up ensnaring Hillary Clinton herself, or so some have theorized based on Durham’s filings.

“He has laid out a ‘joint venture’ conspiracy. Those aren’t my words. Those are legal words we use as prosecutors that John Durham placed in his pleadings,” Patel explained.

He continued by noting that the likes of Fusion GPS, tech executive Rodney Joffe, Jake Sullivan, John Podesta, Robby Mook, Marc Elias, and numerous other Clinton-affiliated individuals still remain under investigation by Durham.

Speaking alongside Patel, Nunes said that if he was still in Congress, some of them would have have already been referred for criminal prosecution for the role they’d played in hiding documents from him.

“These are documents that they clearly hid from congress. So right there, what we know today from Durham, if I was still there, we would have more criminal referrals to Durham based on lying and misleading Congress,” he said.

The only one who’s been charged thus far is Sussman. In fact, his trial begins Monday. But that, unfortunately, is part of the problem.

Speaking on Fox News’ “Fox & Friends Sunday,” former U.S. Attorney Brett Tolman warned that taking Sussmann to trial may make it harder for Durham to build his case against the Clinton campaign.

“He’s facing up to five years in federal prison, and when you decide to go to trial, you also lose all of the benefits that the federal code has to offer for someone that’s cooperating with the government,” he explained.

“I’m not sure Durham expected that this would go to trial. I think his plan was to charge Sussmann, be able to use this case, and hopefully have him cooperate to give him the broader and bigger picture of the conspiracy that involved perhaps even Hillary Clinton and her campaign.”

In other words, Durham had likely hoped to offer Sussmann a plea agreement in exchange for him spilling the beans on the Clinton campaign.

To be clear, the fact that Sussmann has refused to cooperate doesn’t mean Durham’s out of the game just yet — it just means he has his work cut out for him.

“I think he does have a lot of document evidence that I think can support [additional criminal prosecutions]. But what he’s lacking are individuals coming forward that will resonate with the grand jury and with the jury when he tries a larger conspiracy case. And that’s what he needs. He needs individuals that were part of the conspiracy to cooperate,” Tolman explained.


As previously reported, Durham tried last month to introduce evidence into Sussmann’s trial that would have seemingly linked his actions directly to failed 2016 presidential candidate Hillary Rodham Clinton.

In a filing submitted in early April, he specifically requested that he be allowed to introduce evidence concerning Christopher Steele, the author of the Steele dossier, into the trial to prove that Sussman’s actions were part of a “joint venture or conspiracy” involving Clinton’s campaign.

However, in a ruling issued earlier this month, U.S. District Court Judge Christopher Cooper rejected Durham’s request.

“A federal judge has turned down a request from Special Counsel John Durham for a ruling that a lawyer facing trial on a false statement charge was part of a wide-ranging ‘joint venture’ involving Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign, Democratic operatives, private investigation firm Fusion GPS and various technology researchers,” as reported by Politico.

“The ruling spares the Clinton campaign and the Democratic National Committee the potential embarrassment of a federal judge finding they were part of a coordinated effort to level since-discredited allegations that candidate Donald Trump or his allies maintained a data link from Trump Tower to Russia’s Alfa Bank. The Clinton campaign disseminated that claim amid a broader effort to call out Trump’s ties to Russia at a time when U.S. intelligence agencies had revealed efforts by the Russian government to interfere in the 2016 election.”

The ruling by Cooper, an appointee of former Democrat President Barack Obama, sparked anger, with critics saying it was just another example of the “deep state” working to protect itself.

And indeed, according to Fox News, Cooper isn’t just any judge — he’s one who’s married to Amy Jeffress, lawyer who’d represented disgraced former FBI lawyer Lisa Page.

But it gets worse:

“Cooper, an Obama-appointee, and Jeffress, a former top aide to Attorney General Eric Holder, are well connected in the Democratic party. Current Attorney General Merrick Garland even presided over their 1999 wedding,” Fox News notes.


Please help us! If you are fed up with letting radical big tech execs, phony fact-checkers, tyrannical liberals and a lying mainstream media have unprecedented power over your news please consider making a donation to BPR to help us fight them. Now is the time. Truth has never been more critical!

Success! Thank you for donating. Please share BPR content to help combat the lies.
Vivek Saxena


We have no tolerance for comments containing violence, racism, profanity, vulgarity, doxing, or discourteous behavior. If a comment is spam, instead of replying to it please click the ∨ icon below and to the right of that comment. Thank you for partnering with us to maintain fruitful conversation.

PLEASE JOIN OUR NEW COMMENT SYSTEM! We love hearing from our readers and invite you to join us for feedback and great conversation. If you've commented with us before, we'll need you to re-input your email address for this. The public will not see it and we do not share it.

Latest Articles