Court filing: 5 Clinton-linked witnesses asserting Fifth Amendment rights in Durham-led Russia hoax case

In a court filing last week, Special Counsel John Durham dropped a bombshell in the ongoing probe of the Russia collusion hoax, revealing that at least five Hillary Clinton-affiliated witnesses have invoked their Fifth Amendment rights against self-incrimination, as Breitbart reports.

The information emerged from a brief in opposition to a motion from Clinton-linked lawyer Michael Sussmann, who is soon set to stand trial on a claim that he presented false information to the FBI and had attempted to withhold certain documents from the prosecution in his case.

Sussmann is accused of lying to the government when he offered information about a falsified link between then-candidate Donald Trump and Russia and asserted that he was not working on behalf of any particular client, but was in fact billing the Hillary Clinton presidential campaign for his work.

Durham’s brief indicated that a witness referred to as “Researcher-2” had already been given immunity from prosecution in exchange for his or her testimony in the case, and it also noted that “at leat give other witnesses who conducted work relating to the Russian Bank-1 allegations invoked (or indicated their intent to invoke) their right against self-incrimination.”

Also making headlines in recent days is another blockbuster piece of information from Durham, namely that the claims of Trump-Russia connections brought forward to the FBI by the Clinton campaign were “not technically plausible” and were in fact “user created,” as legal scholar Jonathan Turley pointed out.

Durham’s filings suggest, according to Turley, that the narrative Sussmann ultimately took to the FBI began to collapse well before he even said a word to government agents. In the prosecution’s telling of events, an unnamed tech executive used his influence at several Internet firms to further claims of Trump connections to Russia, even though they were a stretch, to say the least.

The prosecution contends that many involved in the project gave voice to their concerns about the weak basis of the scenario they were charged with constructing, but were told that they need not find concrete proof of such ties between Trump and the Kremlin, but just enough to “give the base of a very useful narrative.”

Just last week, a federal judge refused Sussmann’s request to dismiss the case against him, giving the green light to a May 16 trial date, as the New York Post noted, upping the ante significantly in what many believe is a long overdue quest for accountability over the false narrative that consumed much of Trump’s first term in office.

If convicted on the single false statement charge Sussman faces a maximum statutory term of five years in prison, and it remains to be seen which other prominent Clinton allies might end up ensnared in Durham’s prosecutorial web as a result of the evidence this case continues to yield.