June 17, 2022


Durham’s Investigation Reveals Corruption in Cyberspace

By: Caleb Larson

Americans are constantly told to look to the “experts” to receive answers to all of life’s problems. What happens when the curtain is raised, and these experts are exposed? Are they revealed as noble professionals who advocate for conclusions based on data, or politically biased careerists who push their desired narratives with questionable arguments?

The cult of “expertise” is advancing throughout scientific institutions, grinding down into conformity every discipline it encounters. Developments in the investigation, including the indictment and acquittal of Michael Sussmann, have revealed just how deep the rot goes. These updates provide an inside look into how the “experts” confidentially operate in their shared quest to retain power, no matter the damage done to their institutions. A partisan driven abuse of the computer science industry has been laid bare alongside the “experts” who exploited data to push a political narrative, revealing once again that no scientific field is safe from exploitation.

Michael Sussmann submitted data files and white papers to the FBI General Counsel on September 19th, 2016, alleging that there was a secret communication channel between the Trump Organization and a particular Russian bank. A mysteriously involved “U.S. technology industry executive” dubbed “Tech Executive-1”, who was a client of Sussman when the allegations were made, has been revealed to be Rodney Joffe.

In 2016, Joffe gave data to Sussmann that allegedly showed that Trump was working on behalf of the Russians by exposing communications between Trump Organization servers and a Russian bank called Alfa-Bank. However, the FBI eventually concluded that the evidence they were given did not prove the claim. It turns out that this secret server was administered by a mass marketing email company and not the Trump Organization. According to Durham’s indictment, Joffe had “exploited his access to non-public data at multiple Internet companies” and “enlisted … the assistance of researchers at a U.S.-based university who were receiving and analyzing Internet data in connection with a pending federal government cybersecurity research contract”.

Included in Joffe’s possession was data related to an Executive Branch office which had come to them through a “sensitive relationship between the U.S. government and another company.” In a February 11th court filing, Durham claims that this Executive Branch office was actually the Executive Office of the President of the United States. According to the indictment, this data was not used to “protect U.S. networks from cyberattacks” but instead “exploited … to assist [Joffe] in his efforts to conduct research concerning Trump’s potential ties to Russia”.

As a result of Joffe’s requests that these internet companies use their assets to find dirt on Trump, some employees remarked feeling uncomfortable “because they believed that using the companies’ data in this manner was inappropriate.” Ultimately, these employees went along with the plan as Joffe was perceived as a “powerful figure” at these companies. Joffe’s stated goal was “to support an ‘inference’ and ‘narrative’ regarding Trump that would please certain ‘VIPs.’”

One of the researchers working with Joffe was unable to find any links to Russia in the data, remarking that “the list ‘does not make sense with the storyline you have’”. Joffe understood his ask of these researchers was a tall order but reiterated that his VIP handlers would be happy if they could “provide evidence of anything that shows an attempt to behave badly”.

On August 22, 2016, Joffe admitted in an email that the domain they were investigating was a “red herring” and not a secret back channel with the Russians. Instead, he claimed it was a “legitimate valid [customer relationship management] company” and that they could “ignore it”. One of the researchers added more fuel to this growing fire of doubt in the work by stating the following:

[Tech Executive-I], you do realize that we will have to expose every trick we have in our bag to even make a very weak association?


The only thing that drive[s] us at this point is that we just do not like [Trump]. This will not fly in eyes of public scrutiny. Folks, I am afraid we have tunnel vision. Time to regroup?

This subplot revealed within the indictment of Michael Sussmann is quite illustrative of the corruption that pervades our politically motivated “expert” class. Instead of nobly protecting America’s computer networks, the “experts” concocted a narrative that Trump must have hidden ties to Russia in order to misuse this non-public Internet data, scouring it in vain to obtain breadcrumbs that could not support such an outstanding claim.

Despite the multitude of confessions that such proposals were weak, the evidence was still abused to impute treasonous intentions. The price to pay, tarnishing the reputation of trusted institutions, was apparently worth the very slim possibility of success in maligning a political rival in a contentious election.

What should Americans make of this web of half-truths? First and foremost, they should be skeptical of what they read and hear in the news. No longer can Americans blindly trust that these promoted “experts” are offering their input with honest intentions. A more prudent and skeptical outlook must be utilized, allowing for stories to unravel and additional info to come out before making conclusions. Additionally, unrelenting reforms of these institutions must come from a genuine outrage tempered by a respect for the value they offer our civilization. The citizens of this nation must hold to account those who abuse their stature to advance agendas in an arena that should be free from personal and political motivations.

America’s digital landscape matters more than ever as the cybersecurity of the American people and their data becomes paramount. As new tools and platforms with immense power over our data constantly emerge, we must ensure that nefarious actors do not abuse them to push falsehoods with tremendous consequences. There is a serious necessity for honest and moral experts to act as guides in this new technological age. Americans must be resolute in their efforts to expose the ill intentions of a credentialed regime class that refuses to take up this mantle and threatens the continuation of a free and self-determining citizenry.