...
However, the most significant revelation contained in the supplemental filing is that Horowitz didn’t object to the other assertions made by Durham in his Jan. 25 filing.

That filing highlighted Horowitz’s failure to cooperate with Durham’s special counsel investigation. In addition to not disclosing the existence of Baker’s cellphones, Horowitz also failed to disclose that he and his general counsel had personally met with Sussmann regarding a “cyber matter” in March 2017, and Horowitz may have failed to disclose the identity of a Hillary Clinton-connected individual who provided the underlying data to Sussmann that led to the in-person meeting.

All of these undisclosed facts are crucial to Durham’s case against Sussmann.

Notably, Durham didn’t learn about this information from Horowitz, but rather from other sources, including Sussmann himself.

On Oct. 13, 2021, Durham’s office formally requested that Horowitz provide “all documents, records, and information” in the OIG’s possession regarding Sussmann. Durham also requested any transcripts or other documents within Horowitz’s possession that contained certain search terms related to Sussmann.

However, according to Durham’s Jan. 25 filing, the only thing Horowitz’s office produced prior to mid-December 2021 was “relevant transcripts of interviews” conducted by Horowitz’s office during its review of the FBI’s Crossfire Hurricane investigation into alleged collusion between Donald Trump’s campaign and the Russian government.

On Dec. 17, 2021, Horowitz produced one additional item, a forensic report on the “cyber matter” which Sussmann had reported to the OIG in March 2017, specifically that one of Sussmann’s clients “had observed that a specific OIG employee’s computer was ‘seen publicly’ in ‘Internet traffic’ and was connecting to a Virtual Private Network (VPN) in a foreign country.”

When Horowitz provided this report to Durham, Horowitz told Durham’s team that he “had ‘no other file or other documentation’ relating to this cyber matter.” Durham’s office then provided this written forensic report to Sussmann’s defense team six days later, on Dec. 23, 2021.

But in a Jan. 20 discovery conference call between Durham’s prosecution team and the defense, Sussmann’s lawyers informed Durham’s team that Horowitz had withheld crucial information, specifically that Sussmann had met personally with Horowitz in March 2017 when he brought the “cyber matter” information to OIG.

Critically, the OIG employee whose internet activity had been monitored by Sussmann’s client appears to have been important enough to warrant a direct meeting with Horowitz, raising further questions as to this individual’s identity. It’s also notable that Sussmann’s March 2017 meeting with Horowitz took place shortly after Horowitz announced on Jan. 12, 2017, that, due to congressional requests, he was initiating an investigation into events surrounding the 2016 election.

Sussmann’s visit with Horowitz also followed shortly after Sussmann had pushed derogatory information about Trump to the CIA in Feb. 2017.

Moreover, Sussmann’s attorneys informed Durham’s team during this same Jan. 20 conference call that Sussmann’s client who developed the “cyber matter” information was Rodney Joffe.

Joffe, a computer expert with close connections to the FBI, is of great import to Durham’s case against Sussmann and to the wider investigation into the origins of the Russia collusion investigation.

Joffe was named by Durham in the Sept. 2021 indictment of Sussmann as the “Tech Executive” who allegedly “had exploited his access to non-public data at multiple Internet companies to conduct opposition research concerning Trump.” According to the indictment, Sussmann and Joffe had “coordinated with representatives and agents of the Clinton campaign” with regard to the false data about contacts between the Trump Organization and the Russian Alfa Bank.

Those alleged contacts were then used by Hillary Clinton and her campaign to push the narrative that Trump was compromised by the Kremlin.

It remains unknown how or why Sussmann and Joffe were privy to the internet activities of the as-yet-unnamed OIG employee or why Sussmann felt the need to personally brief Horowitz about these activities.

Upon learning on Jan. 20 of Horowitz’s personal briefing from Sussmann, Durham immediately reached out to Horowitz for clarification.

On Jan. 22, Horowitz responded to Durham’s inquiry, confirming to Durham that Sussmann’s assertion was correct—Horowitz had indeed met with Sussmann in March 2017. As Durham was careful to note in his Jan. 25 filing, Horowitz hadn’t previously informed Durham’s office of his meeting with Sussmann.

Three days later, on Jan. 25, Durham made his initial filing which disclosed, in part, how Horowitz had withheld key evidence from Durham.

The follow-up Jan. 28 filing by Durham has provided additional details and dates regarding the events surrounding Durham’s discovery of Horowitz’s possession of Baker’s cellphones.
...
https://www.theepochtimes.com/durham-filing-rebuts-inspector-general-horowitzs-claims-on-missing-cellphones-hints-at-growing-rift_4250251.html?utm_source=News&utm_campaign=breaking-2022-02-01-4&utm_medium=email&est=8X9shl%2BZv40EeDJvV6GwdGfOO%2F9%2Fh%2F5xexgjXCcJRJS0hRzZVdChFP%2B9h9%2Fr

Seems the IG is covering up for the corrupt members of the probe!

When Democrats are involved so is corruption!