in ,


John Durham Makes Major Announcement Ahead of Trial That Could Get Very Painful For FBI

Special Counsel John Durham arrives at federal court in Washington on May 18, 2022. (Teng Chen for The Epoch Times)
Share this:

Many people are unaware of attorney Adam Small, who works for the Department of Justice, but they will soon be hearing his name used frequently in the media because he has been appointed to attorney John Durham’s Special Counsel group in place of attorney Andrew DeFillippis.

Small joins Durham as the group prepares for its subsequent extensive trial in October of 2022, which could be a painful trial for the FBI.

Washington Examiner reported that DeFilippis, an assistant special counsel, withdrew from the team ahead of the trial of Russian national Igor Danchenko and was then replaced by Small.

“Durham asked the court on Sunday to “please withdraw the appearance” of  DeFilippis, an assistant special counsel, from the criminal case against Steele dossier source and Russian national Igor Danchenko.

The move comes less than a month after it appeared Durham had personally taken the reins ahead of the upcoming trial against Danchenko,” Jerry Dunleavy reported for the Washington Examiner.

According to Small’s LinkedIn profile page, his experience is that of a  “Trial Attorney with experience prosecuting Espionage Act, trade secret/economic espionage, sanctions/export control, FARA, wire fraud, money laundering, cyber, and RICO offenses.”

Cornell law describes the process to “withdraw the appearance”:

Motion for Permission to Withdraw Appearance Law and Legal Definition. A motion for permission to withdraw an appearance is a motion that an attorney files withdraw themself from appearing for the party before the court.

Before his removal, DeFilippis had played a prominent role in the Danchenko case that began with the   November indictment, including appearances in court, virtual hearings, and legal filings.

“Durham did the talking for the prosecution during a brief Danchenko hearing in early August, and he filed a short notice with the federal court, saying: “I appear in this case as counsel for the United States of America.” Durham also told the judge the Danchenko trial was expected to last five or six days. A court filing by Durham last month requested that the court issue 30 subpoenas for possible witness testimony for the trial starting Oct. 11,” Carmine Sabia reported for Conservative Brief.

Durham’s behavior was different during the Danchenko trial than in other  Special COunsel trials where the co-counsel led, so there is some mystery about the change in staff.

The  Danchenko trial in October comes after the frustrating Sussman trial this past Spring, when Sussman was found not guilty by a Washington DC court,  with a jury full of people who have a proven bias against anything to do with President Donald J. Trump.

As reported in the past, Just The News founder, John Solomon, believes that Special Counsel John Durham is preparing to go after the FBI, and this move could be a part of that overall strategy.

During an interview on Fox News, Solomon and host Maria Bartiromo spoke about the special counsel’s investigation into the Trump-Russia witch hunt and what Durham’s next move might be.

Russian-born analyst Igor Danchenko — an essential source for the unverified Steele dossier that alleged ties between Donald Trump’s campaign and Russia — was arrested by federal agents last year as part of the Durham investigation.

Solomon explained that he believes Durham is dealing with “two buckets.”

In one “bucket,” there are the last two indictments against officials connected to Hillary Clinton and their plan to feed the FBI false information about Trump-Russia conspiracies.

Solomon said the other “bucket” focuses on the FBI and whether agents knowingly mislead the FISA court to obtain warrants to spy on Trump’s 2016 campaign members.

“But Durham developed really significant evidence that red flags, the stop-now warning signs go all the way back to August when Bruce Orr, in 2016 came to the FBI and said Christopher Steele is dumping a dossier. He hates Trump. He’s hired by Hillary Clinton and most of his information is raw and uncorroborated,” he said.

“A month after the CIA sends a warning to the FBI, this is something John Ratcliffe declassified, saying Hillary Clinton is trying to play a dirty trick on Donald Trump to tie him to Russia to get out of her e-mail thing. All through the fall, they keep a spreadsheet of what’s right and wrong with the Steele dossier. It’s all wrong. Can’t corroborate, they can’t collaborate the information. The FBI never should have started the investigation and I think that’s where John Durham’s investigation is focused right now,” he added.

“Last week, a jury found former Clinton campaign lawyer Michael Sussmann not guilty on Tuesday of making a false statement to the FBI in September 2016 when he claimed that he was not working on behalf of any client when he brought information alleging a covert communications channel between the Trump Organization and Russia’s Alfa Bank,” Sabia wrote.

“After a two-week trial, and more than a day of deliberations, the jury found that Special Counsel John Durham’s team had not proved beyond a reasonable doubt that Sussmann’s statement was a lie and that he was, in fact, working on behalf of Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign and technology executive Rodney Joffe when he brought two thumb drives and a white paper alleging a Trump-Russia connection,” Fox News reported.

“The jury included one federal government employee who told the judge they donated to Democrats in 2016 and another government employee who told the judge they strongly dislike former President Trump. Both of those jurors told the judge they could be impartial throughout the trial,” the report added. “The jury also included a teacher, an illustrator, a mechanic, and more. One juror had a child who was on the same high school sports team as Sussmann’s child.”

Notify of

Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
John A OwenD
John A Owen
1 year ago

Mr.Durham, stop yapping and get on with it!

1 year ago

JOHN for the what 80 millions of tax$$$ dont f it up again!

1 year ago

Still waiting⏳!

Frank S.
Frank S.
1 year ago

The Sussman case was weak anyway, hinging on semantics and “interpretations”. Durham probably knew this, but went ahead, intending to expose ‘jury bias’, and introduce certain key tie-ins to Hillary, provided inadvertently by her former insider’s testimony.