Former Neustar Vice President Rodney Joffe has been in the news a lot lately since his role as a key player in Hillary Clinton’s private spy network first surfaced.

He appears to have been quarterbacking a group of private federal contractors who were abusing and exploiting their access to federal databases and servers in order to spy on the side for the Clinton campaign. This highly illegal spying activity included stealing classified data related to Trump and his close associates and attempting to use that stolen data to manufacture Trump/Russia collusion hoaxes, such as the Alfa Bank hoax and the Steele dossier hoax.

But Joffe’s name came up in a rather interesting way in the first day of the trial of former Clinton campaign lawyer Michael Sussmann.

The first witness called to the stand was FBI Cyber Chief David Martin, who did his best to explain to a bored looking jury what DNS data is and what claims were being advanced by the Clinton campaign to the FBI in the Alfa Bank white papers and thumb drive data.

After hearing testimony from Martin about what DNS data is, and what claims Sussmann was making to FBI General Counsel James Baker back on Sept. 19, 2016, it was the defense’s turn to question Martin.

Sussmann’s lawyer carefully led Martin through a recounting of Joffe’s extensive and impressive cyber security resume, and how Joffe is well known at the FBI, having been hired and paid as a confidential source for the agency.

That in itself has been a huge red flag to many dedicated Spygate researchers such as myself, Tracy Beanz, Jeff Carlson, Dawson Field and many others. Joffe’s longstanding relationship with the FBI brings up a big question:

Why did Sussmann completely avoid using Joffe’s name when he had his meeting with Baker to hand off this hoax? Why did he insist on claiming he was coming on his own behalf, not for any client or company? You would think given Joffe’s long history with the FBI, name-dropping him would open doors, not shut them.

While there has been much speculation for the past 9 months or so since Joffe’s name first surfaced, it wasn’t until Durham prosecution team member Brittain Shaw rose to do her redirect questioning of Martin that a definitive answer to that question began to emerge.

Shaw asked Martin if he was aware that Joffe had had his confidential source relationship with the FBI “terminated for cause”, and Martin answered that he had been unaware of that.

What appears to have emerged in the courtroom this morning is the real reason why Joffe insisted that Sussmann not reveal that he was one of the clients who had developed the Alfa Bank hoax.

Joffe needed a way to get the Alfa Bank hoax into the FBI’s hands **without** his name being attached to it or his fingerprints being all over it.

Sussmann’s role was to essentially play front man for Joffe, hiding Joffe’s intimate involvement in the collection and construction of the Alfa Bank data and allegations.

As yet there doesn’t seem to be any information available regarding what exactly it was that Joffe did to cause the FBI to terminate it’s relationship with him as a confidential source, or when this termination occurred.

Recall that in a recent response to a defense motion demanding the judge dismiss the indictment against Sussmann if Joffe were not granted immunity by the government, Durham’s prosecutors confirmed that Joffe remains an active subject of their criminal investigation.

Given what Durham has shown Joffe be involved in via various court filings in the Sussmann case over the past seven months, Joffe being indicted seems like a foregone conclusion; it’s just a matter of when Durham wants to unseal the indictment.

Rise of the New Media Newsletter

Stunning Detail Emerges in the Courtroom