https://www.reuters.com/legal/legalindustry/alec-baldwin-shooting-victim-was-wife-latham-watkins-lawyer-2021-10-22/

Halyna Hutchins was killed when Baldwin discharged a prop firearm

Her husband Matt Hutchins is an M&A lawyer in Los Angeles

The company and law firm names shown above are generated automatically based on the text of the article. We are improving this feature as we continue to test and develop in beta. We welcome feedback, which you can provide using the feedback tab on the right of the page.

Oct 23 - The husband of Halyna Hutchins, the cinematographer who was fatally shot by actor Alec Baldwin with a prop gun on Thursday, is a corporate lawyer in Latham & Watkins' Los Angeles office.

Matt Hutchins joined Latham as an associate this year. Earlier he was an in-house lawyer at an entertainment company and practiced at Kirkland & Ellis and Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom, according to his LinkedIn profile.

"Our loss is enormous," Hutchins said on Twitter late Friday. Hutchins told news outlets earlier in the day that he had spoken with Baldwin and said the actor was supportive. He could not be immediately reached for comment. A Latham spokesperson declined to comment.

Halyna Hutchins was killed when Baldwin discharged a prop firearm on the set of his Western movie "Rust" in New Mexico. The Santa Fe Sheriff's Department said it is investigating the incident, which also left the film's director, Joel Souza, injured.

Baldwin posted on social media Friday that he was in shock, writing, "My heart is broken for her husband, their son, and all who knew and loved Halyna."

Hutchins, 42, who was originally from Ukraine and grew up on a Soviet military base in the Arctic Circle, once worked as an investigative reporter in Europe, according to her website.

She graduated from the American Film Institute in 2015 and was selected as one of American Cinematographer's Rising Stars of 2019, according to her website biography.

(This story was updated to include a social media post from Matt Hutchins.)

>>15633474 lb

https://theancestory.com/matthew-hutchins/

He was born in 1983. Halyna, his late wife, was born in 1979 in Horodets Zhytomyr Oblast in Ukraine SSR, Soviet Union. She died in Albuquerque New Mexico on October 21, 2021 at the age of 42.

>>15633784

https://technofog.substack.com/p/durham-clinton-allies-spied-on-the

The Michael Sussmann case is heating up.

On February 11, 2022, Durham filed the Government’s Motion to Inquire into Potential Conflicts of Interest in the Michael Sussmann case. Read it here. As you might recall, Sussmann was charged with giving false statements to then-FBI General Counsel James Baker regarding the interests he was representing in pushing to the FBI the Alfa Bank/Trump Organization hoax. More background information on the Sussmann indictment can be found here.

The basis for the latest motion is that Sussmann’s current counsel, Latham & Watkins LLP (Latham) might have a conflict of interest because Latham previously represented Perkins Coie and Mark Elias “in this investigation.” It is alleged that Latham “likely possesses confidential knowledge about Perkins Coie’s role in, and views concerning, Sussmann’s past activities.” (Cleaned up.)

There might also be a conflict because Latham was representing both the Clinton Campaign and Hillary for America in the Special Counsel’s investigation. Durham observes that Latham’s duties to these former clients “might cause its interests to diverge from those of [Sussmann].”

Why might there be a conflict?

Because Durham might offer evidence at trial he obtained from the Clinton Campaign and Hillary for America. And because certain employees of the Clinton Campaign and Hillary for America might be witnesses at Sussmann’s trial. (Theoretically, a Clinton Campaign witness could be called by the prosecution to prove-up billing records and payments made to Sussmann. I’d guess they might have already testified to a grand jury about this.)

Another conflict issue is that Latham helped Perkins Coie draft and issue public statements concerning Sussmann’s 2016 meeting with the FBI General Counsel. Per Durham, “Those statements – which [Sussmann] appears to have reviewed or assisted in drafting – were at least partially inaccurate and/or misleading.” Thus, “Latham may encounter potential conflicts of interest in advising the defendant concerning past events in which Latham played a significant role.”

The Exploited Data.

We previously discussed how Rodney Joffe (identified as Tech Executive-1 in the Sussmann indictment and in the latest filing discussing the conflict) exploited proprietary – and perhaps classified – data provided by DARPA to further their own political attacks, and how that might result in charges. This latest filing summarizes Joffe’s activities, stating Joffe asked his researchers “to mine Internet data to establish ‘an inference’ and ‘narrative’ tying then-candidate Trump to Russia.” It was later confirmed that two former DARPA employees have given grand jury testimony, so it appears Durham is following this track.

I provide that background because of what we have now learned. Durham just divulged, to an extent, that contractors and tech experts (meaning Joffe and his cohorts) – those same people involved in the Alfa Bank hoax – essentially spied on President Trump.

According to Durham, Joffe and his associates exploited internet data from “the Executive Office of the President of the United States” to further their own political agenda and damage President Trump. They had come to possess this data as part of a “sensitive arrangement” with the U.S. government. As Durham explains:

Joffe and his associates obtained the information because they had “come to access and maintain dedicated servers for the Executive Office of the President.” They then manipulated this information to further a conspiracy theory that Trump and those in Trump’s orbit were continuing their secret backchannels with the Russians.

This was repackaged with the Alfa Bank hoax and given to Sussmann, who then laundered it to the CIA on February 9, 2017. (Apparently Sussmann was done dealing with the FBI.) Sussmann alleged to the CIA that the data showed “that Trump and/or his associates were using supposedly rare, Russian-made wireless phones in the vicinity of the White House and other locations.” Durham “identified no support for these allegations.”

pt 1

>>15634058

pt 2

One can’t help ask why Joffe (via Sussmann) risked legal exposure to continue to push false Trump-Russia allegations before and after the 2016 election. First to the FBI in 2016 then to the CIA in 2017. It seems that Joffe was desperate, and his desperation only increased after Trump’s election.

The source of Joffe’s desperation? It’s speculation at this point, but perhaps it goes to the origins of the purported Russia/DNC hack. To revise a previous question we have asked:

What if Crowdstrike was a patsy, there to unknowingly reach false conclusions of a “Russian hack” based on fraudulent information provided to them by Rodney Joffe and Perkins Coie and the DNC/Hillary Campaign?

We don’t have an answer to that question - yet. Maybe we never will. But that question becomes more reasonable the more we learn about Joffe. At a minimum, it seems likely that we will see Joffe’s indictment. Don’t ask if Joffe was involved in a conspiracy. Ask how deep that conspiracy went, and who else was involved.

>>15634190

still in that medical scooby van