Report: New Legal Filing Shows Clinton Campaign Under Scrutiny

On Friday, Special Counsel John Durham's office explained to a federal judge that he may ask members of Hillary Clinton's presidential campaign to testify on their knowledge of the origins of the Trump-Russia probe.

The development marks yet another interesting twist in the evolution of the Durham's inquiry.

SEE ALSO: Breaking Down John Durham's Two Most Recent Indictments

For years, the Democratic Party, unchecked by the mainstream media, promoted the narrative that the Kremlin colluded with the 2016 Trump campaign at will.

Only recently has that started to change. (RELATED: Durham to Ask Grand Jury for Indictment in Crossfire Hurricane Probe)

The Washington Examiner reports:

Durham's team asked a judge to “inquire into a potential conflict of interest” related to the lawyers for British ex-spy Christopher Steele's main anti-Trump dossier source, noting that a separate lawyer at their firm “is currently representing the 2016 ‘Hillary for America' presidential campaign, as well as multiple former employees of that campaign, in matters before the Special Counsel.”

Igor Danchenko, a U.S.-based and Russian-born researcher, was charged with five counts of making false statements to the FBI. Durham's indictment said Danchenko made these statements about the information he provided to Steele for his now-discredited dossier, which the FBI relied upon when pursuing authority for the secret surveillance of a former Trump campaign aide.

SEE ALSO: ‘Centrist' Think Tank Keeps Reappearing in Durham Probe

Stuart Sears and Danny Onorato, who took over as Danchenko's defense lawyers this month, told Judge Anthony Trenga of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia that Durham's team was raising questions about Robert Trout, who is of counsel at their firm and represented Clinton campaign members in the past, but argued there is no conflict of interest.

Durham's team argued the interests of the Clinton campaign and Danchenko “could potentially diverge in connection with any plea discussions, pretrial proceedings, hearings, trial, and sentencing proceedings.”