THE MARCH 6, 2017 NOTES: PROOF ABOUT MATERIALITY (Sussman Trial)

emptywheel.net ^ | 5/8/2022 | emptywheel

[bitt]

I want to return to John Durham’s objection to Michael Sussmann’s plan to offer notes from an FBI Agent and notes from a March 6, 2017 meeting as evidence.

The defense also may seek to offer (i) multiple pages of handwritten notes taken by an FBI Headquarters Special Agent concerning his work on the investigation of the Russian Bank-1 allegations, (including notes reflecting information he received from the FBI Chicago case team), and (ii) notes taken by multiple DOJ personnel at a March 6, 2017 briefing by the FBI for the then-Acting Attorney General on various Trump-related investigations, including the Russian Bank-1 allegations. See, e.g., Defense Ex. 353, 370, 410. The notes of two DOJ participants at the March 6, 2017 meeting reflect the use of the word “client” in connection with the Russian Bank-1 allegations.1 The defendant did not include reference to any of these notes – which were taken nearly six months after the defendant’s alleged false statement – in its motions in limine. Moreover, the DOJ personnel who took the notes that the defendant may seek to offer were not present for the defendant’s 2016 meeting with the FBI General Counsel. And while the FBI General Counsel was present for the March 6, 2017 meeting, the Government has not located any notes that he took there.

The Government respectfully submits that the Court should require the defense to proffer a non-hearsay basis for each portion of the aforementioned notes that they intend to offer at trial. The defendant has objected to the Government’s admission of certain notes taken by FBI officials following the defendant’s September 19, 2016 meeting with the FBI General Counsel, and the Government has explained in detail its bases for admitting such notes. Accordingly, the defendant should similarly proffer a legal basis to admit the notes he seeks to offer at trial. Fed. R. Evid. 801(c).

1. The notes of the March 6, 2017 briefing do not appear on the defendant’s Exhibit List, but the Government understands from its recent communications with counsel that they may intend to offer the notes at trial.

...more...

[bitt]

p

[Chewbarkah]

Let me see if I am following this correctly: With Dunham building a case of a broad conspiracy to defraud the government, Sussman wants to introduce evidence that he met on yet more occasions with FBI/DoJ personnel to peddle anti-Trump garbage he knew not to be true. I get it that Sussman wants to muddy the waters by using the FBI’s traditional falsified 301’s, but they sound irrelevant, except for digging Sussman a deeper hole. Is Dunham opposing it as a “don’t throw me into that briar patch” hustle?

[Bob Ireland]

***the Court should require the defense to proffer a non-hearsay basis for each portion of the aforementioned notes that they intend to offer at trial***

Excellent! Vas yoo dere, Charlee?

[Dave Wright]

So Sussman wants the court to believe that despite the fact that he directly lied to the FBI about having a client (Glen Simpson, DNC), it isn’t material because the FBI already knew he had a client based on their later behavior. The next logical question would be, “Why did the FBI interrogator ask Sussman the question if they already knew the facts?”.

Maybe the court should start investigating the FBI investigators who seemed to be pulling the same tricks they did to get Gen. Mike Flynn convicted in a perjury trap?

[sauropod]

.