p
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?
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?
.