[Yo-Yo]

Poor choice of words by the author, or you are misinterpreting how the word tell is being used. Either way, they probably should have used the word responds, and then there would be no confusion. 🙂

Yes, Durham was responding to Sussman's motion to dismiss the charge because his lie to the FIB was not 'material' to the FIB's decision to open a case based on the Steele Dossier.

Durham argued that the point of the lie being material or immaterial should be decided by a jury at trial, not by a pretrial motion, and cited precedents.

[Robert DeLong]

It wasn't about the Steele dossier at all, because what was said in that dossier is that it described the relationship between Putin and a guy named Oleg Govorun, who the dossier claimed worked for Alfa in the 1990s (that date was wrong but not the affiliation).

This was a claim that Trump was supposedly communicating to a Russian bank, Alfa-Bank. He claimed he was reporting like a good responsible citizen, and that he had no client involved in what he was communicating.

You are also wrong that it was not material at all.

Furthermore, his rebuttal argument for not dismissing the case, had nothing to do with letting a jury decide. It was about the fact that if he had been honest about who he was working for, the Clinton campaign, then it would have likely not resulted in an FBI investigation.

The Odd Projection by the Steele Dossier’s Claimed Alfa Bank Source