Posted on 03/05/2022 9:00:50 AM PST by george76
Special prosecutor urges court to reject Michael Sussmann’s request for dismissal, says alleged lie to FBI was material to Russia probe..
Former Hillary Clinton campaign lawyer Michael Sussmann engaged in “political deceit” during his contacts with the FBI and deprived agents of critical information that could have influenced the course of the Russia probe, Special Counsel John Durham declared in a new filing asking a court not to dismiss his criminal case.
Sussmann recently asked the trial judge to dismiss a charge of lying to the FBI, arguing his alleged false statement to the FBI was not material to the case and was protected by the First Amendment. The lawyer is accused of lying to the FBI when he claimed he was not working on behalf of any clients when he delivered dirt on then-candidate Donald Trump to the FBI general counsel alleging the GOP nominee had a secret computer channel to the Kremlin.
In fact, FBI agents found no evidence that the computer channel existed, and Sussmann was in fact working on behalf of the Clinton campaign and a computer executive aligned with the campaign when he approached the FBI, his indictment last fall alleged.
Durham responded Friday with a sweeping rebuke of Sussmann’s conduct in 2016 and 2017, saying as a former Justice Deparyment lawyer he knew that giving false information to the FBI undercut the tenets of the legal system.
"Far from finding himself in the vulnerable position of an ordinary person whose speech is likely to be chilled, the defendant – a sophisticated and well-connected lawyer – chose to bring politically-charged allegations to the FBI’s chief legal officer at the height of an election season,” Durham wrote the judge.
“He then chose to lie about the clients who were behind those allegations. Using such rare access to the halls of power for the purposes of political deceit is hardly the type of speech that the Founders intended to protect,” he added. “The Court should therefore reject defendant’s invitation to expand the scope of the First Amendment to protect such conduct.”
...
Durham also revealed that he plans to deliver testimony at trial from FBI and government witnesses that Sussmann’s false statement was material and relevant and could have influenced the course of the Russia collusion case.
“The expected testimony of multiple government witnesses will refute the defendant’s argument that the defendant’s false statement was immaterial,” Durham wrote. “As noted above, the government expects that current and former FBI employees will testify at trial that understanding the origins of data and information is relevant to the FBI in multiple ways, including to assess the reliability and motivations of the source.
“None of this is novel. An evaluation of a source can (and often does) influence the FBI’s decisions regarding its initial opening decisions and subsequent investigative steps. That alone is sufficient to establish materiality.”
Oh look, proof of life from Durham.
L
Durham is alive and quite well. He may have more than one person’s ass in his briefcase at this point.
The only question that remains is who(s) ass it is.
The Clintons and Clintonistas … knowing where the bodies are buried is politics as usual.
Tell us something we don’t know.
Nobody more crooked than a Democrat. They keep on proving that.
When these judicial moves fail, do you suppose Sussman will become a cooperative in exchange for a lighter sentence so Durham will have a slam dunk against the bigger fish???
I wonder what they’re trying to come up with to shut him up. Too late to get him on the Lolita Express.
Political deceit doesn’t sound like much of a crime. Treason has a much better ring to it. I’m losing faith in Barr appointed Durham.
Durham is alive and quite well. He may have more than one person’s ass in his briefcase at this point.
The only question that remains is who(s) ass it is.
—
We know it can’t be Hillary’s. No briefcase is *that* big.
But then the cries of “We can’t divide the country during wartime” will start coming from the Trump haters.
All it takes is a crooked judge. The DOJ is already doing all they can to let Sussmann walk. Durham is all alone.
This case reaches to the very center of our election system and the clandestine coup that was attempted. I firmly believe more are going down than just Sussmann. Yes, Hillary will probably escape because of probable deniability. The Clintons have always been experts in distancing themselves from direct association with their henchmen in one way or another.
Some mysteriously died (Vince Foster, Ron Brown); others take the fall (Webb Hubbell who admitted as much); others covered or minimized their crimes (Comey said no prosecutor would bring charges against Hillary's secret server containing Classified Docs); Sandy Berger stealing docs from the National Archives - forget which scandal. I'm sure I'm missing some.
Come on Durham. Stop the pussyfooting. He LIED to the FBI. He provided knowingly false information to the FBI.
Political deceit is a 24/7 phenomenon. This was way more than that.
While I may be a minority voice here, and while I hope Durham can prevail, there may be some merit to Sussman’s argument on materiality. If the government cannot show that Sussman knew the information he gave the FBI was fabricated, then the identity of his client may not have been necessary to the FBI decision to investigate. After all, the FBI and law enforcement, generally, get anonymous tips all the time, some of which lead to criminal charges. While Sussman clearly was not an anonymous source, those whose information he passed on may have been. So, if the government can’t show Sussman knew the sub-sources, then it might not be able to show he knew the information was false. If that happens, then I can see how a Court might decide the lie about the identity of the client was not material to the decision of the FBI to investigate.
You’re halfway there. It really is simple, he filed a false police report, which would get the rest of us convicted. His defense is that he didn’t know it was false, because he heard it from someone else, before bringing it to the police (in the person of the FBI, the CIA, etc.) Since it hasn’t been proven that he knew it was false, they are relying on the lie that he wasn’t representing Hillary. If you’re the police, and someone files criminal charges against someone else, would you consider it important to know that they were political rivals?
GREAT. That’s the end of it. “Political Deceit.” Just like “Hillary commited multiple felonies but she didn’t MEAN intent to commit multiple felonies. (James Comey)” Show’s over folks. That is the whimpering end of the biggest scandal in presidential history.
Broom meets rug. Durham is there to stall.
Didn’t mueller spend 2 years trying to find just this sort of thing?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.