Tyb
>It's Democrat Q!
Judge Issues Crucial Ruling In Durhamās Case Against Clinton Campaign Lawyer
A federal judge has rejected a bid by Clinton campaign lawyer Michael Sussmann to āstrikeā a āfactual backgroundā section of Special Counsel John Durhamās early February court filing.
Last month, Sussmannās legal team filed a motion demanding that the court remove portions of the Feb. 11 filing that included the āFactual Backgroundā section by claiming that it would ātaintā a jury, Fox News reported Thursday evening.
āIām not going to strike anything from the record,ā noted U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia Judge Christopher Cooper during a status hearing. āWhatever effect the filing has had has already passed.ā
The Epoch Times reported in February:
ā¦Sussmann was representing the Clinton campaign when in 2016 he passed along information to an FBI counsel. His lawyers say the documents āraised national security concernsā while prosecutors describe them as purportedly detailing a covert channel between a Russian bank and the business of Donald Trump, Clintonās rival at the time.
Sussmann was charged with lying to the FBI because he falsely told the counsel he was not providing the allegations to the FBI on behalf of any client despite presenting the information on behalf of the Clinton campaign, prosecutors say.
In a filing in February, Sussmannās lawyers moved to dismiss the charge, claiming their client ādid not make any false statement to the FBIā but even if he had, āthe false statement alleged in the indictment is immaterial as a matter of law.ā
āAllowing this case to go forward would risk criminalizing ordinary conduct, raise First Amendment concerns, dissuade honest citizens from coming forward with tips, and chill the advocacy of lawyers who interact with the government,ā the filing stated.
Durhamās team responded by calling his claims āabsurdā and asked the federal court in the District of Columbia to proceed.
āFar from finding himself in the vulnerable position of an ordinary person whose speech is likely to be chilled, the defendant ā a sophisticated and well-connected lawyer ā chose to bring politically-charged allegations to the FBIās chief legal officer at the height of an election season,ā Durham wrote in his court filing.
āHe 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,ā Durham, who was appointed by former Attorney General William Barr to investigate the origins of the āRussiagateā probe, noted.
āAnd far from being immaterial, they went on to say that āthe defendantās false statement was capable of influencing both the FBIās decision to initiate an investigation and its subsequent conduct of that investigation,ā the filing continued.
In its response to the Sussmann filing, Durhamās team noted: āThe defendantās false statement to the FBI General Counsel was plainly material because it misled the General Counsel about, among other things, the critical fact that the defendant was disseminating highly explosive allegations about a then-Presidential candidate on behalf of two specific clients, one of which was the opposing Presidential campaign.ā
āThe defendantās efforts to mislead the FBI in this manner during the height of a Presidential election season plainly could have influenced the FBIās decision-making in any number of ways,ā Durhamās team continued.
https://conservativebrief.com/judge-14-60985/
https://twitter.com/georgepapa19/status/1502297752339894282?s=21
@Snowden day?