Anonymous ID: d32c66 March 11, 2022, 9:08 a.m. No.15839552   šŸ—„ļø.is šŸ”—kun   >>9576

Judge Issues Crucial Ruling In Durhamā€™s Case Against Clinton Campaign Lawyer

 

A federal judge has rejected a bid by Clinton campaign lawyer Michael Sussmann to ā€œstrikeā€ a ā€œfactual backgroundā€ section of Special Counsel John Durhamā€™s early February court filing.

 

Last month, Sussmannā€™s legal team filed a motion demanding that the court remove portions of the Feb. 11 filing that included the ā€œFactual Backgroundā€ section by claiming that it would ā€œtaintā€ a jury, Fox News reported Thursday evening.

 

ā€œIā€™m 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. ā€œWhatever 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 ā€œraised national security concernsā€ while prosecutors describe them as purportedly detailing a covert channel between a Russian bank and the business of Donald Trump, Clintonā€™s 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, Sussmannā€™s lawyers moved to dismiss the charge, claiming their client ā€œdid not make any false statement to the FBIā€ but even if he had, ā€œthe false statement alleged in the indictment is immaterial as a matter of law.ā€

 

ā€œAllowing 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.

 

Durhamā€™s team responded by calling his claims ā€œabsurdā€ and asked the federal court in the District of Columbia to proceed.

 

ā€œFar 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 FBIā€™s chief legal officer at the height of an election season,ā€ Durham wrote in his court filing.

 

ā€œHe 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 ā€˜Russiagateā€™ probe, noted.

 

ā€œAnd far from being immaterial, they went on to say that ā€˜the defendantā€™s false statement was capable of influencing both the FBIā€™s decision to initiate an investigation and its subsequent conduct of that investigation,ā€ the filing continued.

 

In its response to the Sussmann filing, Durhamā€™s team noted: ā€œThe defendantā€™s 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€

 

ā€œThe defendantā€™s efforts to mislead the FBI in this manner during the height of a Presidential election season plainly could have influenced the FBIā€™s decision-making in any number of ways,ā€ Durhamā€™s team continued.

 

https://conservativebrief.com/judge-14-60985/

 

https://twitter.com/georgepapa19/status/1502297752339894282?s=21