Part 2 of 2
After the DNC and the Clinton campaign filed their motions to intervene in the Sussmann case, the attorney for The Coolidge Reagan Foundation—the organization that had filed the complaints against the DNC and the Clinton campaign with the FEC—dispatched a three-page letter to the special counsel’s office. The foundation’s letter from its counsel Dan Backer summarized the key details about the FEC’s recent decision, then suggested the DNC and Clinton campaign’s agreement not to “further contest the Commission’s findings” should prevent them from asserting attorney-client privilege in the Sussmann case.
“The Government should not permit HFA and the DNC to adopt conflicting positions in different proceedings, depending on the federal agency against which they are litigating,” the foundation argued, adding that the trial court may find those breaches of the settlement agreement “material in ruling on any privilege claims.”
While the special counsel’s office made no mention of the FEC’s findings in its response to the DNC and the Clinton campaign’s filings, the foundation’s letter to Durham highlighted a second point that now proves prescient. In his letter, Backer noted that although the FEC memoranda “will not be made public for another week,” the details uncovered in the FEC investigation will likely be useful to the special counsel in attempting to counter the claims of attorney-client privilege pushed in the Sussmann litigation.
Indeed, the FEC memoranda released last week provide additional evidence countering the DNC and the Clinton campaign’s claims of privilege not previously highlighted in the special counsel’s briefing.
For instance, the Clinton campaign reported payments of $175,000 to Perkins Coie as payments for “legal services,” but the FEC memorandumstressed that the Perkins Coie invoices did not treat all of the charges as related to “legal services.” Rather, the invoices reviewed by the FEC showed that in billing the Clinton campaign Perkins Coie distinguished between fees for “legal services rendered” and fees for “professional services — other.” The only service billed as “legal services rendered,” the FEC noted, related to the $5,000 monthly retainer fee paid to Perkins Coie. Conversely, all of the charges related to Fusion GPS’s work charges appeared as “professional services—other.”
The FEC memorandum also stressed that the invoices Fusion GPS sent to Perkins Coie for the services rendered on behalf of the Clinton campaign listed “a monthly retainer fee plus additional fees labeled as ‘Russia Research’ or ‘Russian language researcher.’” Those Fusion GPS charges included payments “Fusion made to its sub vendors, Nellie Ohr, Graham Stack, Edward Austin Limited, and Orbis Business Intelligence Ltd.” The sub-vendors all conducted opposition research for Fusion GPS related to Trump, the FEC memorandum explained, again countering the proposition that the subcontractor and its vendors were assisting Perkins Coie in providing legal services to the Clinton campaign.
Similarly, the FEC memorandumdiscussing the charge against the DNC noted that it reported paying Perkins Coie $66,500 on August 16, 2016, for “Research Consulting,” while later invoices categorized the payments to Perkins Coie as fees for “legal and compliance consulting.” The FEC found the initial category of “research consulting” captured the accurate purpose of the expenditures and indicated the DNC realized “research consulting” represented the more appropriate classification of the expenses
The invoices also showed that Perkins Coie charged the DNC for the entire portion of the fees invoiced by Fusion GPS. This fact suggested Perkins Coie served as simply a pass-through entity for Fusion GPS’s opposition research. This concerned the commissioners, as a transcript of the hearing made clear: Merely running bills through a law firm could not convert them into legal expenses, the commissioners stressed.
While the FEC’s analysis of the payments to Fusion GPS focused on whether the DNC and the Clinton campaign properly reported the purpose of the expenses, and not on whether an attorney-client relationship existed for purposes of privilege, the evidence discussed provides the special counsel additional ammunition to argue in support of an in camera review of the documents, and their eventual disclosure to prosecutors.
No matter how the court resolves the issue of attorney-client privilege, though, the FEC’s memoranda expose the Clinton campaign and the DNC’s attempts to hide their funding of the Russia collusion hoax. When the Sussmann trial begins later this month, the country will learn even more details of the breadth and depth of the conspiracy when those behind the Alfa Bank hoax testify—with or without the 38 documents now in dispute.
https://thefederalist.com/2022/05/02/why-the-hillary-clinton-campaign-cant-hide-38-documents-from-the-special-counsel/