BREAKING NEWS: Sussmann Attorneys Make Big Move in Durham Case

Sussmann

The Clinton cabal seems to be in panic mode hyper-drive. Lawyers defending fellow lawyer Michael Sussmann, who used to work for Hillary’s campaign, scurried off to the courthouse on Thursday with an emergency motion to dismiss the John Durham indictment.

Desperate Sussmann damage control

Simply stating in the indictment that Michael Sussmann made “false statements to the FBI,” they claim, “fails to state an offense.

By ignoring the stated offense and calling it “extraordinary prosecutorial overreach,” they hope to keep all the crap from flinging back all over Hillary Clinton. It’s obvious to anyone who understands the inner workings of the court system that this is a basic attempt to confuse the issues and muddy the water.

Hillary took to Twitter and assured her progressive base that Vanity Fair had her covered in the Sussmann scandal. In their piece, they actually admit that the White House server exploit really happened.

They accuse Fox of getting it wrong when they report it happened when Trump was in the White House. WRONG! It happened when Barack Obama was in the White House, they insist.

Durham spelled it all out in the indictment. Sussmann allegedly “told then-FBI General Counsel James Baker in September 2016, less than two months before the 2016 presidential election, that he was not doing work ‘for any client‘ when he requested and held a meeting.” He billed Hillary for it and Durham has the invoice.

At the nefarious meeting, he outlined the whole operation, presenting “purported data and ‘white papers’ that allegedly demonstrated a covert communications channel” between “the Trump Organization and Alfa Bank.” That particular bank was chosen for its “ties to the Kremlin.

The definition of ‘is’

The indictment clearly states, whether his lawyers can read it or not, that Sussmann “was acting on behalf of an internet company and the Clinton campaign.” They have their own perspective on that. Using the Bill Clinton precedent, it all depends on what the definition of “is” is.

It has long been a crime to make a false statement to the government. But the law criminalizes only false statements that are material—false statements that matter because they can actually affect a specific decision of the government.

What that says is maybe Sussmann lied but it didn’t matter that he lied. After all, false statements “about ancillary matters” are “immaterial and cannot give rise to criminal liability.

They compare it to a rat giving a false tip which is used to start an investigation. “It seems material that he was working for Clinton, and the claim about the Alfa Bank — which is what he allegedly told the FBI — was debunked,” RedState reports.

Sussmann “met with the FBI, in other words, to provide a tip,” his lawyers argue. “There is no allegation in the indictment that the tip he provided was false. And there is no allegation that he believed the tip he provided was false.”

Rather, “Mr. Sussmann has been charged with making a false statement about an entirely ancillary matter—about who his client may have been when he met with the FBI—which is a fact that even the Special Counsel’s own Indictment fails to allege had any effect on the FBI’s decision to open an investigation.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Related Posts