Durham probe: Judge denies Sussmann motion to dismiss case; trial to begin next month

  

Category:  News & Politics

Via:  vic-eldred  •  one month ago  •  27 comments

By:   Brooke Singman (Fox News)

Durham probe: Judge denies Sussmann motion to dismiss case; trial to begin next month
The federal judge presiding over the case of former Clinton campaign lawyer Michael Sussmann denied his request to dismiss the case brought against him by Special Counsel John Durham Wednesday, ordering that the trial go forward as planned next month.

S E E D E D   C O N T E N T



The federal judge presiding over the case of former Clinton campaign lawyer Michael Sussmann denied his request to dismiss the case brought against him by Special Counsel John Durham Wednesday, ordering that the trial go forward as planned next month.

Sussmann, in February, filed a motion to dismiss the case against him. Sussmann was charged with making a false statement to a federal agent, and has pleaded not guilty.

In a court filing Wednesday, U.S. District Judge Christopher Cooper outlined the charges against Sussmann brought by the Durham impaneled grand jury last year.

Cooper detailed Durham's indictment, which alleges that Sussmann 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 in which he presented "purported data and 'white papers' that allegedly demonstrated a covert communications channel" between the Trump Organization and Alfa Bank, which has ties to the Kremlin.

John Durham and Michael Sussmann (Sussman pic: Perkins Coie)

"Specifically, Sussmann allegedly told Baker that he was not attending the meeting on behalf of any client when, in fact, he had assembled and was conveying the information on behalf of two specific clients: (1) a technology-industry executive named Rodney Joffe and (2) the Hillary Clinton presidential campaign," Cooper wrote.

"The FBI opened an investigation based on the information Sussmann provided, but ultimately determined that there was insufficient evidence to support the existence of a communication channel between the Trump campaign and the Russian bank," Cooper wrote. "Sussmann has pled not guilty to the charge and denies lying to the FBI."

Cooper wrote that Sussmann's "sole argument for dismissal" of his case is that "even taking the allegations in the Indictment as true, his purported misrepresentation to Baker was immaterial as a matter of law and therefore cannot support a conviction" under U.S.C. 1001 - making false statements to a federal agent.

"The court will deny the motion," Cooper wrote, noting that the standard for materiality under U.S. code is "whether the statement has 'a natural tendency to influence, or is capable of influencing, either a discrete decision or any other function of the [government] agency to which it was addressed.'"

Cooper explains that Sussmann argued that his alleged statement to Baker - that he was not at the meeting on behalf of a client - "could not have possibly influenced what was, in his view, the only 'discrete decision' before the Bureau at the time: whether to initiate an investigation into the Trump campaign's asserted communications with the Russian bank."

Cooper said that Sussmann "largely ignores the second part of the test: whether the statement could influence 'any other function' of the agency."

"Sussmann seeks to cabin this holding to statements made during the course of an ongoing investigation, but the Court sees no basis for that bright-line divide," Cooper wrote. "As the Special Counsel argues, it is at least possible that statements made to law enforcement prior to an investigation could materially influence the later trajectory of the investigation. Sussmann offers no legal authority to the contrary."

Cooper notes that whether Sussmann's alleged statement "was in fact capable of influencing either the commencement or the later conduct of the FBI's investigation is a very different question, and one that the parties hotly dispute."

"The battle lines thus are drawn, but the Court cannot resolve this standoff prior to trial," Cooper wrote.

Meanwhile, Cooper, last month, rejected Sussmann's motion to "strike" a "factual background" section in a Durham filing in February.

Sussmann's legal team filed that motion in February demanding that the court "strike" portions of Durham's Feb. 11 filing, including the "Factual Background" section, claiming it would "taint" a jury pool.

"I'm not going to strike anything from the record," Cooper said during a status hearing last month. "Whatever effect the filing has had has already passed."

Durham, in the Feb. 11 filing with the "Factual Background" in question, alleged Sussmann provided two U.S. government agencies with information from a tech executive that attempted to tie Donald Trump, who was a presidential candidate at the time, to Russia-based Alfa Bank.

The tech executive has since identified himself as Rodney Joffe. Joffe is not named in Durham's filing and has not been charged with a crime.

Durham alleged that Sussmann, Joffe and Joffe's associates "exploited" internet traffic about a "particular healthcare provider," Trump Tower, Trump's Central Park West apartment building and the Executive Office of the President of the United States in order to "establish 'an inference' and 'narrative'" tying Trump to Russia.

Durham alleges Sussmann's "billing records reflect" that he "repeatedly billed the Clinton campaign for his work" on the Alfa Bank allegations.

U.S. Attorney John Durham outside federal court in New Haven, Connecticut. ( Bob MacDonnell/Hartford Courant/Tribune News Service via Getty Images)

Sussmann's legal team, in its motion to "strike" the allegations, said Durham had "done more than simply file a document identifying potential conflicts of interest."

"Rather, the special counsel has again made a filing in this case that unnecessarily includes prejudicial - and false - allegations that are irrelevant to his motion and to the charged offense, and are plainly intended to politicize this case, inflame media coverage and taint the jury pool," Sussmann's lawyers said.

In a separate motion, Durham argued there was "no basis" to "strike" any part of his filing and pushed back against claims that his office "intentionally sought to politicize" the case. He defended the "additional factual detail" he included, which he argued is "central to proving" Sussmann's "alleged criminal conduct."

While he did not grant Sussmann's motion to strike, Judge Cooper on Thursday appeared to criticize the prosecution, saying the latest "dust-up" strikes him "as a sideshow."

Sussmann's trial is set to begin on May 16.


Tags

jrDiscussion - desc
[]
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
1  seeder  Vic Eldred    one month ago

That was quite a message. Sussman had something that was time sensitive and it needed to be discussed where nobody could hear.

Ahh...the steady hand of John Durham!

 
 
 
Hallux
Sophomore Principal
1.1  Hallux  replied to  Vic Eldred @1    one month ago
Ahh...the steady hand of John Durham!

"While he did not grant Sussmann's motion to strike, Judge Cooper on Thursday appeared to criticize the prosecution, saying the latest "dust-up" strikes him "as a sideshow."

Ah ... the steady backhand of Judge Cooper.

Something for everyone on the tennis court ... let the game begin.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
1.1.1  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  Hallux @1.1    one month ago
Something for everyone on the tennis court ..

Not quite. The Judge just let Durham move forward in prosecuting a key participant in the Russia hoax.

 
 
 
JBB
Professor Principal
1.1.2  JBB  replied to  Vic Eldred @1.1.1    one month ago

Durham's case can not go anywhere because beginning in 2014 and continuing right up to election day in Nov 2016 Trump was in secret negotiations with agents of Russian State Intelligence Services to build Trump Tower Moscow and was lying to America about it...

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
1.1.3  Tessylo  replied to  Hallux @1.1    one month ago
" While he did not grant Sussmann's motion to strike, Judge Cooper on Thursday appeared to criticize the prosecution, saying the latest "dust-up" strikes him "as a sideshow."

Ya!  Indeed.  jrSmiley_91_smiley_image.gif

How long must this sideshow go on?

How many years now?

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
1.1.4  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  JBB @1.1.2    one month ago

Dream and I'll dream with you.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
1.1.5  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  Tessylo @1.1.3    one month ago
How long must this sideshow go on?

As long as it takes to bring the conspirators to justice.

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
1.1.6  Tessylo  replied to  Vic Eldred @1.1.5    one month ago

So a never ending witch hunt then because there is nothing to see here!

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
1.1.7  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  Tessylo @1.1.6    one month ago

Remember....follow the facts!

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
1.1.8  Tessylo  replied to  Vic Eldred @1.1.7    one month ago

Where are they?

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
1.1.9  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  Tessylo @1.1.8    one month ago
Where are they?

In front of your eyeballs:

"Former FBI lawyer Kevin Clinesmith will plead guilty to making a false statement in the first criminal case arising from U.S. Attorney   John Durham's   review of the investigation into links between Russia and the 2016 Trump campaign, two sources close to the matter tell Fox News.

Clinesmith was referred for potential prosecution by the   Justice Department' s inspector general's office, which conducted its own review of the Russia investigation.

Specifically, the inspector general accused Clinesmith, though not by name, of altering an email about former Trump campaign adviser Carter Page to say that he was "not a source" for another government agency. Page has said he was a source for the CIA. The DOJ relied on that assertion as it submitted a third and final renewal application in 2017 to eavesdrop on Page under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act."




"A federal grand jury has  indicted cybersecurity lawyer Michael Sussmann  as part of a special counsel's probe into the origins of the Trump-Russia investigation, alleging he lied to the FBI general counsel."







 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
1.1.10  Tessylo  replied to  Vic Eldred @1.1.9    one month ago

I asked for facts.  

So all these years of investigation and this is all he's got?

jrSmiley_10_smiley_image.gif

Essentially NOTHING!

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
1.1.11  Texan1211  replied to  Tessylo @1.1.10    one month ago
I asked for facts.  

Which he provided to you above jrSmiley_115_smiley_image.png even though he doesn't answer to you.

 
 
 
Greg Jones
Professor Guide
1.1.12  Greg Jones  replied to  JBB @1.1.2    one month ago

You continue to spread that lie without any supportive or corroborating evidence

 
 
 
bugsy
Professor Participates
1.1.13  bugsy  replied to  Greg Jones @1.1.12    one month ago
You continue to spread that lie

Not really spreading.

He keeps spewing a lie but absolutely no one but the die hard leftist loons believe it.

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Expert
1.1.14  Sean Treacy  replied to  JBB @1.1.2    one month ago
ham's case can not go anywhere because beginning in 2014 and continuing right up to election day in Nov 2016 Trump was in secret negotiations with agents of Russian State Intelligence Services to build Trump Tower Moscow and was lying to America about it...

Why keep up the lie? If that were true, wouldn't Sussman argue that? Wouldn't the defendant Durham already convicted have argued it?

At some point, doesn't reality have to pierce your made up world?  Or do you just continue on, robotically repeating a nonsensical conspiracy you can't prove into to the void, no matter how many times the world makes you look foolish?

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
1.1.15  Texan1211  replied to  Sean Treacy @1.1.14    one month ago

I believe no is the rightful response to your last two questions.

 
 
 
XXJefferson51
Senior Guide
1.2  XXJefferson51  replied to  Vic Eldred @1    one month ago

I’m glad that this is finally happening.  I can’t wait to see the info that comes out of this case that implicate others. 

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
1.2.1  Tessylo  replied to  XXJefferson51 @1.2    one month ago

There's absolutely nothing going to come out of this case, nothing.  All these years of witch hunts and ABSOLUTELY NOTHING!

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
1.2.2  Texan1211  replied to  Tessylo @1.2.1    one month ago
There's absolutely nothing going to come out of this case, nothing.  All these years of witch hunts and ABSOLUTELY NOTHING!

Post 1.1.9 proves you wrong, of course.

Unless you think it is fake news!

 
 
 
MrFrost
Professor Principal
2  MrFrost    one month ago

Shingles doesn't care, (and neither does anyone else). 

 
 
 
bbl-1
Professor Quiet
3  bbl-1    one month ago

So this---and now finally----IS THE KRAKEN?

 
 
 
pat wilson
Professor Guide
4  pat wilson    one month ago

So what happens if/when Clinesmith and Sussman are convicted and sentenced ? What comes after ?

 
 
 
Greg Jones
Professor Guide
4.1  Greg Jones  replied to  pat wilson @4    one month ago

That's just the beginning

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
4.1.1  Tessylo  replied to  Greg Jones @4.1    one month ago

of what?

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
4.2  Tessylo  replied to  pat wilson @4    one month ago

We'll have to wait several years to find out I'm thinking.  

 
 
 
bugsy
Professor Participates
4.2.1  bugsy  replied to  Tessylo @4.2    one month ago
We'll have to wait several years to find out I'm thinking.

My guess is no.

 
 

Who is online


arkpdx
JaneDoe
Im Not Here
Sparty On


50 visitors