The case brought by Special Counsel John Durham against former Clinton lawyer Michael Sussman is going to trial. The court just denied Sussman’s motion to dismiss the prosecution, and trial is scheduled for next month.
The crux of the Indictment against Sussman is that he was part of a conspiracy to mislead the FBI (and the public) that there was a secret computer connection between the Trump campaign and a Russian bank. The alleged crime was lying to the FBI by stating that he (Sussman) was bringing the information to the FBI on his own and not on behalf of his client, the Clinton campaign, when the FBI alleges the opposite was true.
As I explained at the time, the Indictment of Campaign Lawyer Demonstrates How Hillary Clinton Is The Most Systemically Manipulative Politician Of Our Lifetime:
The Indictment of Hillary Clinton campaign lawyer Michael Sussman for allegedly lying to the FBI has a lot of people grumbling about how long it took prosecutor John Durham to finally come up with an indictment of someone with regard to the Russia collusion hoax. And even then, while Sussman was an important lawyer at an important Democrat operative law firm, his indictment has a “that’s it?” feel to it.But, the 27-page Indictment is a wealth of information, and hopefully a roadmap to wider and more substantial prosecutions (you can’t take my hope away!). What the indictment demonstrates is that the Russia collusion claim leveled against Donald Trump and the Trump campaign was a fabrication of Hillary Clinton operatives who peddled the fraud to the media and FBI, allowing Clinton to use the media reports in the campaign against Trump.Much like the fabricated Steele Dossier, also paid for and arranged by Clinton operatives, Hillary Clinton and Clintonworld perpetrated a massive fraud on the American public which not only manipulated the election process but also froze the Trump presidency and nearly paralyzed the nation politically for years.We have had some pretty terrible politicians in our lifetime, and it’s always dangerous to say “the worst” — but the Russia collusion hoax fabricated by Hillary Clinton operatives proves beyond little doubt that Hillary Clinton is the most systemically manipulative politician of our lifetime.
Durham has dropped various bombshells in court filings, including how Hillary’s Campaign Spied On Trump Tower, Trump Apartment Bldg, White House Internet Traffic.
Sussman moved to dismiss the criminal charges against asserting that the conduct alleged by the government was not criminal because the goverment had not alleged that his comments about who he did or did not represesent were not “material” as required by the statute.
The court dispatched the motion to dismiss in a 6-page Order. From the Order:
Mr. Sussmann has moved for pretrial dismissal of the Indictment under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 12(b)(3)(B) for failure to state an offense. For a statement to be criminal under 18 U.S.C. § 1001, it must be both “false, fictitious, or fraudulent” and “material.” Sussmann’s sole argument for dismissal 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 § 1001. The Court will deny the motion.The standard for materiality under § 1001 in this circuit 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.” United States v. Moore, 612 F.3d 698, 701 (D.C. Cir. 2010). Focusing on the first part of the standard, Sussmann argues that his alleged statement to Baker—that he was not at the meeting on behalf of a client—could not possibly have 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.At the outset, Sussmann’s argument that the materiality of his statement must be assessed only in relation to the FBI’s decision to commence an investigation is based on an overly narrow conception of the applicable standard. He largely ignores the second part of the test: whether the statement could influence “any other function” of the agency. Applying that prong of the materiality standard, the D.C. Circuit has stated that “a ‘lie distorting an investigation already in progress’ also would run afoul of § 1001.”
So the case is going to trial unless Sussman turns state’s evidence and brings Clinton World crashing down. You can’t take away my dreams.
CLICK HERE FOR FULL VERSION OF THIS STORY