Durham Gives Smoking Gun in Case Against Hillary’s Lawyer

0
819

John Durham, the special counsel to Hillary Clinton’s lawyer Michael Sussmann during his Russiagate investigation, released what may be key evidence against Hillary Clinton’s lawyer regarding Russiagate. Newly published documents reveal that Sussman was indicted for hiding his clients last September. He reportedly messaged John Durham on Monday night and stated unambiguously that he wasn’t working for any client, while in fact, he was working for Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign.

Last year, Sussmann’s lawyers claimed that the charges against them were false and were based on an unsubstantiated oral statement.

“The Special Counsel brought a false statement case on the basis of an oral statement that was purportedly made more than five years ago, for which Mr. Baker is the only witness; there is no recording; there are no contemporaneous notes from anyone who was present at the meeting,” Sussmann’s lawyers claimed at the time.

Sussmann was accused of lying to the FBI about his false claim that he was not working for a client when he gave the fake Trump dirt to federal agents. Sussmann claimed Trump used a secret communication channel with the Kremlin. FBI agents did not find any evidence of such a channel. The lawyers for Sussmann have tried to dismiss the case against him, but they won’t succeed since there is no tangible evidence that Sussmann is lying.

“Jim, it’s Michael Sussmann. Sussmann sent a message to the FBI lawyer stating that he had something urgent (and sensitive) to discuss. Do you have availability [sic] to meet for a brief meeting tomorrow? I am coming alone – not for a client or company. I want to help the Bureau. Thanks.”

Durham requested a judge not to dismiss the criminal case against Sussmann. He accused him of engaging in “political fraud” in his communications regarding the FBI. Sussmann’s lawyers insist that whether he was working for a client is irrelevant to the investigation.

Durham claims that Sussmann made his false statement to the FBI General Counsel about a matter that was not ancillary. Specifically, the existence…of attorney-client relationships would have shed crucial light on the origins and allegations.

Durham explained that “The defendant’s false statements to the FBI General Counsel were plainly material because they misled the General Counsel about the critical fact, among others, the fact that the defendant was spreading highly explosive allegations regarding a former-Presidential candidate for two specific clients,” Durham said.