Michael Sussmann (ex-Hillary Clinton campaign lawyer) was charged with lying to the FBI. Last week, he filed a motion asking that John Durham, special counsel, not be allowed to use a Hillary Clinton tweet in his upcoming trial.
This tweet will not be allowed at Sussmann’s trial. Obama-nominated Judge Christopher Cooper said that the court would exclude it as hearsay and that it was likely to duplicate other evidence regarding the attorney-client relationship.
Sussmann was accused of lying to the FBI about his client representation on September 19, 2016. He told agents that he wasn’t representing any clients when he presented evidence to them claiming a link between Donald Trump’s Russian bank Alfa-Bank. This link turned out to be totally bogus. In fact, Sussmann was employed at the time by Hillary Clinton’s campaign. His trial will begin next month.
Clinton tweeted a statement that cited an Oct. 31 2016 Slate story, a left-wing website. It reported on the alleged link between Trump and Alfa-Bank. According to the story, computer scientists sought to determine “if hackers were interfering in the Trump campaign.” They unexpectedly discovered “evidence” that there was communication between Trump and Alfa-Bank.
Clinton’s campaign was quick to jump on the story and claimed that this “evidence” could be “the strongest link between Donald Trump, and Moscow”.
Computer scientists have apparently uncovered a covert server linking the Trump Organization to a Russian-based bank. pic.twitter.com/8f8n9xMzUU
— Hillary Clinton (@HillaryClinton) November 1, 2016
Durham presented the tweet in order to “show that the defendant has an attorney-client relationship to the Clinton Campaign, which is directly relevant for the false statement charge.”
Sussmann’s defense team claimed that there was no evidence that Mr. Sussmann met with Mr. Baker to discuss the Clinton Campaign’s wider media strategy.
Sussmann’s lawyers claimed there was a danger that, if the tweet were accepted, the jury would believe Hillary Clinton was part of the Special counsel’s uncharged conspiracies and that she had direct involvement or interest in Mr. Sussmann. To Mr. Sussmann, it would be unfair to draw the candidate into this matter.
Is it possible to believe that she was not? This news is not surprising, given that the judge was nominated by Obama. You can rest assured that I don’t believe the tweet was critical of the case.