Durham Stunner — Clinton Should Be TERRIFIED

In a new court filing, Special Counsel John Durham slams lawyer Michael Sussmann for trying to have charges against him dropped as ‘absurd’ and accuses him of misleading the FBI by leaking ‘highly explosive allegations’ about Donald Trump without disclosing his ties with the Clinton campaign.

Join Our Telegram Chanel Here: Donald Trump News

Sussmann’s request to have the lying to the FBI conviction thrown out is opposed in the document.

His attorneys argued in a motion that Durham’s case was largely unprecedented and might ultimately deter other tipsters from coming forward.

The authors used the example of a former spouse who may hesitate to report her ex-husband’s ‘extensive gun smuggling operation.’

In their motion to dismiss, Sussman’s lawyers argue he was not accused of providing false information to the FBI, but rather of lying about whether or not he was approaching the bureau for Hillary Clinton’s campaign.

According to them, that is ‘immaterial as a matter of law.’

According to Durham and his legal team, the comparison with the jilted ex-wife is absurd, and they ask the federal court in Washington, DC to have the case heard.

‘Far from finding himself in the vulnerable position of an ordinary person whose speech is likely to be chilled, the defendant – a sophisticated and well-connected lawyer – chose to bring politically-charged allegations to the FBI’s chief legal officer at the height of an election season,’ they stated.

‘He then chose to lie about the clients who were behind those allegations.

‘Using such rare access to the halls of power for the purposes of political deceit is hardly the type of speech that the Founders intended to protect.’

Far from being irrelevant, they added that ‘the defendant’s false statement was capable of influencing both the FBI’s decision to initiate an investigation and its subsequent conduct of that investigation.’

Completing this poll entitles you to Conservative Patriots news updates free of charge. You may opt out at anytime. You also agree to our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.

Durham was appointed in 2019 to study the origins of the FBI’s investigation of possible ties between the Trump campaign and Russia.

Specifically, it explores the FBI’s investigation of Sussmann’s giving the FBI data showing apparently suspicious traffic between Trump Organization computers and a Russian bank in September 2016.

To Durham’s knowledge, Sussmann claimed to be acting for himself and the Clinton campaign, not for anyone else.

However, the FBI concluded there was no evidence of wrongdoing with the data.

Lawyers for Sussman contended that Sussman’s affiliations were irrelevant.

‘At the end of the day, Hillary Clinton herself could have publicly handed over the Russian Bank-1 Information and the FBI would still have investigated it,’ his lawyers stated in a February filing.

In Durham’s view, however, the FBI might have assessed the allegations more accurately if they had better understood their source.

In a court filing, Durham raised fresh allegations about Sussmann – which Trump and his allies falsely claimed proved that the former president’s opponents had spied on him.

Hillary Clinton herself criticized Trump during the investigation of his business affairs in New York, as the accountants who have handled his accounts for the past 10 years said they couldn’t vouch for them.

‘By the way, they’ve been coming after me again lately, in case you might have noticed. It’s funny, the more trouble Trump gets into, the wilder the charges and conspiracy theories about me seem to get,’ said Clinton.

According to the file, the Tech Executive and Sussmann had met and talked to another law firm partner who was serving as the General Counsel for the Clinton campaign. A source told NBC News that the attorney was Marc Elias, who worked at Perkins Coie.

Durham said, in response to Sussmann’s lawyers’ request to strike not just the “factual background” but also dismiss the charges against their client, there is “no basis” for a court to grant this request, noting that the background is “central to proving” Sussmann’s “alleged criminal conduct.”

In addition, he explained that some of that was essential in outlining the potential conflicts at the center of his Feb. 11 filing.

“As an initial matter, defense counsel has presumed the Government’s bad faith and asserts the Special Counsel’s Office intentionally sought to politicize this case, inflame media coverage, and taint the jury pool,” Durham wrote in his filing.

“That is simply not true,” he asserts, noting that he “included two paragraphs of limited additional factual detail in its Motion for valid and straightforward reasons.”

Join Our Telegram Chanel Here: Donald Trump News

“First, those paragraphs reflect conduct that is intertwined with, and part of, events that are central to proving the defendant’s alleged criminal conduct.”

“Second, the Government included these paragraphs to apprise the Court of the factual basis for one of the potential conflicts described in the Government’s Motion, namely, that a member of the defense team was working for the Executive Office of the President of the United States (“EOP”) during relevant events that involved the EOP.”

“If third parties or members of the media have overstated, understated, or otherwise misinterpreted facts contained in the Government’s Motion, that does not in any way undermine the valid reasons for the Government’s inclusion of this information,” he continued.

“In light of the above, there is no basis to strike any portion of the Government’s Motion,” Durham argued, noting further that the government will be filing motions in which it will “further discuss these and other pertinent facts to explain why they constitute relevant and admissible evidence at trial.”