(Tony Sifert, Headline USA) Clinton 2016 lackeys whose nefarious and conspiratorial plot to take down candidate and President Donald Trump are desperately attempting to avoid exposure from Special Counsel John Durham‘s pursuit of former Perkins Coie lawyer Michael Sussmann, who has been indicted for lying during a meeting with FBI general counsel James Baker.
New filing highlights Special Counsel John Durham’s focus on the Hillary Clinton campaign –
John Podesta and high ranking Hillary for America officials have been interviewed
The DNC and Clinton Campaign/HFA have been producing documents after receiving grand jury subpoenas.
— Techno Fog (@Techno_Fog) April 7, 2022
Durham “filed a motion to compel the 2016 Hillary Clinton campaign, the Democratic National Committee, Fusion GPS, and Perkins Coie to provide the judge presiding over the Sussmann criminal case copies of un-redacted documents previously withheld from the government,” according to The Federalist.
Sussmann’s lawyers have recently filed several motions in response that seek to limit the collateral damage caused by the investigation of what Durham has called “a joint venture or conspiracy” that involved, among others, Sussmann and Perkins Coie, “Tech Executive” Rodney Joffe, the Clinton campaign, the Democratic National Committee, Perkins Coie, and Fusion GPS.
The first motion seeks to prevent Durham from presenting evidence regarding “matters subject to the attorney-client privilege.”
In his own consolidated motion, Durham’s office requested that numerous communications between Sussmann and Joffe, the Clinton campaign, Fusion GPS, and the Democratic National Committee be declared admissible.
Durham claimed that the emails would likely reveal collaboration between Joffe, the DNC, and others “regarding the very same allegations that the defendant provided to the FBI.”
Sussmann’s lawyers have responded by arguing that the relevant communications are impermissible because Sussmann himself is “not the privilege holder” and that Durham is attempting to insinuate to the jury that Sussmann is deceptively withholding evidence.
The court will likely withhold ruling on this motion until it rules on the question of privilege, which still must be briefed, according to The Federalist.
In Sussmann’s second motion, his lawyers have attempted to exclude evidence deriving from notes notes taken by FBI Assistant Director E. William “Bill” Priestap and former FBI Deputy General Counsel Trisha Anderson regarding the meeting between Sussmann and FBI general counsel James Baker.
Sussmann’s attorneys argued that Priestap and Anderson were not present at the meeting and “have no reliable memory of even speaking to Mr. Baker about the meeting.”
Durham argued in reply that the notes are directly relevant to the indictment because they “memorialize details from the General Counsel’s account of that meeting on the very same day it took place.”
Sussmann’s third motion claimed that Durham’s unwillingness to “immunize” Rodney Joffe — the tech executive responsible for “discovering” a link between the Trump Organization and a Russian bank — has caused Joffe to refuse to testify in Sussmann’s defense.
In a letter to Sussmann’s attorney’s, Joffe’s lawyer said his client “has a desire to testify” but “will invoke his rights under the Fifth Amendment if called” because Durham has not granted him immunity.
The fourth motion contains Sussmann’s request to exclude any evidence deriving from both the data procured by Joffe and any information Christopher Steele “separately provided” to the FBI.
Durham has claimed, however, Sussmann sought “to integrate the Russian Bank-1-related allegations into the Clinton Campaign’s opposition research efforts.”