Michael Sussmann is a key part of the bombshell dropped by Durham, one that, if true, exposes the origin of the Russia hoax and implicates Clinton in a spying op meant to take down Trump by spying on his internet traffic and passing it to the CIA (after changing data to make it look suspicious, of course).
However, he’s been thrashing around and claiming innocence, deciding to fight Durham’s allegations rather than face his fate and attempt to make a deal. As Fox reports, his attorneys recently filed a response, saying:
“Unfortunately, the Special Counsel has done more than simply file a document identifying potential conflicts of interest. Rather, the Special Counsel has again made a filing in this case that unnecessarily includes prejudicial—and false—allegations that are irrelevant to his Motion and to the charged offense, and are plainly intended to politicize this case, inflame media coverage, and taint the jury pool.
“Sadly, the Special Counsel seems to be succeeding in his effort to instigate unfair and prejudicial media coverage of Mr. Sussmann’s case.”
“Politicize this case.” What a good joke; if a case about a domestic political opponent spying on the sitting president of the United States and framing him for treason is anything other than political, I think we’d all like to know.
Until some lawyer twists his brain in a pretzel figuring out how that’s the case, I think we can all agree that it was impossible to “politicize” this case, as it was already deeply political and politicized based on the very nature of what Sussmann did.
Based on those allegations, Sussmann’s legal team asked the court to “strike the Factual Background portion of the Special Counsel’s motion pursuant to the Court’s inherent power to ‘fashion an appropriate sanction for conduct which abuses the judicial process.’”
And no wonder they want that portion stricken! It’s where Durham alleges the biggest crimes he is accusing Sussmann of committing, namely the part where he says that Sussmann “had assembled and conveyed the allegations to the FBI on behalf of at least two specific clients, including a technology executive (Tech Executive 1) at a U.S.-based internet company (Internet Company 1) and the Clinton campaign.” If he has evidence, that’s pretty damning, so it’s less than surprising that Sussmann’s team wants it gone.
Durham, however, isn’t backing down. Rather, he’s pushing the court to dismiss the motion, which he argues is a total lie. In his response to the court, Durham said, according to Fox:
“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.
That is simply not true,” Durham states, noting that his Feb. 11 filing “included two paragraphs of limited additional factual detail in its Motion for valid and straightforward reasons.”
Defending that factual section, the damning part that implicates Sussmann, Hillary, and the intelligence community, Durham wrote:
“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.
In light of the above, there is no basis to strike any portion of the Government’s Motion.”
We’ll see what the court does and if it chooses to defend the Deep State or dig into Durham’s most salacious allegations. Until then, we’ll have to wait and see what else trickles out.