“Jim – it’s Michael Sussmann. I have something time-sensitive (and sensitive) I need to discuss,” Sussmann wrote to the FBI top lawyer. “Do you have availibilty [sic] for a short meeting tomorrow? I’m coming on my own – not on behalf of a client or company – want to help the Bureau. Thanks.”
“The Special Counsel has brought a false statement charge on the basis of a purported oral statement made over five years ago for which there is only a single witness, Mr. Baker; for which there is no recording; and for which there are no contemporaneous notes by anyone who was actually in the meeting," Sussmann’s lawyers claimed last year.
Durham revealed in October that Baker, who served as general counsel at the bureau from 2014 to 2018, will take the stand in the upcoming trial.
Sussmann denied wrongdoing, pleaded not guilty, and called upon a federal judge to dismiss the case against him, even relying in part on legal analysis by fired FBI agent Peter Strzok.
Lawyers for Sussmann asked a federal court to dismiss the false statements charge against their client in March, arguing Sussmann did not lie to the FBI when passing along Trump-Russia collusion claims and, even if he did, the lie was “immaterial.”
Durham disagreed.
“The defendant’s false statement to the FBI General Counsel was plainly material because it misled the General Counsel about, among other things, the critical fact that the defendant was disseminating highly explosive allegations about a then-Presidential candidate on behalf of two specific clients, one of which was the opposing Presidential campaign,” Durham countered last month. “The defendant’s efforts to mislead the FBI in this manner during the height of a Presidential election season plainly could have influenced the FBI’s decision-making in any number of ways.”
In the indictment, Durham said Baker spoke with Bill Priestap, the assistant director of the FBI’s counterintelligence division, after meeting with Sussmann. Priestap “took contemporaneous notes” about the Sussmann meeting, including that Sussmann had said he was not doing his work "for any client," according to the indictment.
Durham said on Monday that Baker met with Priestap as well as FBI deputy general Trisha Anderson, and the special counsel sought the court’s permission to admit as evidence notes taken by both. Durham said that “in communicating with these officials, the General Counsel relayed the details of his meeting with the defendant, including defendant’s specific representation that he was not there on behalf of any client.”
The FBI assistant director wrote in his notes that Baker said Sussmann “said not doing this for any client.” The deputy general counsel’s notes said in part, “No specific client but group of cyber academics talked with him about research.”
Durham said “the Government moves to admit the Assistant Director’s and Deputy General Counsel’s contemporaneous handwritten notes on two grounds: as prior consistent statements by the General Counsel and as past recorded recollection as to these witnesses.”
Sussmann's lawyers on Monday told the court they were fighting to keep those notes out, repeating that Baker "did not record the meeting, take any notes of the meeting, create an official report of the meeting, or otherwise memorialize it."
Durham has also said Sussmann told a U.S. government agency, believed to be the CIA, about the dubious Russian bank connection in a February 2017 meeting, in which Sussmann again allegedly misled about whom his client was. The special counsel said Sussmann claimed that data he had access to “demonstrated that Trump and/or his associates were using supposedly rare, Russian-made wireless phones in the vicinity of the White House and other locations.” Durham emphasized that he found "no support for these allegations.”
The Clinton campaign touted the Alfa Bank claims in the closing days of the 2016 election, but special counsel Robert Mueller, the FBI, and a bipartisan Senate Intelligence Committee investigation did not uncover evidence of its veracity.
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/durham-sussmann-put-his-lie-to-the-fbi-in-writing
“The Special Counsel has brought a false statement charge on the basis of a purported oral statement made over five years ago for which there is only a single witness, Mr. Baker; for which there is no recording; and for which there are no contemporaneous notes by anyone who was actually in the meeting," Sussmann’s lawyers claimed last year.
Durham revealed in October that Baker, who served as general counsel at the bureau from 2014 to 2018, will take the stand in the upcoming trial.
Sussmann denied wrongdoing, pleaded not guilty, and called upon a federal judge to dismiss the case against him, even relying in part on legal analysis by fired FBI agent Peter Strzok.
Lawyers for Sussmann asked a federal court to dismiss the false statements charge against their client in March, arguing Sussmann did not lie to the FBI when passing along Trump-Russia collusion claims and, even if he did, the lie was “immaterial.”
Durham disagreed.
“The defendant’s false statement to the FBI General Counsel was plainly material because it misled the General Counsel about, among other things, the critical fact that the defendant was disseminating highly explosive allegations about a then-Presidential candidate on behalf of two specific clients, one of which was the opposing Presidential campaign,” Durham countered last month. “The defendant’s efforts to mislead the FBI in this manner during the height of a Presidential election season plainly could have influenced the FBI’s decision-making in any number of ways.”
In the indictment, Durham said Baker spoke with Bill Priestap, the assistant director of the FBI’s counterintelligence division, after meeting with Sussmann. Priestap “took contemporaneous notes” about the Sussmann meeting, including that Sussmann had said he was not doing his work "for any client," according to the indictment.
Durham said on Monday that Baker met with Priestap as well as FBI deputy general Trisha Anderson, and the special counsel sought the court’s permission to admit as evidence notes taken by both. Durham said that “in communicating with these officials, the General Counsel relayed the details of his meeting with the defendant, including defendant’s specific representation that he was not there on behalf of any client.”
The FBI assistant director wrote in his notes that Baker said Sussmann “said not doing this for any client.” The deputy general counsel’s notes said in part, “No specific client but group of cyber academics talked with him about research.”
Durham said “the Government moves to admit the Assistant Director’s and Deputy General Counsel’s contemporaneous handwritten notes on two grounds: as prior consistent statements by the General Counsel and as past recorded recollection as to these witnesses.”
Sussmann's lawyers on Monday told the court they were fighting to keep those notes out, repeating that Baker "did not record the meeting, take any notes of the meeting, create an official report of the meeting, or otherwise memorialize it."
Durham has also said Sussmann told a U.S. government agency, believed to be the CIA, about the dubious Russian bank connection in a February 2017 meeting, in which Sussmann again allegedly misled about whom his client was. The special counsel said Sussmann claimed that data he had access to “demonstrated that Trump and/or his associates were using supposedly rare, Russian-made wireless phones in the vicinity of the White House and other locations.” Durham emphasized that he found "no support for these allegations.”
The Clinton campaign touted the Alfa Bank claims in the closing days of the 2016 election, but special counsel Robert Mueller, the FBI, and a bipartisan Senate Intelligence Committee investigation did not uncover evidence of its veracity.
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/durham-sussmann-put-his-lie-to-the-fbi-in-writing