BREAKING: Michael Sussmann's attorneys file Motion to Dismiss. 
2/ This was to be expected. More later as about to do a hit on election integrity.
3/ Just finished quick read, lawsplainer will be forthcoming but in short: This motion seeks dismissal by arguing the facts alleged in the indictment EVEN IF TRUE do not state a crime. In other words, Sussmann did not commit a crime by lying to FBI 's Baker.
4/ To be a crime, the lie must be "material." Sussmann claims his lie about not representing anyone was not material because the FBI would have investigated the trip anyway.
5/ While not a sure bet, I believe DOJ has better argument here that it was material b/c had Sussmann said it came from client Joffe and Clinton Campaign, Joffe would have been questioned on data & that would have revealed Joffe providing access to Ga Tech researchers
6/ to mine data of sensitive government databases. In other words, what Durham is now investigating would have (yeah, right under Obama) been investigated then. Gov't presents several other bases in indictment & when they respond will hit with case law to counter Sussmann's.
7/ I wouldn't be surprised if a superseding indictment or a new indictment against another player drops before Durham files his response, though, as it can beef up the materiality angle. Finally, Sussmann argues that a broad reading of the "materiality" requirement could
8/ raises 1st amendment concerns and might causes tipsters to be hesitent to give tips. Unlikely the court will be persauded by that but those arguments are often made to persaude high courts. Finally, materiality doesn't require to actually impact decision but
9/9 natural tendency, and the allegations, which must be assumed true at this point, should satisfy that standard.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
