One thing that jumped out at me from Sussmann’s motion to dismiss is that the theory of dismissal is premised on the assumption that the FBI had but one decision on the table when Sussmann lied about who is client was: The FBI had to decide whether to investigate the Alfa
-Trump Org alleged communications. Nothing about the context of this news, which was the ongoing , broader CH investigation. The Alfa story, if true, would clearly have become an important, even an integral part of the entire Russian interference investigation. I’ll have to give
some thought to materiality in that context, and whether it’s likely Durham will go into greater detail than he has so far into the underlying merits- was CH ever a legit investigation, and if so, was it still legit when Sussmann brought the Alfa Bank narrative to the FBI?
Specifically Sussmann’s presentation came only a couple of weeks after the CIA referred to Strzok and Comey the report that Hillary may have concocted the entire Russian collusion narrative. Clearly if anyone in the FBI was either investigating this report, or considering doing
so, it was material information to THAT decision as to whether Clinton was behind the Alfa story too. Yet Durham’s indictment doesn’t mention this obvious evidence of materiality in the indictment.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
