Thread by @DawsonSField

Durham's motion in opposition to Sussmann just posted to the docket, it was due Monday!

courtlistener.com/docket/6039058…

Basic factual background establishing Sussmann's crimes that he committed to try & make it look like the FBI was investigating Donald J. Trup to influence the 2016 election.
I suspect they filed early before the judge can rule on the Joffe motion.

Rehash on Sussmann then taking Joffe's spying on Trump & the Obama Admin to the CIA.

Sussmann's attorney's argued that his lies weren't material, Durham of course disagrees.
That just because the FBI did not believe Sussmann's lies about Trump & Alfa Bank, does not mean the lies were not material & forced DOJ to expend resources disproving them.

Durham basically arguing that Sussmann's attorneys have had to really twist the definition of materiality to make their weak argument for dismissal.

Worse for Sussmann's case, SCOTUS has already ruled that materiality should be determined by the jury at trial. A dismissal is only warranted if the case is clear that no juror would think it was material.

That all of Sussmann's attorneys case law is for post conviction appeals, not dismissals prior to a jury convicting a defendant.

That the cases they cite aren't even relevant for Sussmann's lies to the FBI because they were cases where the defendant's statements actually had no chance of effecting government actions. Unlike Sussmann's which were done to influence government actions.

Durham shows it was clearly material that an attorney for Hillary's presidential campaign was attempting to trick the FBI into investigating the Trump presidential campaign.

By concealing his client HRC, Sussmann avoided the hard questions about Hillary's oppo research being the source of the information. In addition, it forced a conflict with DOJ guidelines to not take overt investigational steps close to an election.

Durham claims evidence at trial will prove that Sussmann lied to the FBI on behalf of the Clinton Campaign in an effort to influence the lawful functions of the FBI to trigger a case initiation.
The indictment said it was done to leak that investigation to influence the election.

Noting Joffe provided other information directly to the FBI, concealing his clients was an effort to conceal that Joffe was working with the Clinton Campaign in their effort to influence the election & the FBI investigation.
Would have also identified HRC's campaign was spying!

Had the FBI known Sussmann was working for Joffe & HRC, they would have been more likely to investigate the White Papers & the analysis of the data instead of Alfa Bank...

Sussmann's lies concealed that he was acting as a political oppo research hack while pretending to be a patriotic cybersecurity lawyer...
Well I'm paraphrasing!

Sussmann's lies prevented the FBI from evaluating the source of information that they were receiving.
The exact reason that he lied about not having a client sending him to a meeting, even though he billed it to Hillary's campaign.

Durham's team laughs at his 1st amendment claims!

Also laughing at Sussmann's assertion that being a lawyer ought to give him a license to lie to the feds...

Nothing on the issue of conflicts of interest for Sussmann's lawyers so they are sticking to their motion from last month.
There is a 2PM hearing on these motions scheduled for Monday, if anyone sees a call in link let me know.