{"id":1437363,"date":"2022-04-14T10:14:35","date_gmt":"2022-04-14T14:14:35","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/?p=1437363"},"modified":"2022-04-14T10:14:51","modified_gmt":"2022-04-14T14:14:51","slug":"judge-denies-clinton-attorney-micheal-sussmanns-movement-to-dismiss-costs-for-alleged-lies-to-the-fbi","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/judge-denies-clinton-attorney-micheal-sussmanns-movement-to-dismiss-costs-for-alleged-lies-to-the-fbi\/","title":{"rendered":"Judge Denies Clinton Attorney Micheal Sussmann\u2019s Movement To Dismiss COSTS FOR Alleged Lies To The FBI"},"content":{"rendered":"<aside class=\"mashsb-container mashsb-main mashsb-stretched\"><div class=\"mashsb-box\"><div class=\"mashsb-count mash-medium\" style=\"&quot;\"><div class=\"counts mashsbcount\">32<\/div><span class=\"mashsb-sharetext\">SHARES<\/span><\/div><div class=\"mashsb-buttons\"><a class=\"mashicon-facebook mash-medium mash-nomargin mashsb-noshadow\" href=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/sharer.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservativenewsdaily.net%2Fbreaking-news%2Fjudge-denies-clinton-attorney-micheal-sussmanns-movement-to-dismiss-costs-for-alleged-lies-to-the-fbi%2F\" target=\"_top\" rel=\"nofollow\"><span class=\"icon\"><\/span><span class=\"text\">Facebook<\/span><\/a><a class=\"mashicon-twitter mash-medium mash-nomargin mashsb-noshadow\" href=\"https:\/\/twitter.com\/intent\/tweet?text=&amp;url=https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/?p=1437363&amp;via=ConservNewsDly\" target=\"_top\" rel=\"nofollow\"><span class=\"icon\"><\/span><span class=\"text\">Twitter<\/span><\/a><a class=\"mashicon-subscribe mash-medium mash-nomargin mashsb-noshadow\" href=\"#\" target=\"_top\" rel=\"nofollow\"><span class=\"icon\"><\/span><span class=\"text\">Subscribe<\/span><\/a><div class=\"onoffswitch2 mash-medium mashsb-noshadow\" style=\"display:none\"><\/div><\/div>\n            <\/div>\n                <div style=\"clear:both\"><\/div><\/aside>\n            <!-- Share buttons by mashshare.net - Version: 4.0.47--><div><img decoding=\"async\" src=\"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/04\/Michael-Sussmann-1200x675-1.jpeg\" class=\"ff-og-image-inserted\" alt=\"image\" \/><\/div>\n<p>The federal judge presiding over the criminal case against Michael Sussmann denied the former Clinton Campaign attorney\u2019s Motion to Dismiss the Section 1001 false statement charge brought against him by the Special Counsel on Wednesday. <\/p>\n<p>Declaring \u201cthe battle lines\u201d drawn, in a short six-page opinion, the court rejected Sussmann\u2019s attempt to have the criminal case against him tossed, saying it was too early to determine if Sussmann\u2019s alleged lie to the former FBI General Counsel was \u201cmaterial.\u201d<\/p>\n<p>The Special Counsel\u2019s office had charged Sussmann in a one-count indictment last September of violating Section 1001 by lying to the then-FBI General Counsel, James Baker, when he provided Baker information purporting to establish a secret communications channel between the Trump campaign and the Russian-based Alfa Bank. According to the indictment, Sussmann claimed he was passing the information on as a concerned citizen, and not on behalf of any client, when in fact, Sussmann represented both the Clinton Campaign and tech executive Rodney Joffe.<\/p>\n<p>Two weeks ago, presiding Judge Christopher Cooper, a Barack Obama appointee, heard oral argument on Sussmann\u2019s Motion to Dismiss. In arguing for dismissal, Sussmann\u2019s legal team stressed that Section 1001 only criminalizes \u201cmaterially\u201d false statements. Then, claiming their client\u2019s alleged lie to Baker was \u201cimmaterial,\u201d Sussmann\u2019s lawyers argued that, as a matter of law, he could not have violated Section 1001.<\/p>\n<p>Wednesday\u2019s opinion denying the Motion to Dismiss, shredded several of Sussmann\u2019s arguments, most significantly his assertion \u201cthat the materiality of his statement must be assessed only in relation to the FBI\u2019s decision to commence an investigation.\u201d Sussmann had attempted to avoid criminal liability by claiming that because the FBI would have investigated his \u201ctip\u201d no matter what he had told Baker about his clients (or lack of clients), the lie was immaterial. <\/p>\n<p>The court rejected that argument in Wednesday\u2019s opinion, finding it \u201can overly narrow conception of the applicable statute.\u201d Instead, the court held that controlling circuit precedent establishes that a lie may be material if it \u201cinfluence[s] the later trajectory of the investigation.\u201d<\/p>\n<p>The court then considered the question of whether Sussmann\u2019s alleged lie to Baker \u2014 that he was not representing any client in bringing the Alfa Bank evidence to the FBI \u2014 \u201cwas in fact capable of influencing either the commencement or the later conduct of the FBI\u2019s investigation.\u201d In addressing this issue, the court summarized Sussmann and the Special Counsel\u2019s respective positions, and, calling the question \u201chotly disputed,\u201d concluded it could not resolve the dispute prior to trial.<\/p>\n<p>While the trial court denied Sussmann\u2019s Motion to Dismiss, Judge Cooper nonetheless left open the possibility that Durham\u2019s Section 1001 case may never reach a jury, writing: \u00a0<\/p>\n<blockquote class=\"wp-block-quote\">\n<p>\u201cSo, while Sussmann is correct that certain statements might be so peripheral or unimportant to a relevant agency decision or function to be immaterial under \u00a7 1001 as a matter of law, the Court is unable to make that determination as to this alleged statement before hearing the government\u2019s evidence. Any such decision must therefore wait until trial.\u201d<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n<p>In other words, the court is telling Sussmann that it will reconsider the materiality question after the prosecution has presents it \u201ccase-in-chief,\u201d or the government\u2019s evidence in support of its Section 1001 charge. If, at that point, the court concludes the evidence is \u201cso peripheral or unimportant\u201d to the agency\u2019s function, the charge could still be dismissed without reaching a jury. <\/p>\n<p>The court could likewise toss the case after Sussmann presents his defense to the charge and the government counters with rebuttal witnesses, or even after the case is submitted to the jury and the jury returns a guilty verdict. In any of these scenarios, the court could still rule, as a matter of law, that the evidence of materiality is just not enough to violate Section 1001.<\/p>\n<p>These possibilities are unlikely, though, because the parties\u2019 respective arguments make clear that sufficient evidence exists to support a jury verdict.<\/p>\n<p>First, Durham\u2019s team has made clear that it is prepared to present evidence at trial that will prove the FBI, had it known that Sussmann \u201cwas disseminating highly explosive allegations about a then-Presidential candidate on behalf of two specific clients, one of which was <em>the opposing Presidential campaign<\/em>,\u201d could have, instead of opening a \u201cfull investigation,\u201d conducted an \u201cassessment,\u201d opened a \u201cpreliminary investigation,\u201d or delayed an investigation until after the election.<\/p>\n<p>According to the Special Counsel\u2019s briefing, it will also present testimony from \u201cmultiple government witnesses\u201d confirming \u201cthat understanding the origins of data and information is relevant to the FBI in multiple ways, including to assess the reliability and motivations of the sources.\u201d Those same witnesses will likely also testify that had they known Sussmann was presenting evidence compiled on behalf of the Clinton Campaign and Joffe, they would have more fully investigated the genesis of the white papers and how the data was compiled.<\/p>\n<p>Of course, knowing that Sussmann was acting on behalf of the Clinton Campaign and Joffe is unlikely to have changed how members of the Crossfire Hurricane team approached the Alfa Bank material; after all, knowing the Clinton Campaign funded Christophe Steele\u2019s dossier, made no difference to the Crossfire Hurricane agents. <\/p>\n<p>Significantly, though, the law does not care how any one specific agent would have reacted but for a lie. Rather, on the issue of \u201cmateriality,\u201d the question is whether the lie \u201cis capable of influencing a decision,\u201d and the test is an objective one.<\/p>\n<p>This reality will make the upcoming criminal trial quite the spectacle, with the Special Counsel\u2019s office calling as witnesses federal agents who were not involved in the Crossfire Hurricane investigation. They will likely testify concerning proper protocols and procedures and in doing so, expose the many failings of the team investigating first candidate, and then, President Trump. In contrast, when Baker and other members of the Crossfire Hurricane team testify concerning the Alfa Bank aspect of the investigation, Sussmann\u2019s attorneys will likely elicit testimony showing they didn\u2019t care who Sussmann represented.<\/p>\n<p>But, because the law of materiality adopts an \u201cobjective\u201d viewpoint, it does not matter what the individual agents did, did not do, or would have (or would not have) done. Thus, even if all of the agents involved in Crossfire Hurricane testify that Sussmann\u2019s alleged lie had no impact on their investigation, as a matter of law, it can still be material. <\/p>\n<p>Here, then, the agents called by the Special Counsel\u2019s office to testify on why the lie mattered, will not only help the Special Counsel prove the criminal case against Sussmann, but they will also expose the massive failings of the Crossfire Hurricane team.<\/p>\n<p>That does not mean that the jury will convict Sussmann: It just means that the Special Counsel has enough evidence to sustain a jury verdict.<\/p>\n<hr class=\"wp-block-separator\" \/>\n<p>\n  Margot Cleveland is The Federalist&#8217;s senior legal correspondent. She is also a contributor to National Review Online, the Washington Examiner, Aleteia, and Townhall.com, and has been published in the Wall Street Journal and USA Today. <\/p>\n<p>Cleveland is a lawyer and a graduate of the Notre Dame Law School, where she earned the Hoynes Prize\u2014the law school\u2019s highest honor. She later served for nearly 25 years as a permanent law clerk for a federal appellate judge on the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals. Cleveland is a former full-time university faculty member and now teaches as an adjunct from time to time. <\/p>\n<p>As a stay-at-home homeschooling mom of a young son with cystic fibrosis, Cleveland frequently writes on cultural issues related to parenting and special-needs children. Cleveland is on Twitter at @ProfMJCleveland. The views expressed here are those of Cleveland in her private capacity.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>The federal judge presiding over the criminal case against Michael Sussmann denied the former Clinton Campaign attorney\u2019s Motion to Dismiss the Section 1001 false statement charge brought against him by<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":499,"featured_media":2315279,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_mo_disable_npp":"","fifu_image_url":"","fifu_image_alt":"","footnotes":""},"categories":[],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-1437363","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1437363","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/499"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=1437363"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1437363\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/2315279"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=1437363"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=1437363"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=1437363"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}