Special Counsel John Durham's indictment of Democrat lawyer Michael Sussmann for making false statements to the FBI alleges in revealing and damning detail how the Trump-Russia collusion fraud was fabricated and disseminated on the eve of the 2016 presidential election.
According to the indictment, Sussmann met with the FBI's General Counsel in Washington at which time he delivered documents and data that purportedly demonstrated the connection between the Trump Organization and the Alfa Bank.
The indictment alleges that Sussmann had acted in coordination with and had billed the Clinton campaign for his time and services spent concocting the documents and data that he delivered to the FBI. It is also alleged that Sussmann much later testified before Congress that he met with the FBI's General Counsel "On behalf of his client."
Rather, the issue is whether Sussmann's statement was predictably capable of affecting the FBI's official decisions or actions.
Again, as a matter of law, Sussmann's alleged statement was clearly material in that it could be capable of influencing or affecting the FBI's decision to investigate Trump.
How receptive will a District of Columbia jury or judge sitting as a finder of fact be to the prosecution's argument that the "Natural tendency" of Sussmann's alleged statement was predictably capable of affecting the FBI's decisions or actions in regard to the Trump campaign? Will this argument survive the onslaught of evidence that overwhelmingly proves that the FBI's leadership was already in the tank for Hillary Clinton and that, even if Sussmann had told the truth, the FBI would still have investigated Trump?
On July 5, 2016 - months before Sussmann approached the FBI's General Counsel - FBI Director James Comey held a press conference at which he announced the results of the Clinton investigation.
Tuesday, September 21, 2021
John Durham's Opening Salvo
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment