The lawsuit was probably funded by Special Adviser John Durham, who lied to the FBI that he did not bring information to the FBI’s client: he did so on behalf of two clients: Clinton Campaign and Technology Administrator Rodney Joff.
William P. Trump, the Trump administration’s attorney general, to investigate whether the federal agents who investigated the 2016 Trump campaign were at fault. The trial marks the first courtroom test of the investigation by Durham, who was appointed by Bar.
Before and after the 2016 election, the FBI conducted a witch hunt investigation into the Republican standard-bearer. A release would trigger calls from the left for the judiciary to complete Durham’s mission.
The tribunal, which began debating at 1pm on Friday, undertook a very simple legal and factual answer to the question – whether Sussmann lied about his client and whether that lie was relevant to the FBI investigation. During the two-week testimonyProsecutors, however, argued about a broader plan by Clinton loyalists to use the FBI and reporters to launch a damaging, last-minute revelation against Trump. The FBI investigated the Alpha Bank allegations and concluded that they were baseless.
“You can see what the plan is,” Assistant Special Adviser Andrew Tbilipis told jurors in DC federal court. “It came as a surprise in October that the media and the FBI were informed to write that there was an FBI investigation.”
“Under the law, the FBI has no license to lie,” Diplips said. “Under the law, no one has the right to issue a false statement arming a law enforcement agency in support of a political agenda – not Republicans, not Democrats.”
Although the trial often referred to Clinton, Trump and other political figures, the attorney general insisted that “this case is not about politics, it’s not about conspiracy, it’s about the truth. Sussmann lied and told the Philippines that if he told the FBI that he was acting on Clinton’s, the FBI would be less likely to consider his evidence or launch an investigation.
Sussmann’s lawyer, Sean Berkowitz, said the government had tried to turn the 30-minute meeting five years ago into a “grand political conspiracy theory.”
The defense attorney said there were plenty of reasons to suspect the account of former FBI officer James Baker, who met with Sussman. Baker has given various responses in the past regarding this meeting. During his interrogation, he answered various questions and said that he did not remember 116 times.
“The time for political conspiracy theories is over and now is the time to talk about the evidence,” Bergowitz said in a growing baritone. Dressed in a gray suit and black mask, Sussman listened intently as lawyers argued about his fate.
Lawyers showed jury emails, law firm billing records and a staples receipt for thumbs up to link Sushman to the Clinton campaign. But Bergowitz says the testimony of most witnesses shows that the Clinton campaign did not want to take the Alpha Bank allegations to the FBI.
“There is a difference between having a customer and doing something on their behalf,” Bergowitz said.
He ridiculed prosecutors for making vicious attempts to dig up harmful information about Trump for the campaign.
“Anti-research is not illegal,” he said, adding that “if it were, Washington, DC’s prisons would be full.”
Bergowitz immediately acknowledged that Sussman had spoken to reporters as part of his work, including with The Washington Post and Reuters. In two news stories, Slate and the New York Times, published on October 31, 2016, he said prosecutors brought the case because “mine vision” was affected, and – he argued – had little impact on the campaign.
“Is that the story? Is that the leak? Is that the conspiracy? Please,” Bergowitz said.
Baker, a key witness in the case, met with Sussman on September 19, 2016, while Baker was serving as the FBI’s top lawyer. Baker told the jury he was “100 percent confident” that he would have handled the meeting differently if he had known that Sussmann was not acting on behalf of a client and would probably not have agreed to the meeting.
Baker was the only direct witness to the conversation, and Sussman’s lawyers repeatedly challenged his credibility in the matter, saying that in an earlier interview, Baker said Sussman represented cybersecurity clients; In another, he seemed to say that he did not remember that part of the speech. Lawyers introduced billing records from Sussman’s law firm, which listed the time he spent working on behalf of the Clinton campaign.
Baker, who now works on Twitter, testified that Sussman also told him a large newspaper – which he later learned was the New York Times – was preparing to write about the allegations. Baker was worried: he knew a message could stop suspicious communications, so he wanted the FBI to investigate before an article could be published. Prosecutors say Sussman was the one who leveled the allegations against Trump to the Times.
“I would have been worried if there was an attempt to play the FBI and drag us into the ongoing political campaign and somehow make us soldiers in the campaign,” Baker said. “I would have been alarmed if the Nexus and the FBI with the press had made any attempt to create the conditions for an investigation into this matter.
“Total coffee junkie. Tv ninja. Unapologetic problem solver. Beer expert.”