Clinton-Linked Attorney Accused Of Lying To FBI Will Go To Trial, Judge Rules

Topline

Special counsel John Durham’s case against Michael Sussmann—a Democratic Party-linked attorney who was accused of lying to the FBI—can move toward a trial next month, a federal judge ruled Wednesday, a victory for the Trump-era special counsel in a case some Trump allies have embraced but Sussmann’s attorneys argue is politically motivated.

In this 2006 file photo, John Durham speaks to reporters on the steps of U.S. District Court in New … [+] Haven, Conn.

ASSOCIATED PRESS

Key Facts

Judge Christopher Cooper—an Obama appointee—rejected a motion from Sussmann’s lawyers to dismiss the case, which was first brought after a grand jury indicted him in mid-September.

Durham’s team accused Sussmann of falsely claiming he wasn’t working “for any client” when he met with an FBI official in 2016 to tip the government off about purportedly suspicious Trump Organization email data, when in reality, Sussmann was ostensibly working for Hillary Clinton’s campaign and a tech executive named Rodney Joffe.

Sussmann has pleaded not guilty: His attorneys have denied the charges against him, and argued even if he did make that claim to the FBI, he shouldn’t be prosecuted for it because the statement wasn’t “material” to any investigation.

Cooper wrote in his ruling Wednesday the debate over whether Sussmann’s statement was materially false—which is a necessary component in finding him guilty—”is a question that generally must be answered by a jury.”

What To Watch For

Sussmann’s trial is scheduled to begin in Washington on May 16.

Key Background

Sussmann represented the Democratic National Committee in 2016, and his law firm worked with Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign. When Sussmann met with the FBI’s general counsel in the final weeks of the 2016 campaign, he offered up data on suspected server links between the Trump Organization and a Russian bank, the indictment against him says. These allegations were repeated in a 2016 Slate article that suggested a server tied to then-presidential candidate Donald Trump’s business was “communicating” with Russia-based Alfa Bank. The FBI later looked into the claims and found no evidence of a communication channel, the Department of Justice’s Inspector General Michael Horowitz said in a 2019 report.

Tangent

Sussmann’s indictment was one of the first high-profile actions by Durham, whom Trump-era Attorney General William Barr appointed to look into whether the FBI acted inappropriately when investigating possible Trump-Russia ties in 2016. The Durham probe was often touted by Trump, who has insisted for years—without evidence—his campaign was the victim of an elaborate spying effort (the 2019 report by Horowitz found no proof of political bias by the FBI, though it uncovered questionable behavior by some agents). Some conservatives and Trump allies have cast Sussmann’s prosecution as proof of nefarious behavior by either the FBI or the Clinton campaign, though evidence of spying still hasn’t materialized.

Contra

Benjamin Wittes, a Brookings fellow and editor of the Lawfare blog, last year called the charges “one of the very weakest federal criminal indictments I have ever seen in more than 25 years covering federal investigations and prosecutions.” Wittes argued the evidence that Sussmann lied is limited, and said it’s unclear whether Sussmann’s statements are material.

Chief Critic

Sussmann’s attorneys argued in a September statement the case against their client is driven by “politics, not facts.” They said Durham “appears to be using this indictment to advance a conspiracy theory he has chosen not to actually charge.”