Between now and the May 16 start of the Michael Sussmann trial, there will no doubt be a flurry of motions and decisions, and we’ll keep you up to date.
On Wednesday, Durham won the big battle we recently outlined, in which the attorneys for Hillary For America and the DNC were trying to exclude evidence on the basis of attorney-client privilege. Their argument was ridiculous on its face, as Sussmann has been charged with lying because he told the FBI he WASN’T working as their attorney. Lawyers wanted it both ways: to say he wasn’t their attorney, but also that he was. So now that Durham’s motion to have the so-called “privileged” materials submitted to the court for an in camera review has been granted, he’s virtually assured to get them.
In the words of Bonchie at RedState, “Pretty soon, we’ll know all about who was paid what and exactly how coordinated the effort to frame Donald Trump and weaponize the FBI was.”
For once, he’s optimistic that at least “a sliver of justice” will be done.
Durham had started the week by alerting the presiding judge in the case, U.S. District Judge Christopher Cooper, about fines levied by the Federal Election Commission on Hillary For America and the DNC for violating election laws when they hid the true purpose of payments to law firm Perkins Coie. As you know, they were really paying “oppo” research company Fusion GPS for the creation of the salacious (and fake) Trump-Russia “dossier.” So now the fact that they broke election law is part of the record for this case.
The Epoch Times report is by subscription only, but we also found details here.
In another major victory for Durham, Judge Cooper granted his motion to compel Fusion GPS “tech maven” Laura Seago to testify. Durham had argued that she has “unique insight” into how her company, the Clinton campaign and law firm Perkins Coie orchestrated the “opposition research” into the Trump campaign that sparked the FBI’s “Russiagate” investigation. Here’s an excellent summary of both the Durham wins, from Just the News.
Seago’s lawyer informed the court that, absent immunity from prosecution, she plans to invoke her Fifth Amendment rights. In response, the judge has ruled that “no testimony or other information compelled under this Order…may be used against Laura Seago in any criminal case, except a prosecution for perjury, giving a false statement, or otherwise failing to comply with this Order.” In effect, that’s a grant of immunity --- as long as she tells the truth. Maybe, at long last, we're going to hear some.