Special Counsel John Durham has replied to attorneys for 2016 Clinton campaign lawyer Michael Sussmann, who this week sought a judge to reject the “factual background” part of Durham’s Feb. 11 filing due to claimed conflicts in the case.
Lawyers for Sussmann, who Durham charged with providing a baseless claim to a federal investigator in his inquiry into the beginnings of the ‘Russiagate’ investigation, are requesting that the court “strike” the section because they fear it would “taint the jury pool.”
The Sussmann move follows a surprise filing by Durham late last week that focused on potential conflicts of interest in the former Clinton attorney’s counsel after he was charged with providing a false statement to a federal investigator.
The Clinton legal team also asked the court to dismiss the Factual Background component of the Special Counsel’s argument, citing the Court’s inherent capacity to impose clear punishments for behavior that undermines the judicial process.
Durham stated in the February 11 filing that Sussmann “had prepared and relayed the charges to the FBI on behalf of at least two particular clients, including a technology executive (Tech Executive 1) at a U.S.-based internet firm (Internet Company 1) and the Clinton campaign.”
Sussmann’s “billing records show” that he “repeatedly billed the Clinton Campaign for his work on the Russian Bank-1 accusations,” according to the complaint.
Donald Trump Poll
"*" indicates required fields
According to the petition, the Tech Executive and Sussmann met with another law partner who was functioning as General Counsel to the Clinton campaign. According to insiders, that attorney is Marc Elias, who previously worked at the legal firm Perkins Coie.
Durham said there is “no foundation” for a court to allow the Sussmann legal team’s motion to strike not just the “factual background,” but also the accusation against their client, adding that the background is “essential to showing” Sussmann’s “alleged criminal behavior.”
According to Fox News, he also stated that part of this was necessary for laying out the possible conflicts that were the focal topic of his Feb. 11 filing.