Motion For Dismissal By Clinton Lawyer Denied By Federal Judge; Trial Is Set To Begin Next Month

It was reported that a federal judge has denied a motion from former Clinton campaign lawyer Michael Sussmann to dismiss the case brought against him by Special Counsel John Durham.

U.S. District Judge Christopher Cooper ordered on Wednesday that the trial will move forward and begin next month.

In a court filing, Cooper outlined the charges against Sussmann brought by the Durham impaneled grand jury last year.

“Specifically, Sussmann allegedly told Baker that he was not attending the meeting on behalf of any client when, in fact, he had assembled and was conveying the information on behalf of two specific clients: (1) a technology-industry executive named Rodney Joffe and (2) the Hillary Clinton presidential campaign,” Cooper wrote.

“The FBI opened an investigation based on the information Sussmann provided, but ultimately determined that there was insufficient evidence to support the existence of a communication channel between the Trump campaign and the Russian bank,” Cooper wrote.

“Sussmann has pled not guilty to the charge and denies lying to the FBI.”

Cooper wrote that Sussmann’s “sole argument for dismissal” of his case is that “even taking the allegations in the Indictment as true, his purported misrepresentation to Baker was immaterial as a matter of law and therefore cannot support a conviction” under U.S.C. 1001 – making false statements to a federal agent.

“The court will deny the motion,” Cooper wrote, noting that the standard for materiality under U.S. code is “whether the statement has ‘a natural tendency to influence, or is capable of influencing, either a discrete decision or any other function of the [government] agency to which it was addressed.’”

Cooper said that Sussmann “largely ignores the second part of the test: whether the statement could influence ‘any other function’ of the agency.”

“Sussmann seeks to cabin this holding to statements made during the course of an ongoing investigation, but the Court sees no basis for that bright-line divide,” Cooper wrote.

“As the Special Counsel argues, it is at least possible that statements made to law enforcement prior to an investigation could materially influence the later trajectory of the investigation. Sussmann offers no legal authority to the contrary.”