‘Political Fraud’: Durham bangs gavel on Clinton attorney

Note: This article may contain comments that reflect the author’s opinion.

One of the key figures involved in the bombshell Durham dropped about spying on former President Donald Trump during the Clinton campaign is Michael Sussman, an attorney who was involved in the Clinton campaign and, according to Durham, was involved in to wash the collected Internet data and pass it on to the secret services.

Well, Sussman hits back; He recently asked the judge to dismiss the charges of lying to the FBI, arguing that the lie the charges are based on is not essential to the case at hand and therefore he cannot get into legal trouble.

Of course, this lie relates to his work collecting and spreading dirt about former President Trump, creating the lies that Trump was connected to the Kremlin. When questioned by the FBI, Sussman claimed he didn’t work for anyone, a blatant lie. Now that Durham has stirred up the hornet’s nest, Sussman is trying to get out of it by claiming that the First Amendment somehow protected his lie.

Durham doesn’t have it. Arguing against Sussman’s motion to dismiss in a recently filed court filing, he addressed the First Amendment complaint by saying that Sussman misrepresented what happened and describing Sussman’s lie as “political fraud,” Durham writes:

The defendant – an experienced and well-connected lawyer – was far from in the vulnerable position of an ordinary person whose speech is likely to be chilly this time of year.

Continuing this dismantling, Durahm came to the line of “political deception,” Durahm said:

He then decided to lie about the customers behind those allegations. Using such rare access to the Halls of Power for the purposes of political deception is hardly the kind of language the founders wanted to protect. The court should therefore deny the defendant’s request that the scope of the First Amendment be extended to protect such conduct.

In the next paragraph, he proceeds to tear apart Sussman’s claim and blast the argument that the First Amendment is somehow implicated in Sussman’s lie, Durham writes:

Third, the defendant’s contention that the charges in this case would somehow compromise communication between lawyers and the government is also fanciful.

Durham also notes that Sussman, a well-connected attorney, knew what to do when questioned by the FBI, arguing:

As a former prosecutor and prosecutor, the defendant was aware that the law required him to be honest and open when communicating with the FBI.

Then coming back to what Sussman got wrong and why his lies don’t deserve constitutional protection, Durham says:

Despite this knowledge, the defendant chose to hide from the FBI that he was acting as a paid attorney for clients with political and business agendas. This false statement deprived the FBI of critical information that might have enabled it to better allocate its resources, make important decisions regarding opening or conducting the investigation, and investigating the provenance of the alleged data. That attorneys should be honest in dealing with federal law enforcement is not an obligation prohibited by the Constitution.

Political Deceit: Durham Drops Hammer on Clinton Lawyer featured first on Smart Zune.

https://smartzune.com/political-deceit-durham-drops-hammer-on-clinton-lawyer/ ‘Political Fraud’: Durham bangs gavel on Clinton attorney

James Brien

24ssports is an automatic aggregator of the all world’s media. In each content, the hyperlink to the primary source is specified. All trademarks belong to their rightful owners, all materials to their authors. If you are the owner of the content and do not want us to publish your materials, please contact us by email – admin@24ssports.com. The content will be deleted within 24 hours.

Related Articles

Back to top button