Durham Investigation Turns Red Hot, All Trails Lead To… Guess Who?

John Durham denied Michael Sussmann’s claim that the previous FBI Counsel James Baker compromised the counsel’s false claims against the Dem. attorney. He argued that the evidence obtained from five employees in the government, which included Baker, supported the allegation.

The indictment that was issued against Sussmann centers on the Sept. 19th meeting he had with Baker. During the meeting Sussmann denied exposed claims of a secret channel between The Trump organization and the Russian Alfa Bank. Durham argued that Sussmann was secretly working for Hillary Clinton’s campaign and invoicing his services to her, he was also working on for Rodney Joffe.

As part of an effort to push for an earlier trial date of May 2022. Durham’s attorney provided paperwork containing Baker’s statements referring to the meeting in 2016 that said “directly contradict the Counsel’s accusation that Sussmann told Mr. Baker that he wasn’t meeting with him on for any clients.”

“The defendant knows, both interviews happened years after the circumstances in question, and Mr. Baker made these comments before he had the chance to refresh his memory,” Durham’s attorney said. “The current defendant’s motion completely ignores police reports of Baker’s three interviews that he had with the Special Counsel.”

Durham’s team clearly stated that it plans to have Baker testify to help prove its case.

It was noted by Sussmann’s team that Baker said in an interview back in 2019 that Sussmann spoke about “his legal clients, as cyber-security experts.” John Durham’s team had also wrote in a summary that “Baker said Sussmann didn’t say that this was concerning a client in relation to the matter, however Baker didn’t ask Sussmann if he was then representing any client.”

Sussmann’s attorney said the exculpatory information “underscores the unprecedented and baseless nature of this indictment.”

Durham’s team stated that the information provided to Sussmann’s team really “reflects that the memories of five government workers support the allegations within the Indictment.”

The prosecutors stated that Sussmann didn’t mention that an official in the FBI had also written notes that reflect what Sussmann told Baker when he said he had “no special client.” Durham’s team also said that Sussmann’s motion ignored a memo from two “Agency-2” workers after their February 9, 2017, meeting with Michael Sussmann that had also reflected he stated he wasn’t representing “a certain client.”

Durham’s team claimed it was “worthless” for Michael Sussmann to say that a trial date needed to be set for May 2022 because the legal prosecution team had disclosed Brady evidence later than it should have, with the prosecutors arguing that “the defendant’s measure shows a skewed representation of the Brady evidence.”

“Brady evidence” refers to the decision of the Supreme Court in Brady v. Maryland that mandates prosecutors make all exculpatory evidence available to the defense.

Durham’s team claimed that it “shares the defendant’s wish to conduct a fast trial” but stated it “involves complex discovery and is taking place in the middle of a pandemic.” The prosecution argued that “a July 2022 date for the trial is needed for the Government to completely declassify and provide discovery” and contended that Sussmann’s request for a trial date in May 2022 “would rush” what has to occur before the trial.

The prosecutors stressed that they had provided more than 5,000 pages of classified evidence and over 91,000 pages of unclassified discovery to the legal defense team and also insisted this team was continuing to “work overtime to satisfy its current discovery obligations.”

Author: Scott Dowdy