(RoyalPatriot.com )- The Obama-appointed judge overseeing the criminal case against former Hillary Clinton campaign attorney Michael Sussmann claimed that he would not decide whether the Clinton campaign and Democratic National Committee collaborated with others to promote the Russian collusion hoax.
Sussmann was charged with making a false statement to then-FBI General Counsel James Baker in a one-count indictment last September. Sussman gave Baker data and “whitepapers” to demonstrate an alleged underground communication network between Donald Trump and the Russian-based Alfa Bank. Sussmann told Baker he was releasing the material on his own, but in reality, he was representing both tech executive Rodney Joffe and the Clinton campaign, according to the indictment.
With the trial due to begin in a week, news reports show pre-trial petitions have been filed seeking preliminary judgments on the admission of evidence. The court has previously ruled on numerous issues raised by the parties that final assessments must be made at trial.
Reports show Cooper’s conclusion, as his prior judgments in this matter, took a balanced approach to the legal problems, with Sussmann winning on some points but the special counsel winning on others. For example, the court determined that prosecutors may submit evidence on how the Alfa Bank data came to be and who was engaged in its collection and processing, as well as how Mr. Sussmann came to hold the data, what he did with it, and why- which was a victory for Durham.
However, the court found in Sussmann’s favor, confirming its prior ruling that the government cannot use the Alfa Bank data unless Sussmann asserts it is accurate at trial. Judge Cooper said the government couldn’t establish that Joffe had accessed proprietary or sensitive government material to gather data or produce whitepapers unless evidence indicated that Mr. Sussmann had concerns that the data was obtained unlawfully. The court also ruled that the government couldn’t use notes written by former FBI Assistant Director Bill Priestap and former Deputy General Counsel Trisha Anderson unless they testified about prior interactions with Baker. But Sussmann was unsuccessful in attempting to compel the government to grant Joffe amnesty in exchange for his willingness to testify in Sussmann’s defense, news reports reveal.
Judge Cooper struggled with the special counsel’s contention that numerous emails, even though hearsay, may be admitted under the “co-conspirator statement” exception to the hearsay rule. Emails between the Clinton campaign, Joffe, and Georgia Tech researchers Manos Antonakakis, Dave Dagon, and April Lorenzen, the “originator” of the Alfa Bank data, were at issue. Joffe had reportedly assigned the Georgia Tech researchers to mine internet data for a Trump-Russia link.
The court addressed the government’s claim that the emails were admissible as “a co-conspirator statement” under federal rules of evidence after ruling that some, but not all, of the emails were hearsay.
The special counsel claimed in the Sussmann case that Joffe, Sussmann, and the Clinton campaign or its agents were “acting in concert toward a common goal.”
Judge Cooper, on the other hand, refused to consider whether such a joint venture existed.
On the issue of whether the Clinton campaign had conspired to peddle the Alfa Bank hoax, Judge Cooper deviated from the same approach he took with other evidentiary matters. That suggests politics motivated that approach.
