One Part of Michael Sussmann’s Motion to Dismiss Will Have You Laughing out Loud – Opinion

If you’ve been following the John Durham investigation the last several weeks, there’s been more than a fair bit of news. On Saturday, Durham dropped a filing directly implicating Hillary Clinton in a scheme to monitor Donald Trump’s DNS traffic in an attempt to tie him to Russia. After that, Michael Sussmann – a Clinton lawyer already indicted for lying to FBI – filed a motion to disqualify the prosecution.

Sussmann’s argument for dismissal essentially boils down to the idea that his lying about who he was working for when he brought the debunked Alfa Bank story to the FBI ended up being immaterial to any investigation launched. As I outlined in my explained in my write-up on it, that’s a highly questionable contention riddled with issues.

But I forgot one thing in the filing. It will make you laugh out loud. In trying to make the case to dismiss the charge against him, Sussmann’s lawyers actually cited Peter Strzok and the Lawfare Blog.

OMgosh….from Sussmann’s Motion to Dismiss. Citing Strzok and Lawfare…not that’s some chutzpah! pic.twitter.com/I1yO4MhRCQ

— Margot Cleveland (@ProfMJCleveland) February 18, 2022

People who have followed the FBI-Trump scandal will understand why this is hilarious. Strzok is a disgraced former FBI agent who was once the lead investigator for Robert Mueller’s witch hunt. Following text messages that Strzok had exchanged with Lisa Page (then FBI lawyer Lisa Page), which showed them denigrating Trump, and talking about how they would take down the president’s former wife, he was made to resign from his position. Strzok was eventually fired because of his corrupt and unrighteous actions.

To now see him cited as an authoritative voice in this filing, as if he’s not incredibly biased against the Durham probe, which exists to look into one of the investigations Strzok helped spearhead, is hilarious. It’s even worse that he wrote the article for Lawfare Blog. This outlet spent many years disinformation on Trump and Russia, including the Steele Dossier.

The claim that Strzok’s citations bolstered the source is absurd, even if you ignore it. It’s essentially saying that even if Sussmann lied to the FBI, he shouldn’t be prosecuted because it might discourage other sources from bringing the bureau information in the future.

In other words, let’s have two systems of justice where former government apparatchiks like Sussmann can break the law without punishment — you know, just in case. That’s the same type of nonsense we heard during the Carter Page FISA scandal, in which some argued that punishing the wrongdoers would harm future investigations, with the thought being that FBI agents should be given leeway, up to and including lying to a FISA court to target an American citizen.

The credibility of various institutions, such as the judiciary, would suffer if the judge in charge dismissed the Sussmann charges on these grounds. Let’s hope it doesn’t come to that, but if it does, I’m not sure how trust could ever be regained.