R/I ~ AA
.
Sussmann then spent the next five pages complaining about the special counsel’s filing. He claimed it “unnecessarily includes prejudicial—and false—allegations that are irrelevant to his Motion and to the charged offense.” Those extra details, Sussmann argued, were “plainly intended to politicize this case, inflame media cover, and taint the jury pool.”
In other words, the media has finally begun covering the special counsel’s investigation and the indictment against Sussmann, and he is none too happy.
Sussmann proceeded next to claim that the special counsel’s motion succeeded in “instigat[ing] unfair and prejudicial media coverage of Mr. Sussmann’s case.” Without detailing how the coverage was “unfair,” the motion cited online articles at Fox News, The New York Post, the Washington Examiner, Breitbart, and The Daily Mail. Omitted was The Federalist’s detailed coverage, clearly a grudging admission of this outlet’s detailed and accurate analysis.
“Worse still,” in Sussmann’s estimation, was the fact that “Mr. Trump seized upon the Special Counsel’s filing” to call the scandal “far greater in scope and magnitude than Watergate.” Rep. Jim Jordan soon “endorsed Mr. Trump’s position,” Sussmann also complained.
Yesterday’s motion then revisited the special counsel’s decision to file a 27-page indictment for a single-count, false statement case, as well as Durham’s filing of a “Discovery Update.” In the “Discovery Update,” Sussmann charged Durham “went out of his way to include uncharged and inflammatory allegations,” including what Sussmann called “the gratuitous claim that his Office had an ‘active, ongoing criminal investigation of the defendant’s conduct and other matters.”
Given that Durham had alerted Sussmann in the Discovery Update that his conduct remains under investigation by the special counsel’s office, it was rather foolhardy for the former Clinton attorney to complain that the indictment “reads as though there was a vast conspiracy, involving the Clinton Campaign and Mr. Sussman” while not charging a conspiracy. Be careful, or you might just get what you ask for, as they say.
After highlighting these complaints, Sussmann asked the court to “strike” the special counsel’s “Factual Background” portion of its motion, which, if granted, merely means the court would treat it as if those sections of the motion were not filed with the court. Sussmann, however, is likely hoping his Motion to Strike prompts the judge to caution the special counsel’s office to limit any extraneous details in future filings. The court may well do that.
Sussmann may soon regret his strategy in filing this motion, for several reasons. First, it provides Durham an opportunity to respond both to Sussmann’s complaints that the details are extraneous and to respond to the counterpoints Sussmann included in his motion.
Second, Sussmann’s filing will prompt even more coverage of Durham’s various filings, whereas if he had said nothing the complicit media would have likely dropped coverage of the case after a day or two. Third, Durham’s filings provided Sussmann a heads up on the special counsel’s strategy—likely intentionally so, with the hope that Sussmann may decide to cooperate. But even if Sussmann opts to continue fighting the charges, he is better off knowing what Durham has in store for him.
That Sussmann opted to file the motion to strike, even with the above negatives cautioning against such an approach, suggests the coverage—even when coming from mainly conservative-leaning outlets—is starting to break through the media blackout and is preventing him from controlling the narrative.
DarkGoldenMan
Article URL : https://thefederalist.com/2022/02/15/what-we-learned-from-michael-sussmanns-response-to-the-spygate-special-counsel/