Disallow dossier at trial, Clinton ally asks

WASHINGTON — A lawyer for the Hillary Clinton campaign charged with lying to the FBI during the Trump-Russia investigation is asking a judge to block from his upcoming trial evidence or testimony related to a dossier of uncorroborated allegations compiled by an-ex British spy.

Attorneys for Michael Sussmann said prosecutors on special counsel John Durham’s team told them last month that they plan to introduce testimony related to the “Steele dossier,” a collection of Democratic- funded research assembled by former British operative Christopher Steele that purported to link Donald Trump to Russia.

Sussmann’s attorneys argued in a Monday night filing that the Steele dossier is irrelevant to the case against their client and testimony about it at a trial scheduled for next month would be inflammatory and prejudicial.

The motion is one of several from prosecutors and defense lawyers aimed at shaping the scope of evidence for a trial that is expected to be closely watched and politically charged.

In seeking to preclude testimony related to the dossier, Sussmann’s attorneys are looking to head off discussion before the jury about one of the more incendiary and divisive aspects of the entire Russia investigation.

Sussmann is charged with lying to the FBI during a September 2016 meeting in which he relayed concerns from cybersecurity researchers about a potential covert backchannel of digital communications between the Trump Organization and Russia-based Alfa Bank.

Prosecutors say Sussmann misled the FBI’s then-general counsel, James Baker, by saying he was not presenting the Alfa Bank allegations to the FBI on behalf of any client, when he was actually there on behalf of the Clinton campaign and a technology executive with whom he’d been working.

The Durham team alleged Monday night that the meeting was not the only time Sussmann had made that representation.

Prosecutors said he sent a text message to Baker the night before the meeting, requesting a short conversation about a sensitive subject and saying, “I’m coming on my own — not on behalf of a client or company — want to help the Bureau.”

Sussmann’s lawyers have vigorously denied that he lied, and said that even if he had misled the FBI, it had no bearing on the investigation or on the bureau’s decision to look into concerns about Alfa Bank. The FBI did investigate the possible existence of a secret backchannel of communications but concluded there was no basis to the claims.

In their own filing, Durham’s team made clear their interest in Steele and his dossier, suggesting they may reference at trial a meeting in the summer of 2016 in which Steele has said Sussmann told him about the Alfa Bank allegations. Sussmann has told Congress that the purpose of the meeting was for him to “vet” Steele for the Clinton campaign, the motion states.

A separate point of dispute concerns contemporaneous notes taken by two FBI officials with whom Baker spoke after his meeting with Sussmann. Both officials, William Priestap and Trisha Anderson, included in their notes variations of Baker’s recollection that Sussmann said he had not been acting on behalf of any particular client.

Sussmann’s attorneys asked a judge to exclude those notes from trial, calling them “triple-hearsay” since neither Priestap nor Anderson was in the meeting and since Baker did not record his conversation with Sussmann or take any notes on it. Durham’s team is asking the judge to let them use the notes at trial, saying they will bolster Baker’s testimony.

Prosecutors are also seeking a judge’s permission to let them use as evidence an Oct. 31, 2016, tweet from the Clinton campaign that advanced the Alfa Bank suspicions.