Case of lawyer accused of lying to FBI to begin
WASHINGTON — A jury was picked Monday in the trial of a lawyer for the Hillary Clinton presidential campaign who is accused of lying to the FBI as it investigated potential ties between Donald Trump and Russia in 2016.
The case against Michael Sussmann, a cybersecurity attorney who represented the Clinton campaign in 2016, is the first trial arising from the ongoing investigation by special counsel John Durham and will test the strength of evidence he and his team have gathered while scrutinizing the early days of the Trump-russia probe for potential misconduct.
Sussmann appeared in court with his lawyers Monday as both sides worked to select jurors to hear the case, which is expected to last about two weeks. Prospective jurors who had already filled out questionnaires filed one-by-one into the courtroom to answer follow-up questions about topics including political contributions during the 2016 election and their opinions on lawyers and the criminal justice system.
The jury was finalized soon after 5 p.m. Monday. Opening statements are set for Tuesday.
Sussmann is accused of misleading the FBI’S then-general counsel during a September 2016 meeting in which he presented research showing what he said might be a suspicious backchannel of communications between computer servers of the Trump Organization and Russia-based Alfa Bank.
Prosecutors allege Sussmann lied by saying that he wasn’t attending the meeting on behalf of any particular client when they say he was actually acting on behalf of two clients: the Clinton campaign and a technology executive who had helped assemble the computer data.
Durham’s team says that had the FBI been told the truth, it would have factored into the bureau’s assessment of the credibility of the Alfa Bank claims as it weighed whether to begin investigating. The FBI did look into the matter but ultimately found nothing suspicious.
Sussmann’s lawyers deny he lied but say the alleged misstatement isn’t relevant in any event since there’s no evidence that what the
FBI knew or didn’t know about his political affiliations had any bearing on its decision-making about whether to investigate.