Federal prosecutors may get to question a Fusion GPS employee with “unique insight” into how her company, Hillary Clinton’s 2016 presidential campaign, and its law firm orchestrated “opposition research” into the Trump campaign that spurred the debunked “Russiagate” investigation, in the trial of former Clinton attorney Michael Sussmann.
U.S. District Judge Christopher Cooper on May 3 granted special counsel John Durham’s motion to unseal his petition to compel Fusion GPS “tech maven” Laura Seago to testify when Sussmann’s trial begins on May 16 at the E. Barrett Prettyman Courthouse in Washington.
Federal prosecutors led by Durham have charged Sussmann with one count of making a false statement to the FBI.
Durham maintains that in August 2016, Sussmann and Clinton campaign lead counsel Marc Elias met with Neustar executive Rodney Joffe—whose company was contracted to monitor DNS traffic for the Executive Office—and “encouraged” Joffe to concoct a “narrative” tying the Trump Organization to Alfa-Bank, the largest private bank in Russia.
Prosecutors say Sussmann on Sept. 19, 2016, gave FBI General Counsel James Baker documents collected by Fusion GPS, Joffe, and researchers to promote the Trump–Russia “narrative,” claiming he was doing so as “a concerned citizen” and not representing a client.
Prosecutors say Sussmann failed to inform Baker that he had represented Joffe in the past, had recently represented the Democratic National Committee (DNC), and that the Perkins Coie law firm, where he and Elias both worked, was general counsel for the 2016 Hillary for America campaign.
A federal grand jury handed up the indictment against Sussmann on Sept. 16, 2021. Sussmann has pleaded not guilty.
Because the documents and communications are related to “an attorney work product” or “fact product,” the entities claim they qualify for attorney-client privilege and should remain shielded from public disclosure.
According to Sussmann’s attorneys and lawyers representing the five parties, the “attorney work product” includes “opposition research” on Trump by Fusion GPS for Perkins Coie on behalf of the Clinton campaign.
Durham insists the 1,455 requested documents aren’t covered under attorney-client privilege because few—18—include a lawyer.
Their argument is “based on an apparent theory that political opposition research and/or public relations work ... falls within the legitimate scope of attorney-client privilege and work-product protections,” Durham says in the motion.
Cooper hasn’t ruled on most of the questions within Durham’s motion, although he has heard arguments regarding what can and can’t be heard in trial in two evidentiary hearings.
Because some of the material could be classified, Cooper is issuing rulings on Durham’s Motion 64 after in-camera or private reviews. His May 3 order unsealing the government’s motion to compel Seago to testify was after an in-camera review and was issued without comment.
In the motion, prosecutors say that because Joffe has refused to testify, invoking his Fifth Amendment rights unless “immunized” from prosecution—which they support but Sussmann’s attorneys oppose—the “government determined it would need to call an employee of Fusion GPS as a trial witness.”
Seago was “the only Fusion GPS employee who exchanged emails with [Joffe] concerning [Alfa-Bank] allegations,” the motion reads, noting that Seago “acted as the firm’s primary ‘technical’ expert; worked for an extended time period on issues relating to the [Alfa] allegations; was a part of the team that handled work under Fusion’s contract with HFA and the DNC; and (met in 2016 with various parties – including [Perkins Coie], [Joffe], and the media–about the [Alfa] allegations.”
“As such,” the motion continues, Seago “undoubtedly possesses unique insight to the core issue to be decided by the jury—whether [Sussmann] was acting on behalf of one or more clients when he worked on the [Trump-Alfa Bank] allegations.”
