WASHINGTON – Prosecutors and a defense attorney presented completely opposing views Friday in the final arguments of the politically charged trial of Michael Sussmann, a cybersecurity lawyer linked to Hillary Clinton’s 2016 presidential campaign.
The case against Mr. Sussmann involves a limited charge – an accusation of lying to the FBI at a 2016 meeting – but it is laden with partisan connotations. It is also evidence of the special lawyer who brought her in, John H. Durham, because it is her first case to go on trial since she was appointed three years ago to search the Trump-Russia investigation for any crime.
Two prosecutors told a jury that there was no doubt that Mr. Sussmann had lied to the FBI about hiding his clients, including the Clinton campaign, at the September 2016 meeting, which focused on suspicious data that, according to cybersecurity experts, suggested the possibility of a cover-up. communication channel between Russia and someone close to Donald J. Trump.
“It was not about national security,” said one of the prosecutors, Jonathan Algor. “It was about promoting the investigation of the opposition against the opposition candidate, Donald Trump.”
But a defense attorney, Sean M. Berkowitz, described the case as full of uncertainty, including what Mr. Sussmann, if it was false and if it mattered that it was on behalf of clients, since the FBI would have investigated the advice independently. Each was a way to find reasonable doubts and vote for acquittal, he said.
“Mr. Sussmann’s freedom is at stake, “he said.” The time for political conspiracy theories is over. Now is the time to talk about testing. “
A verdict is expected on Tuesday.
The case focuses on strange Internet data that cybersecurity investigators discovered in 2016 after it became known that Russia had hacked Democrats, and Mr. Trump encouraged the country to hack Ms. Clinton’s emails. Researchers said the data could reflect a covert communications channel that uses servers for the Trump Organization and Alfa Bank, a Kremlin-linked bank.
The researchers began working with Rodney Joffe, a technology executive who was an expert on the type of Internet data they were analyzing. Mr. Joffe brought the suspicions to Mr. Sussmann, who at the time represented the Democratic National Committee on issues related to piracy of his e-mails by Russia. Marc Elias, partner in the law firm of Mr. Sussmann was the general counsel for the Clinton campaign.
Mr. Sussmann and Mr. Joffe tried to get journalists, including Eric Lichtblau, then of The New York Times, to write about the matter, proving the arguments of the trial. Mr. Sussmann continued to inform Mr. Elias about these efforts and discussed the matter with an opposition research firm that the Clinton campaign had hired through Mr. Elias called Fusion GPS; the company drafted a paper on Alfa Bank’s Kremlin ties that Mr. Sussmann later gave it to the FBI
Mr. Sussmann recorded these efforts in the law firm’s billing records as time spent working for the Clinton campaign, Mr. Durham.
On September 18, 2016, shortly after receiving an email stating that Mr. Trump was upset by an upcoming Russia-related article, Mr. Sussmann sent a text message to FBI Attorney General James A. Baker and asked for a message. meeting the next day. He stated that he did not come on behalf of any client, but to help the FBI
Mr.’s team Durham has accused Mr. Sussmann made the same statement when he met the next day with Mr. Baker. In fact, prosecutors argue, Mr. Sussmann was hiding two of his clients: Mr. Joffe and the Clinton Campaign.
Mr. Algor told the jury on Friday that the effort was a conspiracy to create an “October surprise,” a revelation that changed the game at the end of a campaign, prompting the FBI to open an investigation. for journalists to write about it.
The FBI had already opened an investigation into possible links between Mr. FBI’s associates. Trump and Russia for other reasons — briefly analyzed Alfa Bank’s suspicions and quickly dismissed them.
In late October, Slate published an article on the subject, but did not mention any FBI investigations. That same day, The Times published a joint article by Mr. Lichtblau mentioned Alfa Bank’s suspicions but reported that so far the FBI had not found any conclusive or direct link between Mr. Trump and the Russian government.
The final arguments focused on whether Mr. Sussmann repeated what he had said in his text message to Mr. Baker at the meeting the next day, a crucial technicality, because he is only charged for what he allegedly said at the meeting.
Mr. Algor and another prosecutor, Andrew DeFilippis, told the jury that the evidence left no doubt that Mr. Sussmann repeated in the face of Mr. Baker who was not there on behalf of any client.
But Mr. Berkowitz noted the different memories of Mr. Baker from that meeting. And he pointed out that Mr. Durham had been investigating Mr. Baker for an unrelated crime, but did not charge him, hinting that the witness had an incentive to recall what the prosecutor wanted to hear: “It’s not uncommon for him to have delivered to the rostrum.”
Mr. Berkowitz also argued that it was true that Mr. Sussmann was not there on behalf of any customers. Although Mr. Sussmann had two clients with an interest in Alfa Bank, said defense attorney, Mr. Sussmann did not advocate for the FBI to take any steps on his behalf or take any steps.
Against this idea, prosecutors pointed out that on September 13, Mr. Sussmann bought thumb units from Staples which he later spent on the Clinton campaign; at the Sept. 19 meeting, he gave units of memory to the FBI, Mr. DeFilippis called that “condemnatory evidence.”
Mr. Berkowitz mocked this evidence – a receipt from Staples, he noted – saying it was a time when Mr. Sussmann was doing all sorts of work for the campaign. He also stressed that Mr. Sussmann had not spent his taxi trips on the campaign for the FBI meeting, nor had he recorded an “FBI meeting” in the billing records, as was his practice for those meetings.
And Mr. Berkowitz cited the testimony of Mr. Elias and the campaign manager of Ms. Clinton, Robby Mook, who did not direct or authorize Mr. Sussmann to go to the FBI and did not see this step as the interest of the campaign. They stated that they only wanted The Times to publish an article; Mr. Baker testified that the FBI asked Mr. Lichtblau that he would take long to publish anything so that he could investigate first.