The Clinton campaign and the DNC have long maintained that the dossier prepared for Fusion by former British intelligence officer Christopher Steele was part of the legal work done by the campaign’s general counsel, Marc Elias. However, Elias has never publicly explained what that job was or exactly how Fusion GPS fit into it.
In a court filing in connection with the criminal prosecution of one of Elias’s former colleagues, Michael Sussmann, for allegedly lying to the FBI, Elias contends that Fusion played a role in his effort to protect Clinton and the DNC from a litigious adversary. —Trump— as they prepared to unleash a barrage of attacks on his business history and entanglements abroad.
Trump had racked up more than 7,000 lawsuits before running for office, and Elias said Fusion’s investigation into that litigation history could help protect Democrats from defamation lawsuits and similar court claims as they seek to denigrate Trump’s record. Trump.
“Overall, I recall candidate Trump being involved in an exceptionally high number of lawsuits, ranging from slip and falls to complex bankruptcies and restructurings, more than I recall ever encountering on behalf of a client in the political arena before,” Elijah wrote. in a statement signed Monday. “Generally, I also recall being aware that he had used the threat of libel litigation to tactical advantage and had filed and threatened meritless libel claims in the past.”
The mammoth lawsuit Trump filed in Florida federal court last month against Clinton and dozens of former government officials and political agents and entities underscores that Elias’ concerns about the litigation were far from speculative, attorneys allied with the Democratic causes argued. .
“Elias had reasonable subjective (and objective) concern about Mr. Trump’s litigation given his numerous threats and actual litigation against his critics,” Fusion GPS attorney Joshua Levy wrote in a brief filed Tuesday. “Indeed, that concern was prescient, as Mr. Trump recently launched litigation seeking tens of millions of dollars against all interested parties here.”
An attorney representing Trump in the racketeering lawsuit, Alina Habba, did not respond to a message seeking comment Tuesday.
Elias also revealed in his presentation that the Fusion idea was necessary to help avoid potential litigation is not new.
He said a letter formally hiring Fusion GPS as a consultant to his law firm at the time, Perkins Coie, specifically mentioned the possibility of libel suits. “As stated in the engagement letter, Fusion’s role was to provide consulting services in support of the legal advice that Perkins Coie attorneys provided to specific clients of the firm ‘related to libel, slander and similar laws in the that accuracy is an essential legal element’. ”, wrote the veteran Democratic lawyer.
Elias and other Democratic lawyers argued that since truth is an absolute defense in defamation litigation, using Fusion to collect data on Trump was a logical part of determining what the campaign, the Democratic Party and others could or should say about him. .
Prospects in 2016 for litigation on such issues could be critical to U.S. District Court Judge Christopher Cooper’s decision on whether to accept the privilege claims or dismiss them and allow special counsel John Durham’s prosecutors access to the records of communications between Elias and campaign officials like John. Podesta and Robby Mook.
Under legal precedent, courts typically honor attorney-client privileges if the discussions took place in connection with ongoing or anticipated litigation, but not if they are entirely separate from potential court action.
The Durham team has argued that aspects of Elias’ work, including the Fusion GPS hold, seemed more like a traditional opposition investigation than something a lawyer would normally seek advice for a client about.
That argument may have gained some additional weight from an agreement the Clinton campaign and the DNC signed in February with the Federal Election Commission. Under the settlement, the DNC agreed to pay $105,000 and the Clinton campaign $8,000 to resolve longstanding complaints that political committees violated federal campaign finance law by reporting payments to Fusion GPS as “legal and compliance consulting” and report expenses as paid to Perkins Coie. without making any mention of Fusion.
However, under the terms of the settlement, the DNC and the Clinton campaign did not admit to violating the law or reporting rules and maintained that Fusion’s work was a legitimate part of Perkins Coie’s legal services. The DNC released a statement calling the reporting allegations “aged and foolish.”
Before his court appearance this week, Elias had declined to elaborate on the precise nature of Fusion’s work. He told congressional investigators in 2017 that he hired Fusion after hearing good things about the firm’s Trump investigation, and did so with the blessing of the Clinton campaign, though not with officials’ explicit knowledge. over there. During that interview, he characterized the firm’s work as investigative-oriented and did not mention fear of Trump litigation as a motivating factor, though he did describe Fusion’s work as an important part of providing legal services to the campaign. from Clinton.
About a third of Elias’ new seven-page statement was presented stamped and blacked out in the copy made public Tuesday. Attorneys for the Clinton campaign and the DNC said the redactions were necessary to protect details about the attorney-client relationship.
Some of the redactions pertain to “confidential engagement letters” that the Durham office already has in its possession, attorneys for Clinton and the DNC said.
Last year, Durham prosecutors obtained a grand jury indictment against Sussmann on a single felony count of false statement. Perkins Coie’s former partner is accused of lying to FBI General Counsel James Baker in a September 2016 meeting by claiming that he was not representing any client when he passed on information about alleged computer links between Trump and Russia. Sussmann has denied lying to Baker and has outlined plans to fight the indictment on a host of other grounds in a trial set to begin May 16.
Cooper is expected to hold arguments in the attorney-client privilege fight next week.
–
Not all news on the site expresses the point of view of the site, but we automatically transmit these news and translate them through programmatic technology on the site and not from a human editor.
