is in real trouble. His defense is attorney-client privilege, but the lie he told was that he wasn’t Hillary’s attorney! So which is it? Was he or wasn’t he?
If he WAS acting as Hillary’s (or someone else’s) attorney, then privilege might well attach because of attorney-client privilege, but then he is still guilty of lying to the FBI in saying he he was not representing anyone, had dirt on Trump, and was just being a good citizen.
But if he was NOT actually a hired attorney acting on behalf of a client (as he ludicrously claimed), then there is no attorney-client privilege to assert! He therefore can be compelled to testify.
So which is it?
Well, we KNOW now. He lied to the FBI in order to make himself more credible. He WAS actually doing this on behalf of a client!
And don’t be confused, this goes far beyond Sussmann…
Several of Sussmann’s clients and others associated with Hillary’s campaign have asserted attorney-client privilege to keep their communications out of the trial. But Durham laid a trap around those claims, and it’s a dangerous one for Sussmann. By even claiming that privilege, Joffe, Hillary for America, and others are directly contradicting Sussmann’s crucial position that he wasn’t representing anyone when he met with the FBI and gave them (false) information about Trump-Russia collusion. [emphasis added]
The jury is in DC. So there could be a “jury nullification” thing that goes on, where the jury fully understands he is guilty but “nullifies” the law by voting “not guilty” anyway. But he may well plead down before it goes to trial, in any case.