Charge: Clinton, DNC break pledge to stop lying about Trump ‘dossier’ Paul Bedard 4 h ago Washington Examiner
In a new bid to hide their attorney’s efforts in the disputed Trump-Russian ‘dossier,’ the Clinton campaign and Democratic Party have already violated a two-month-old promise to stop lying about their efforts, according to charges filed with the Federal Election Commission.
© Provided by Washington ExaminerCharge: Clinton, DNC break pledge to stop lying about Trump ‘dossier’
mm
The complaint shared with Secrets focuses on the move by the DNC and Hillary for America campaign to claim an attorney-client privilege in shielding work done by their law firm Perkins Coie and former partner Michael Sussman from Special Counsel John Durham.
That appeared to openly violate a pledge both made to the FEC to stop claiming attorney-client privilege over the over $1 million they paid the law firm for work done by Fusion GPS on the the so-called “Steele Dossier” and accept the election agency’s finding that the work was for opposition research not “legal advice and services.”
In giving that pledge to the FEC, the Clinton campaign and DNC paid a combined $113,000 fine to make the case go away.
But in renewing the claim that their relationship with Perkins Coie is protected by an attorney-client relationship, the campaign and party face having the FEC reopen their investigation and level even greater fines.
The new complaint filed with the FEC is the latest by the Coolidge Reagan Foundation to force the 2016 Clinton campaign and DNC to tell the truth about their roles in and spending on the dossier, a crude document meant to smear then-candidate Donald Trump as he was rising in the polls against the former first lady and secretary of State in advance of a presidential election he won.
In the FEC deal revealed by Secrets two months ago, the agency said it found probable cause that the Clinton campaign and the DNC misreported the expenses for the Fusion GPS services to Perkins Coie.
The campaign and party said they wouldn’t dispute -- or further fight -- the case, at least with the FEC. “Solely for the purpose of settling this matter expeditiously and to avoid further legal costs, respondent[s] does not concede, but will not further contest the commission's finding of probable cause to proceed” with the probe, they said in the FEC deal.
Dan Backer, with the Coolidge Reagan Foundation, said that in making the new claim in the case brought by Durham, the campaign and party were contesting the commission's findings -- exactly what they promised never to do.
“The FEC found probable cause to believe HFA and the DNC violated federal law by filing false campaign finance disclosure reports with the commission,” he said in sizing up the original case for the new complaint. He added, “Specifically, HFA and the DNC falsely claimed payments made to Perkins Coie in connection with Fusion GPS’s opposition research and investigations into Trump to prepare the salacious and fraudulent Steele Dossier were for the purpose of legal services. In reality, Fusion GPS’s investigation into Trump and preparation of the Steele Dossier were for political purposes and not for the purpose of enabling Perkins Coie to provide legal advice or in connection with litigation.”
But in making the case that the Perkins Coie spending was for legal services and should be protected from release to Durham, Backer wrote, “HFA’s and the DNC’s intervention, arguments, and supporting declarations in United States v. Sussmann violate their agreement to ‘not further contest the commission’s finding of probable cause to believe’ Fusion GPS’s opposition research into Trump and preparation of the Steele Dossier did not constitute legal services.”
In an earlier letter sent to Durham, Backer said, “The government should not permit HFA and the DNC to adopt conflicting positions in different proceedings, depending on the federal agency against which they are litigating.”
Backer just sent his new complaint to the FEC and it was unlikely that the agency, DNC or Clinton campaign would have immediate reaction.
Like the FEC, Durham has been eager to determine if the campaign or party were hiding documents under improper claims of attorney-client privilege.
That appeared to openly violate a pledge both made to the FEC to stop claiming attorney-client privilege over the over $1 million they paid the law firm for work done by Fusion GPS on the the so-called “Steele Dossier” and accept the election agency’s finding that the work was for opposition research not “legal advice and services.”
In giving that pledge to the FEC, the Clinton campaign and DNC paid a combined $113,000 fine to make the case go away.
But in renewing the claim that their relationship with Perkins Coie is protected by an attorney-client relationship, the campaign and party face having the FEC reopen their investigation and level even greater fines.
The new complaint filed with the FEC is the latest by the Coolidge Reagan Foundation to force the 2016 Clinton campaign and DNC to tell the truth about their roles in and spending on the dossier, a crude document meant to smear then-candidate Donald Trump as he was rising in the polls against the former first lady and secretary of State in advance of a presidential election he won.
In the FEC deal revealed by Secrets two months ago, the agency said it found probable cause that the Clinton campaign and the DNC misreported the expenses for the Fusion GPS services to Perkins Coie.
The campaign and party said they wouldn’t dispute -- or further fight -- the case, at least with the FEC. “Solely for the purpose of settling this matter expeditiously and to avoid further legal costs, respondent[s] does not concede, but will not further contest the commission's finding of probable cause to proceed” with the probe, they said in the FEC deal.
Dan Backer, with the Coolidge Reagan Foundation, said that in making the new claim in the case brought by Durham, the campaign and party were contesting the commission's findings -- exactly what they promised never to do.
“The FEC found probable cause to believe HFA and the DNC violated federal law by filing false campaign finance disclosure reports with the commission,” he said in sizing up the original case for the new complaint. He added, “Specifically, HFA and the DNC falsely claimed payments made to Perkins Coie in connection with Fusion GPS’s opposition research and investigations into Trump to prepare the salacious and fraudulent Steele Dossier were for the purpose of legal services. In reality, Fusion GPS’s investigation into Trump and preparation of the Steele Dossier were for political purposes and not for the purpose of enabling Perkins Coie to provide legal advice or in connection with litigation.”
But in making the case that the Perkins Coie spending was for legal services and should be protected from release to Durham, Backer wrote, “HFA’s and the DNC’s intervention, arguments, and supporting declarations in United States v. Sussmann violate their agreement to ‘not further contest the commission’s finding of probable cause to believe’ Fusion GPS’s opposition research into Trump and preparation of the Steele Dossier did not constitute legal services.”
In an earlier letter sent to Durham, Backer said, “The government should not permit HFA and the DNC to adopt conflicting positions in different proceedings, depending on the federal agency against which they are litigating.”
Backer just sent his new complaint to the FEC and it was unlikely that the agency, DNC or Clinton campaign would have immediate reaction.
Like the FEC, Durham has been eager to determine if the campaign or party were hiding documents under improper claims of attorney-client privilege.
1 comment:
But in renewing the claim that their relationship with Perkins Coie is protected by an attorney-client relationship, the campaign and party face having the FEC reopen their investigation and level even greater fines.
I may have gotten confused. I Thought that the guy who was working for Perkins told Congress that he was just a concerned citizen and was not representing a client..
If that is tre,how can the information they have be privileged?
If it IS privileged, then he did have a client, and he lied.
Did I miss something?
Post a Comment