Special counsel John Durham is doubling down on his allegation that Michael Susan, a lawyer with links to Hillary Clinton, lied about the claims regarding Donald Trump and Russia.

Earlier this year, Durham indicted Sussman for a meeting between him and former FBI General Counsel James Baker on September 19, 2016. Sussman blatantly pushed debunked allegations about a secret back channel between Russia’s Alfa Bank and the Trump Organization during this meeting.

Tired of the ads? Go Ad-Free and Get EXCLUSIVE Content, Become a PREMIUM USER

Though Sussman claimed to Baker that he was not working with any specific client, Durham alleges that this was a lie, as he was actually working for Clinton. Sussman has denied this and plead not guilty.

The Washington Examiner reported that earlier this week, Sussman’s lawyers alleged that Durham’s team handed over documents about comments Baker made about the 2016 meeting that it said: “directly contradict the Special Counsel’s allegation that Mr. Sussmann affirmatively told Mr. Baker that he was not meeting with him on behalf of any clients.”

Durham, however, was not having any of it. He fired back on Tuesday with the following court filing:

“As the defendant is aware from discovery, both of those interviews occurred years after the events in question, and Mr. Baker made these statements before he had the opportunity to refresh his recollection with contemporaneous or near-contemporaneous notes that have been provided to the defense in discovery.”

“Indeed, the defendant’s motion entirely ignores law enforcement reports of Mr. Baker’s subsequent three interviews with the Special Counsel’s Office in which he affirmed and then re-affirmed his now-clear recollection of the defendant’s false statement.”

< Sign the petition: Ban Federal Vaccine Mandates! >

Durham has previously said that he will be calling Baker to testify. In his court filing, Durham cited a 2019 interview in which Baker said that Sussman had talked about “his clients, who were, he described as I recall it, sort of cyber-security experts.”

Durham went on to say that in another statement last year, “Baker said that Sussmann did not specify that he was representing a client regarding the matter, nor did Baker ask him if he was representing a client. Baker said it did not seem like Sussmann was representing a client.”

Sussman’s attorneys have responded by arguing that the existence of what they describe as exculpatory information “only underscores the baseless and unprecedented nature of this indictment.”

***Follow Us On TELEGRAM***

Though Sussman has requested a trial date in May, Durham has argued that “a trial date in late July 2022 is reasonable and necessary for the Government to fully declassify and produce discovery.” He added that a May trial date “would rush and unnecessarily truncate” what needs to happen before the proceedings take place.

More from The Washington Examiner:

The prosecutors noted they had handed over more than 91,000 pages in unclassified discovery and more than 5,000 pages in classified discovery to the defense team and insisted that the team was still “working expeditiously to satisfy its discovery obligations.”

The opinions expressed by contributors and/or content partners are their own and do not necessarily reflect the views of Red Voice Media. Contact us for guidelines on submitting your own commentary.