Looks like the defense is trying to make light of the charges. * This is a story about smoke and mirrors (uses magician's diversionary tactics analogy) * Opposition research is not illegal (or prisons would be full of people in DC) * Defense is not focused on what Sussmann said to FBI on 9/19/16 or consistency with 9/18 text message * Says flash drives purchased on 9/13/16 could have been for other purposes for the campaign * Says "smoking gun" billing record from 9/19/16 is faulty -- doesn't indicate anything about the meeting w/FBI * Says no bills sent to Joffe for 9/19/16 meeting and says Sussmann didn't bill Hillary FA for taxi ride expense to the FBI * Witnesses from the Clinton campaign testified they did NOT authorize meeting w/ FBI * Says going to the FBI would not be in the interest of the Clinton campaign because of past experience -- didn't trust the FBI (email investigation) * Shows billing statements where Sussmann worked the DNC "hacking" investigation that shows he billed his time for FBI meetings (explicit notation) * Pokes fun at prosecution using Staples receipt and google map (showing location) * Says Joffe would get no financial benefit from going to the FBI (FYI, they weren't allowed to show Joffe had a job offer from Hillary Admin) * Says Sussmann gave Baker the info because he would know what if anything to do with it * Says Baker testified he would want a heads up if he knew the NYT was going to publish a story about a national security matter * Says info given to NYT wasn't conclusive and that NYT presumably did further investigation * Says Sussmann had no incentive to lie to FBI * Says Joffe didn't want to disclose his name for fear for his life * Shows photo of Litchblau with his Pulizer Prize (LMAO!!!) * Says Sussmann didn't say he was not representing client on 9/19 b/c meeting was short. Says Baker's memory is faulty. * Says Baker has been inconsistent in the past on this subject -- and only confirmed info after he was shown Priestap notes * Says reasonable doubt because of Baker's "memory" and failure to locate 9/18 text message until much later shows he didn't remember * Says Sussmann is an ethical, credible lawyer -- and Baker testified to this fact * Says Sussmann had a Nat'l Security Clearance and vibrant National Security practice -- it makes no sense he would lie. He had everything to lose and nothing to gain * Says Sussmann did not ask anything of the FBI in the meeting * Shows testimony of Mook and Elias -- they didn't authorize or ask Sussmann to go to FBI; Mook didn't trust the FBI * Says Sussmann had DNC tatooed on his forhead (meaning there's no way the FBI didn't know who he repped) * Says the FBI would have met w/Sussmann regardless of who he was representing * Makes note of the FBI never interviewing Sussmann or the originator of the white paper -- says burden is on the FBI (good point) * Failure to interview goes to materiality * FBI Gaynor testified he didn't want investigators to know info came from a Dem Lawyer, because he didn't want them to view it as biased * Says prosecutors are relying on vague meeting minutes and phone logs * Says case is made of circumstantial evidence manufactured by prosecutors (using snow making machine analogy) * Says Baker delivered for prosecution because prosecution met over and over again with him (10 times) * Emphasizes that witnesses Baker, Heide and Gaynor are under investigation by the FBI * Says no proof Sussmann meetings w/ Hillary team discussed Alfa Bank * Says investigation is an embarrassment-- emphasizing the 5150 comment made by FBI cyber analyst Hellman about the white paper * Says do you remember what you said to someone yesterday -- if not, that's reasonable doubt, case closed! Summary * Ends argument with analogy of statue of liberty. It's time to end the political conspiracies! Geez, this was hard to follow! I compiled the comments from reporters in the room: @Charlie_Savage, @SarahNLynch + @RealWqnderWqman