Notice: Trying to access array offset on value of type null in /home/midday/public_html/wp-content/plugins/really-simple-facebook-twitter-share-buttons/really-simple-facebook-twitter-share-buttons.php on line 318
Follow
Fusion GPS is a political research company. Its three founders conducted opposition research during 2016 presidential election as they worked for Hillary Clinton’s democratic supporters. The fruit of their labor was the controversial Trump – Russia dossier.
The document alleges that there were connections between Trump and Russia which undermined the integrity of the elections. However, the investigation surfaced no proof, only testimonies from Russian individuals. Now the chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, Rep. Devin Nunes, urges the three founders to testify in court. However, the lawyer of Fusion GPS declined to answer to the subpoenas.
Despite His Ties with the White House, Nunes Continues to Act as the Head of the Committee
Joshua Levy is one of the lawyers who represent the Fusion GPS research firm. On Monday, he sent a letter to the committee where he explains why his clients wouldn’t respond to House subpoenas. His main argument is that Chairman Devin Nunes acts ‘in bad faith.’
Nunes used to be a key authority in the investigation into allegations that the current President worked with Russian officials to influence the 2016 elections. However, Nunes left this panel due to criticism that he is too close to White House to remain unbiased.
Nonetheless, this decision didn’t affect his staying within the House Intelligence Committee. Therefore, he preserved control over the case and had the authority to issue subpoenas and counsel the panel.
Fusion GPS Founders Can’t Testify Regarding the Trump – Russia Dossier without Jeopardizing Future Opposition Research
This is the reason why Levy announced the panel that his clients are not going to cooperate. They will invoke the Fifth Amendment to refuse to testify.
“We cannot in good conscience do anything but advise our clients to stand on their constitutional privileges, the attorney work product doctrine, and contractual obligations.”
Another layer of this refusal has a protective nature regarding the future of the opposition research. By appearing in court, the three founders would put in jeopardy their promise of confidentiality to their clients. Therefore, no candidates would appeal to their services again if the three founders agreed to accept the House subpoenas.
Image source: 1
