I read most of Judge Cooper's case ruling. From what I interpreted, the Judge rejected Durham's contention of a conspiracy, in which Sussman was an integral part of it.

This is scary for a number of reasons. Some people contend the judge did the right thing in separating Sussman from the other aspects of Durham's investigation. I don't agree with that assessment because it now makes Sussman only responsible for lying to the FBI. Recall that former FBI attorney Kevin Clinesmith, pleaded guilty to a false statement offense stemming from his altering of an email in connection with the submission of a Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (“FISA”) application. Klinesmith was sentenced to 12 months probation and 400 hours of community service. I suspect Sussman will see something comparable. Some probation and community service.

The ruling also potentially destroys leverage to get Sussman to flip and tell all.

The same people who paint a Pollyanna scenario with this Judge's decision also fail to realize the Sussman case was being used to tie Joffe and Perkins Coie law firm with a much bigger fish being Marc Elias and Hillary Clinton. Here is the statement of Judge Cooper himself in the ruling.

"This dispute is framed by the parties’ competing theories of how the data came to be. In brief, the government contends that the Alfa Bank data was gathered as part of a concerted effort to collect and disseminate derogatory opposition research about Donald Trump. Participants in this purported joint undertaking, according to the government, include the Clinton Campaign; the Campaign’s General Counsel and then-partner in the Perkins Coie law firm, Marc Elias; an investigative firm retained by Mr. Elias, Fusion GPS; the defendant; Mr. Joffe; and several computer researchers working at Mr. Joffe’s direction. The government has proffered the existence of at least some circumstantial evidence connecting Mr. Sussmann to certain aspects of the data gathering effort. See Gov’t Opp’n to Def.’s Mots. in Lim. at 17–18, ECF No. 70 (promising that testimony will establish that Mr. Sussmann was aware of the “corporate sources” Case 1:21-cr-00582-CRC Document 121 Filed 05/07/22 Page 3 of 24 4 of the data and assured Researcher-2 that the data had been lawfully collected); Indictment 20, 23 (alleging that beginning in mid-August, Mr. Sussmann, Mr. Joffe, and Mr. Elias met on two different occasions and, shortly thereafter, Mr. Joffe emailed the researchers about the data); id. 24 (describing billing entries indicating that Mr. Sussmann helped draft one of the white papers that was provided to the FBI). The government contends that Mr. Sussmann’s desire to conceal this joint venture—particularly the Clinton Campaign’s involvement—supplied a motive for him to misrepresent to Mr. Baker that he was not providing the data to the FBI on behalf of any client, when he was actually representing both Mr. Joffe and the Campaign.

Unless Durham files new charges against Sussman, the leverage he sought is destroyed. To me, the order for subpoenaed documents viewed by 'court camera' was throttling Durhams's investigation. The earlier ruling should have been the Fusion GPS subpoenaed documents being sent to Durham carte blanche for his review. Not for a Judge to review over the shoulder of a special counsel. This bleeds control for a predetermined outcome. That is, the Demwit's narrative there was never a conspiracy.

It’s a mixed bag of “wins and losses” here, but our losses could backfire. The Soetero appointed judge is trying to appear to be neutral, so far.