According to a letter sent to Special Counsel John Durham, the Hillary Clinton campaign and Democrat National Committee (DNC)’s claims of attorney-client privilege in the Michael Sussmann criminal case may constitute a breach of the settlement agreements they entered with the Federal Election Commission (FEC).

Last week a series of legal motions were filed by Hillary for America, the DNC, tech executive Rodney Joffe, Michael Sussmann’s former law firm Perkins and Coie, and the investigative firm Fusion GPS asking the court for permission to argue against disclosing documents to the special counsel based on their claims of attorney-client privilege. The motions were prompted by the special counsel’s pending false statement case against Sussmann.

In a three-page letter to Durham and Assistant Special Counsel Jonathan Algor, The Coolidge Reagan Foundation counsel Dan Backer alerted the special counsel’s office to key facts about the FEC’s recent decision to fine the groups. The previous complaint charged Hillary for America and the DNC with using the “law firm, Perkins Coie, to hire and funnel over $1 million to ‘outside research firms’ such as Fusion GPS ‘to perform potentially sensitive, controversial, or politically embarrassing’ opposition research into Donald Trump.”

The Federalist reports:

In Friday’s letter, Backer also highlighted Hillary for America and the DNC’s commitment in their settlement agreement with the FEC to “not further contest the Commission’s finding of probable cause to believe” that the political organizations had “falsely reported their payments through Perkins Coie to Fusion GPS as being for legal services.” In contrast, in the Sussmann case, Hillary for America and the DNC “are nevertheless asserting materials generated by Fusion GPS and provided to Perkins Coie are protected by attorney-client privilege and work-product doctrine,” the letter stressed.

“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,” the foundation’s letter concluded, suggesting the trial court may find those breaches of the settlement agreement “material in ruling on any privilege claims.”

Sussmann is now also seeking to exclude that testimony and claims that both the Clinton campaign and the DNC will likewise seek to quash the subpoenas.

The irony in all of this, of course, is that the more Sussmann, the Clinton campaign, and the DNC hide behind the claims of attorney-client privilege, the more it appears that, yes, Sussmann pushed the Alfa Bank hoax, including during his meeting with FBI General Counsel James Baker, on behalf of the Clinton campaign. The FEC’s conclusion that probable cause existed to support the finding that the Clinton campaign and DNC had falsely reported fees paid to Fusion GPS as legal fees only further supports that conclusion.

The question Friday’s letter to the special counsel’s office raises, however, is whether the Clinton campaign and the DNC’s settlement agreement with the FEC, in fact, forecloses their claims of privilege in the Sussmann case. Backer believes it does, telling The Federalist, “The Clinton Campaign and the DNC want to have their cake and eat it too, but they cannot simultaneously say they won’t contest the reasoning behind the FEC fine and settlement agreement and also run to federal court and say, ‘No, no, no, everything we do is privileged.’”

That’s never stopped Hillary and her Democrat comrades before and it certainly isn’t going to stop them now.

The letter concluded, “HFA and the DNC lied on their campaign finance filings to make it appear that Fusion GPS’sopposition research into Donald Trump was performed in connection with legal services. They should not be permitted to peddle these false claims before a federal court.”

Read the letter first obtained by the Federalist HERE.