WASHINGTON — When a particular counsel accused a well known cybersecurity law firm of lying to the F.B.I. for the duration of a September 2016 assembly about Donald J. Trump’s achievable hyperlinks to Russia, the indictment introduced a lengthy narrative but the direct evidence appeared lean.

The indictment said the law firm, Michael A. Sussmann, experienced manufactured a untrue statement by telling an F.B.I. formal that he was not symbolizing a client in presenting the information and facts. Mr. Sussmann, who has pleaded not guilty, has denied stating that. No just one else was current and their dialogue was not recorded, so the direct and clearly admissible evidence appeared to boil down to a person witness.

This 7 days, additional items of proof emerged into community check out that were being not in the indictment — a person of which appears to dovetail with the accusation towards Mr. Sussmann by the particular counsel, John H. Durham, who was appointed through the Trump administration, while quite a few other people surface to conflict with it.

The material emerged in courtroom filings and at a standing conference right before a decide on Wednesday.

It is not crystal clear irrespective of whether all of the recently disclosed evidence will be admissible. But the jostling concerning prosecutors and protection attorneys could provide a preview of areas of the trial, which they said on Wednesday would very last about two weeks and Decide Christopher R. Cooper explained could start off in May well or early June.

While the demand against Mr. Sussmann is narrow, it has been given substantial political awareness in component due to the fact Mr. Durham concluded that the Hillary Clinton marketing campaign experienced aided force the suspicions, which concerned possible top secret communications in between personal computer servers linked with Mr. Trump’s business and the Kremlin-connected Alfa Financial institution. The F.B.I. made a decision the suspicions had been unfounded.

In accusing Mr. Sussmann of telling the F.B.I. formal — James A. Baker, then the bureau’s general counsel — that he had no consumers, Mr. Durham claimed that Mr. Sussmann was truly representing equally a technological innovation govt and the Clinton campaign. Mr. Sussmann, by way of his lawyers, denied that he explained to Mr. Baker that he experienced no customer, when sustaining he was there on behalf of only the govt, not the marketing campaign.

One particular piece of newly disclosed evidence, described in a submitting by Mr. Durham’s team on Tuesday night, is made up of handwritten notes by an F.B.I. lawyer to whom Mr. Baker spoke about the assembly that working day. The Durham filing quoted the notes as declaring “no unique consumer.”

That proof is identical to one more established of handwritten notes formerly cited in the indictment by another F.B.I. formal who also spoke to Mr. Baker following the meeting. The indictment quoted those notes as listing Mr. Sussmann’s identify, then a sprint, then the name of his law agency, then a dash, and then the phrases “said not carrying out this for any shopper.”

It is not obvious regardless of whether these notes — or testimony by the F.B.I. officials who took them — would be admissible at a demo underneath complicated rules of evidence. Those rules usually ban statements manufactured outside the house court docket as hearsay, but they make exceptions matter to judges’ interpretations.

The indictment also claimed that in February 2017, Mr. Sussmann satisfied with the C.I.A. and conveyed related and linked issues, citing a post-meeting memorandum by two company staff members that mentioned he was “not symbolizing a individual client.” Mr. Durham portrayed that as showing Mr. Sussmann experienced recurring a untrue statement.

But at the listening to on Wednesday, a law firm for Mr. Sussmann, Sean Berkowitz, cited evidence turned over by the prosecutors very last week that muddies that photo by suggesting he may alternatively have instructed them he had a client.

E-mails by company staff ahead of the meeting, Mr. Berkowitz explained, integrated statements like “Sussmann mentioned he signifies a client who does not want to be known” and “the plan should really be to persuade Sussmann that it is in his and his client’s fascination to go to the F.B.I.” A draft model of the agency’s put up-meeting memo also referred to Mr. Sussmann possessing a client, he stated.

A prosecutor working for Mr. Durham, Andrew DeFilippis, told the judge that “although we’re not, you know, fascinated in a total factual debate in advance of the court docket,” an company personnel had noticed the reference to a shopper in the draft memo and “corrected” it for the final variation. Mr. De Filippis did not handle references to a customer in the previously e-mail.

People disclosures adopted a court filing on Monday by Mr. Sussmann’s defense group that exposed contradictory issues Mr. Baker had reported less than oath about the vital conversation in Justice Division interviews, which Mr. Durham’s team disclosed to them very last 7 days.

In 2019 and 2020 interviews, Mr. Baker recalled the conversation in two distinct techniques that every clashed with the indictment’s version. In the to start with, he stated Mr. Sussmann advised him the cyberexperts who developed the Alfa Lender idea “were his shoppers.” In the 2nd, he explained Mr. Sussmann by no means claimed if he was symbolizing any one and Mr. Baker didn’t request, but assumed he had no customer.

In the Tuesday court docket filing, Mr. Durham’s team accused the protection of “cherry-picking” the proof and placing ahead a “skewed portrayal.”

The 2019 and 2020 interviews “occurred many years after the events in problem, and Mr. Baker designed these statements ahead of he experienced the opportunity to refresh his recollection with contemporaneous or in the vicinity of-contemporaneous notes,” they reported, including that he experienced considering the fact that “affirmed and then re-affirmed his now-clear recollection of the defendant’s untrue statement.”