Quote:
Originally Posted by whell
I don't disagree conceptually about the use of opposition research. Look at how WaPo, NY Times, and others willing pushed the Russia Collusion narrative fueled by endless leaks from "unnamed sources"...
The jury ultimately decided (both or either) that the prosecution failed to prove that at trial beyond a reasonable doubt, or that a case about lying to the FBI has no currency in the US justice system
|
The "Russia Collusion narrative" resulted in seven guilty pleas and five people sentenced to prison and showed that Trump, through Roger Stone, did indeed communicate with Wikileaks (and Wikileaks to Russia) and that Trump was negotiating with Russia for a hotel deal (while lying about it). It also showed 4 cut-and-dry cases of obstruction of justice by Trump which Mueller asserted contributed to his inability to bring a conspiracy case against Trump.
As for the Sussman case, the prosecution also failed to show materiality, an essential element of this charge because the FBI was already investigating Trump anyway. Also, the jury foreperson publicly said that the case should have never been brought and was a complete waste of time. Not exactly a ringing endorsement of Barr/Durham.
Here's another takedown of Barr's political motivation behind this case.
https://www.lawfareblog.com/return-angry-political-man
In short, Barr, in a (failed) attempt to show political motivations behind the Russia/Mueller investigation himself engaged in an unwarranted and politically motivated prosecution.