John Durham Loses Case, Clinton Campaign Lawyer Acquitted

[whell]

Originally Posted by finnbow

Having someone as a client does not mean you are representing that client at all times. Hillary greenlighting the dissemination of the Alpha Bank narrative is neither a crime nor unusual in political campaigns. It's called oppo research when a campaign provides info to the media in hopes they take it further (look at all of the water carried by Fox News on behalf of Trump's delusional lies/accusations).

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". And sure, attorneys have multiple clients concurrently. But that wasn't what the case was about.

Originally Posted by finnbow

This trial was never really about lying to the FBI. It was intended by Barr to disprove the findings of the (GOP-controlled) Senate Select Committee on Intelligence and the DOJ-IG, both of whom concluded that the Russia investigation was properly predicated. Barr as much as admitted it in a recent interview on Fox News.

Well, the jury thought that was what the case was about. Maybe they had a perspective that you don't based on the facts that were presented at trial.

In fact, the case was about the way Sussmann (mis)represented himself and the information that he provided to the FBI. The "lie" was about whether or not he was representing the campaign at the time he presented the Alpha Bank info. There's certainly sufficient evidence to suggest that he was working on behalf of the Clinton campaign at that time. 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.

Originally Posted by finnbow

If you actually want to read something a bit more objective and thoughtful than the wingnut garbage you normally gobble up, here's a good take on the Sussman trial.
https://www.lawfareblog.com/thoughts...ssmann-verdict

Here's another than goes a bit further in its analysis. Both conclude the case wasn't really about Sussman's alleged lie (the only charged conduct). In trying to prove that the Russia investigation was a witchhunt, Durham/Barr themselves conducted an actual political witchhunt which ultimately again confirmed the validity of the original Russia investigation.
https://sidebarsblog.com/sussman-pro...erdict-durham/

I may have a look at that. Thanks.