John Durham Loses Case, Clinton Campaign Lawyer Acquitted
 

"WASHINGTON — A lawyer for Hillary Clinton’s 2016 presidential campaign was acquitted Tuesday of lying to the FBI when he pushed information meant to cast suspicions on Donald Trump and Russia in the run-up to the 2016 election.
The jury in the case of Michael Sussmann deliberated on Friday afternoon and Tuesday morning before reaching its verdict.

The case was the first courtroom test of special counsel John Durham since his appointment three years ago to search for government misconduct during the investigation into potential ties between Russia and Trump’s 2016 campaign. The verdict represents a setback for Durham’s work, especially since Trump supporters had looked to the probe to expose what they contend was sweeping wrongdoing by the FBI.

The trial focused on whether Sussmann, a cybersecurity attorney and former federal prosecutor, concealed from the FBI that he was representing Clinton’s campaign when he presented computer data that he said showed a possible secret backchannel between Russia-based Alfa Bank and Trump’s business company, the Trump Organization. The FBI investigated but quickly determined that there was no suspicious contact." LA Times

https://www.latimes.com/politics/sto...d-of-lying-fbi

I can hear the world's tiniest violin tuning up... :rolleyes:

Yet another huge waste of taxpayer dollars, like every other rotten Reich-wing probe ever. :mad:

Faux "News" Immediately Blames Jury for Finding Clinton Campaign Lawyer Not Guilty
‘WHOLE BOWL OF WRONG’
“This jury was pretty dispositioned to have a not guilty verdict. And here we are again, another black eye for the justice system!” Joe Concha grumbled on Tuesday.

https://www.thedailybeast.com/fox-ne...ann-not-guilty

Uh-huh. :rolleyes:

I guess that means old John 'Scowling Soupstrainer' Durham wasn't able to select a jury more amenable to his wacked out conspiracy theory. :rolleyes:
He should've gotten his sheepskin from Trump Uni.:D

And these are the same people who were adamantly opposed to the prosecution of "process crimes" ( e.g., lying to the FBI, perjury).

Bradley P. Moss @BradMossEsq

Remember when Sussman was indicted, all the MAGA pundits were laughing about how the beginning of a conspiracy charge against Hillary was clearly in the works?

Don't you all look like idiots now.

9:08 AM · May 31, 2022·TweetDeck

As if there was a time when they didn't.

Remember "LOCK HER UP"

https://c.tenor.com/G3bfEkESdCEAAAAC...n-laughing.gif

They look like idiots so often it's hard for them to tell.

Brutal supercut shows Faux “News” pundits scrambling to explain Sussmann acquittal

https://www.alternet.org/2022/06/bru...-news-sussman/

There sure is a lot of wailing, gnashing of teeth and rending of garments in the Maga universe. smh. :rolleyes:

The idea that the right can't get an unbiased jury out of ~ 600,000 citizens in Washington DC is blatant racism. Pure and simple.

Really.

Surprised.

Truth and facts matter NOT over the narrative and what is wanted to be....

No surprise here and generally think it will play well in the uninformed closed minds the right rely on to stay in power.

Gin up the zombies with abortion guns and Clinton.....

Watch out when they have the keys....

They already have the keys. SCOTUS. The Federalists there, who are supposed to be all about "States Rights", will very soon be disallowing states to have ANY kind of laws regulating firearms, and will be disallowing states the right to write laws allowing ANY abortions. They are hypocrites, pure and simple.

Federalists, Libertarians and conservatives make up a minority of voters, but the antiquated, outdated Electoral College system, and two senators per state, no matter how small, will destroy democracy in this country.

Re wailing and gnashing of teeth: there certainly are failures, but a trial by jury is still nonetheless the gold standard of human methods of getting at the truth. Need plain evidence to think that anything was wrong with this one. "There must have been" doesn't cut it.

Wow, not sure where you're getting that info from. If anything, the expected ruling on the NY concealed carry law is expected to be rather narrow in scope.

Further, the SCOTUS draft Roe ruling that was circulated - which may or may not represent the Court's final ruling - actually would have given the decision-making about regulating abortion back to the states. It was then Senate Dems - likely in an election season publicity grab - that vowed to push abortion rights legislation that would have "disallowing states the right to write laws" that regulate abortion.

Suggesting that one might only get a less objective jury in DC only by selecting that jury from the DNC headquarters is hardly a stretch, and certainly isn't racist. In fact, some of the jurors that were seated, and for whom the judge denied the prosecution's request to not allow these folks to be seated on the jury, sound very much like they could have been DNC employees:

Looking at the jury box, one can understand Shaw’s unease. During jury selection, one juror admitted he was a Clinton donor and could only promise to “strive for impartiality as best I can.” Prosecutors objected to his being seated, but Judge Christopher Cooper overruled them.

In another exchange, a former bartender and donor to far-left Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) was told by a Sussmann defense lawyer that neither Clinton nor Trump were on trial and then asked if she could be impartial. She responded, “Yes, knowing that” — which might suggest she would not be impartial if the campaigns were part of the trial.

Other jurors include a woman who said she thought she was a Clinton donor but could not remember; a juror whose husband worked for the Clinton 2008 campaign; and a juror who believes the legal system is racist and police departments should be defunded.

While the prosecution failed to prove its case to the just beyond a reasonable doubt, I think the comments of the jury foreperson are quite telling:

“Personally, I don’t think it should have been prosecuted because I think we have better time or resources to use or spend on other things that affect the nation as a whole than a possible lie to the FBI. We could spend that time more wisely.”

The foreperson apparently thinks we have bigger things to worry about than lying to law enforcement, and that lying to law enforcement doesn't "affect the nation as a whole". I don't think you have to be black, white, green, or blue to logically process that statement and disagree with it. But if that perspective informed her verdict or the verdict of the other jurors, it's a sad statement.

And just to set the record straight, Durham is not 0 for 1 at this point. He's 1 for 2. You may have forgotten that this is the second trial resulting from Durham's investigation. The first resulted in a conviction: https://www.courthousenews.com/forme...-russia-probe/

Yes, the Sussmann trial flew a bit closer to the campaign, since Sussmann was clearly - according to his own billing records - working on behalf of the Clinton campaign. And yes, Robbie Mook did state during this trial that Hillary herself greenlighted the dissemination of the Alpha Bank narrative.

The trial wasn't about any of that, though, even though testimony like Mook's are now recorded under oath.

There he goes again...^ ^ ^ :rolleyes:

Thanks for the thoughtful response :rolleyes:

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).

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.

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 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.

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.

I may have a look at that. Thanks.

Barr again spreads hoaxes to discredit Trump-Russia links, proving he's as crooked as ever

https://m.dailykos.com/stories/2022/...al-lying-crook

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.

Here's another brutal takedown of Barr's dishonest political "investigations" which revealed that Trump's "unmasking" allegations and the Sussman trial were both about telling stories Trump wanted told and not pursuing justice.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opini...-probes-bogus/

^^^ broken link. Good read for sure. Here it is: https://www.washingtonpost.com/opini...-probes-bogus/

They all run to Faux "News" to spout their falsehoods. Durham will no doubt write a book, and become a "consultant" at Faux, making tons of money, just like the disgusting Kenny Starr. Faux "News" needs to be shut down as a terrorist organization, and the entire Murdoch family deported or jailed.

Thanks. Fix it too.

Another brilliant column from the esteemed Dana Milbank.

Billy 'Low' Barr makes John Mitchell look like a piker.

Lock his ass up in gen. pop. Leavenworth, not that cushy joint in Allenwood, Pa.

I do appreciate you making my point for me. What were most of the convictions or pleas the stemmed from the Mueller investigation really about? Lying or making false statements, in most cases to the FBI. Apparently when folks related to Trump do it, its a victory to get them convicted or to get them to cop a plea. When someone tied to the Clinton Campaign does it: "...the case should have never been brought and was a complete waste of time."

Not all cases are alike. Mueller's perjury/lying to FBI cases had irrefutable evidence and materiality (hence the guilty pleas). Durham's had neither.

Also, I remember you whining about the Mueller cases being about "process crimes" that shouldn't be prosecuted. You seem to be changing your tune now.

Yet. Durham's investigation is still on-going

My criticism was pretty specific. What we got from the millions spent on the Mueller investigation was the full force and weight of the Federal gov't loosed on individuals in search of collusion with Russia relating to the 2016 election, and Mueller's report specifically found no evidence that anyone in the Trump did so. But a prosecutor can't spend all that time and money and come up with nothing, so Mueller hung a few scalps over process crimes.

Durham's not done yet. But if the results are similar to Mueller's, I'll be just as critical.

"Full force and weight of the federal government loosed on individuals...." Pundit speak, means about nothing, certainly not specific, punches a 'government picking on little guys' button,' but no substantive content. And they weren't little guys.

Will hold you to that. But don't forget that Mueller's report also fairly shouted "Impeach Trump for obstruction of justice!" as should have been done but wasn't.

Anyone who actually believes the Russians didn't help Donny get elected* is simply a damn fool.

I guess Mueller and his team are damn fools.

I think you missed my point

You are simply going to continue to ignore the facts. You're a damn fool.

https://www.politico.com/news/2020/0...in-2016-198171

BS. Both Mueller and the GOP-led Senate Select Committee on Intelligence concluded that Russia used Republican political operative Paul Manafort and WikiLeaks to try to help Trump win the 2016 election and that Trump welcomed this assistance and appeared to coordinate with Wikileaks (through Roger Stone and Bannon).

Furthermore, despite the above conclusions from Mueller and the SSCI, “several individuals affiliated with the Trump Campaign lied to the Office,” and “those lies materially impaired the investigation of Russian election interference.”

If you want to read something from a reputable source rather than the MAGA nonsense you're so steeped in, here's a good rundown on the collusion aspects of Mueller:
https://www.justsecurity.org/63838/g...-on-collusion/

Please point to where Mueller and team exonerated the Trumpites, Mike. None of your usual equivocating, please.

Of course Mueller and his team fully exonerated Trump. Trump said so.

My "usual equivocating"? LOL

https://www.documentcloud.org/docume...html#document/

Right in the executive summary:

“Although the investigation established that the Russian government perceived it would benefit from a Trump presidency and worked to secure that outcome, and that the Campaign expected it would benefit electorally from information stolen and released through Russian efforts, the investigation did not establish that members of the Trump Campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities.”

Seems pretty clear to me, unless you think Mueller is equivocating too.