Jump to content

Michael Sussmann Acquitted Of Lying To FBI In Trump-Russia Probe


Valin

Recommended Posts

michael-sussmann-acquitted_n_62963ceee4b07aa93892a648
HuffPo/AP

Sussmann was a lawyer for Hillary Clinton's 2016 presidential campaign.

ERIC TUCKER

May. 31, 2022, 12:11 PM EDT

WASHINGTON (AP) — 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.

(Snip)

_________________________________________________

The other day Robert Barnes asked the question "Can A Washington DC Jury look beyond politics, and judge only on the evidence." I gess we know the answer

" I’m not sure whether the jury spent more time picking a foreman or deliberating over the evidence."

Scott Johnson

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Michael Sussmann has been acquitted

DC Jury and DC Verdicts

https%3A%2F%2Fbucketeer-e05bbc84-baa3-437e-9518-adb32be77984.s3.amazonaws.com%2Fpublic%2Fimages%2F70710e62-4791-42de-8e55-b956476aabf1_400x400.jpeg
1 hr ago

Michael Sussmann has been acquitted.

The acquittal is no surprise. This is a DC jury, after all. In the Roger Stone case, for example, we documented how a juror lied to get on the panel. (That judge didn’t care.) Making matters worse, the Sussmann judge wrongly allowed for a woman to remain on the jury, despite the fact that her daughter and Sussmann’s are on the same high school crew team. One can’t help but think that juror had her own daughter’s interests in mind – the cohesion of the crew team – when she reached a decision.

On the facts, there was more than sufficient evidence to prove Sussmann’s guilt. Sussmann lied to then-FBI general counsel James Baker in order to get a meeting to pass the Alfa Bank hoax materials to the FBI. Sussmann lied again during the meeting – stating he was not there on behalf of a client – in order to get the FBI to open an investigation into the Trump Organization’s purported ties with Alfa Bank. Later, during testimony to Congress, Sussmann admitted he met with Baker on behalf of a client. Billing records proved he had been working on the Alfa Bank project on behalf of the Clinton Campaign.  

I won’t say the verdict doesn’t matter. Of course it matters. It would have proven that a DC jury can convict one of their own. It would have resulted in accountability for lying to the FBI. Not the gravest of crimes, but it is still a crime.

In large part, the prosecution of Sussmann was hamstrung by the FBI’s investigation into the Alfa Bank allegations. That goes to materiality. How can the lies be material if the FBI’s investigation was so sloppy? (Answer: they were material because the lies helped open the investigation in the first place.)

On the issue of materiality, look to the testimony of FBI Special Agent Curtis Heide, whose repeated requests to interview the source of the Alfa Bank information were denied by headquarters. FBI Headquarters didn’t want this thing thoroughly vetted - even though they demanded the investigation be opened. As we stated during the trial:

(Snip)

 
Link to comment
Share on other sites

May 31, 2022 Megyn Kelly is joined by Robert Gouveia, criminal defense lawyer and host of Watching the Watchers, to talk about Michael Sussmann being acquitted of lying to the FBI, Sussmann’s involvement with the Hilary Cinton campaign, and more.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Clinton’s Plot Came Closer to Succeeding Than January 6 Ever Did

There’s only one rule in D.C. the Justice Department consistently enforces—all laws and norms exist to preserve and extend the Democratic Party’s monopoly over key institutions.

 

 

Kevin Clinesmith must feel like an idiot for pleading guilty without a trial after a D.C.-area jury acquitted Clinton co-conspirator Michael Sussman for his role in the plot to frame Donald Trump for colluding with the Russians, supposedly to steal the 2016 election. Sussman’s D.C.-based jury which featured partisan Democrat donors rendered a quick “not-guilty” verdict. While the Left undoubtedly sees the acquittal as another “lawfare” victory against the bad orange man, that victory did not come without cost to its enabling allies. 

First, the acquittal further reinforces the impression of a two-tiered justice system in which the politics and privilege of the accused determine the outcome. As Julie Kelly continues to show, the FBI, which played a central role in the plot to frame Trump, is now viewed by a majority of Republicans and a large minority of Democrats as, “the personal gestapo” of Joe Biden. If the FBI frames its political opponents, as it attempted to do with Trump, then it can’t expect potential witnesses and jurors to cooperate with or trust its agents.:snip:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What Proof Does a DC Jury Need to Convict Someone Who Worked for Hillary Clinton?

 

Close your eyes and imagine you’re living in the nation’s capital during the summer of 2016, at the height of the heated presidential race between Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton. 

WikiLeaks had just published a trove of embarrassing emails about the Democratic National Committee’s marginalization of Clinton’s main rival for the Democratic nomination, Sen. Bernie Sanders, and Clinton herself was under investigation for how she handled classified emails.

Clinton’s presidential campaign, called “Hillary for America,” would not take these developments lying down. 

As told by special counsel John Durham, senior members of the Clinton campaign formed a “joint venture” with lawyers from Perkins Coie, opposition researchers from Fusion GPS, foreign nationals such as Christopher Steele (of the infamous “Steele Dossier” hoax), and biased computer researchers to mount a smear campaign against Trump. They aggressively disseminated their falsehoods to the FBI and to any reporter who would listen, Durham alleged.:snip:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Moral of Sussmann trial: Americans see lying as a DC norm, making punishment hard

 

Over the last four years, Special Counsel John Durham has built a compelling case, supported by evidence, that the entire Russia collusion narrative that gripped the country during Donald Trump's presidency was built on falsehoods

 

 

An FBI lawyer, after all, has admitted he misled the FISA court by falsifying a document. Hillary Clinton's campaign and the Democratic Party has paid a fine to federal election regulators for falsely disguising payments for Christopher Steele's dossier as legal work rather than opposition research.

Steele's primary source, Igor Danchenko, is charged with lying to the FBI. And before he was indicted, Danchenko told the FBI that Steele misrepresented some of his contributions to the dossier as intelligence when in fact they were based on "just talk" and "hearsay" and "conversation ... with friends over beers.":snip:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

John Durham lost because he treated the FBI as a dupe — rather than a Clinton collaborator

What was the role of the FBI? In the Russiagate probe, in which Special Counsel John Durham has been tasked with getting to the bottom of the Trump-Russia “collusion” farce, that is the key question. If you don’t get the bureau’s role right, you’re apt to get the most consequential things wrong.

Durham has banked his investigation on the premise that the FBI was a victim — an innocent dupe manipulated by the wily Clinton campaign. On Tuesday, this misplaced faith led to the acquittal of Clinton lawyer Michael Sussmann.

The irony abounds. A Washington, DC, jury found Sussmann found not guilty of making a false statement to the bureau even though Durham’s team convincingly proved the falsity of the statement he made — namely, that in purveying derogatory information about Donald Trump, Sussmann was not representing any client, when in fact he was representing the Hillary Clinton campaign. Moreover, although the acquittal will encourage Democrats and their legacy media allies in seeking to discredit Durham’s probe, the law enforcement shenanigans uncovered by the trial illustrate that the probe is essential.:snip:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The stench from the Sussmann verdict

There was a partisan political element at the very heart of the case

 

Democracies cannot survive without public trust. Citizens must be confident that their elected officials represent their interests, at least in broad terms, and are not corrupt, self-dealing con men. They must believe the courts dispense justice fairly and equally, that there’s not one set of rules for insiders and another for everyone else. They understand that complex societies require bureaucracies and that bureaucracies are inherently non-democratic, but they want the bureaucracies’ rules and procedures to be subject to laws, passed by elected officials, overseen by them, and applied evenly. For transparency, they depend on newspapers...:snip:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

June 2 2022

There is no doubt that the Biden Department of Justice wants the Durham investigation to be over. Did the Sussman verdict just give them the grounds to make that happen?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • 1716240949
×
×
  • Create New...