Michael Sussmann found not guilty of lying to FBI in Durham investigation - CNNPolitics
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
(CNN)Hillary Clinton campaign lawyer Michael Sussmann was acquitted Tuesday of lying to the FBI, in the first trial of special counsel John Durham's investigation.
The verdict is a major defeat for Durham and his Justice Department prosecutors, who have spent three years looking for wrongdoing in the Trump-Russia probe. He claimed Sussmann lied during a 2016 meeting in which he passed a tip to the FBI about Donald Trump and Russia. The Washington, DC, federal jury deliberated for six hours over two days before reaching its verdict. Marc Elias, Hillary Clinton campaign's top lawyer, turns tables on Durham to air Democratic grievances about 2016 election The Sussmann case revolved around his September 2016 meeting with James Baker, a friend who was the FBI's general counsel. Sussmann passed along a tip that led to a four-month FBI inquiry into a possible internet backchannel between the Trump Organization and Kremlin-linked Alfa Bank. Both companies denied the claim, and the FBI didn't find any improper cyber links. Prosecutors argued that Sussmann intentionally lied to Baker by saying he came only as a concerned citizen, and not on behalf of any clients, saying Sussmann hid his ties to Democrats to "manipulate the FBI" and gin up an "October surprise" to help Clinton win. Read More In Sussmann's telling, at the peak of Russia's attack on the 2016 election, he went to the FBI with a good-faith tip, which originated from reputable cyber experts that he represented. He separately worked on Clinton's behalf to peddle that unverified tip to the press, generating some coverage. He didn't try to dupe Baker or hide his political ties, which were well-known at the FBI. Durham said in a statement that he was "disappointed" with the verdict. "While we are disappointed in the outcome, we respect the jury's decision and thank them for their service," Durham said in a statement. "I also want to recognize and thank the investigators and the prosecution team for their dedicated efforts in seeking truth and justice in this case."
Durham investigation takes a hit
So far, Durham's work has only led to one conviction: the guilty plea of a junior FBI lawyer who was involved in a wiretapping warrant for a former Trump 2016 campaign adviser. Durham also charged a Russian expat tied to the infamous Steele dossier, whose trial is slated for October. The Sussmann case was the first major courtroom test for Durham, and the acquittal may bolster Durham's critics, who believe he's running a politicized probe into flimsy theories. Trump has treated Durham's probe as a political weapon, stoking excitement in the right-wing ecosystem that Durham will deliver Watergate-caliber indictments against Clinton loyalists and the "deep state" government agents who supposedly conspired against him. He has even suggested that Sussmann's and other Democrats' conduct should be "punishable by death." Durham's efforts to "investigate the investigators" are ongoing, and have outlasted the Russia probe itself, which was taken over by special counsel Robert Mueller and convicted six Trump associates, including his lawyer, his 2016 campaign chair, and a senior White House official. This story is breaking and will be updated.
Tags
Who is online
57 visitors
I Told You So! The FBI and CIA investigations into Trump's Russian dealings were legally predicated based on Trump and Co seeking out, meeting with and establishing relationships with known agents of Russian State Intelligence Services. Beginning by at least 2014 Trump was in secret negotiations with clandestine agents of Vlad Putin's Russian State Intelligence Services to build Trump Tower Moscow!
Hillary Clinton could not have been responsible for the FBI and CIA investigating Trump's Russian involvements in 2014, 2015 and 2016. She had retired from public service in January of 2013. Trump got himself investigated all by himself. Now it is official. Durham's witch hunt was more a snipe hunt!
Lol... None of that has anything to do with the trial. [deleted]
We are now up to three seeds on a topic that's supposedly a nothing Berger.
For months we were told Sussman was guilty.
How many Dems has Durham bagged? ZERO!
He was adjudged not guilty by a biased leftist DC jury.
That doesn't equate to being innocent
Trump was acquitted by a biased RW Senate jury. You and yours cheered.
Goose, gander.
So you are pulling the Trump maneuver. If you lose, claim it was stolen and you would have won if they'd counted only the legal juror's votes.
That was said about another case???????? Yeah OJ.
DC judge and jury looked at the evidence and made their decision.
Republican Senate refused to allow any of the evidence the House submitted, and made their decision without viewing it.
Yes, Trump was impeached and a bipartisan majority of the Senate voted to remove him.
I say the Senate and you pull up loads of other shit.
Democrats were aware of the evidence from the House proceeding, republicans refused to acknowledge that evidence.
" Impeachment in the United States is the process by which a legislature's lower house brings charges against a civil federal officer , the vice president , or the president for misconduct alleged to have been committed."
" Federally, a two-thirds majority of the senators present at the trial is required for conviction under Article One, Section 3, Clause 6 of the Constitution ."
" Donald Trump , the 45th president of the United States , was impeached for the second time on January 13, 2021, one week before his term expired."
" Ten Republican representatives voted for the second impeachment, the most pro-impeachment votes ever from a president's party."
" This was also the first presidential impeachment in which all majority caucus members voted unanimously for impeachment."
"At the trial, 57 senators voted "guilty" , which was less than the two-thirds majority needed (67) to convict Trump, and 43 senators voted "not guilty", resulting in Trump being acquitted of the charges on February 13, 2021"
So yes, some of us learned in school that it's the congress that can impeach a President and learned that the word "impeachment" does not mean removal from office which only happens when they are "convicted" by a two thirds majority in the Senate.
Donald Trump was impeached twice, that's a fact. And the second time he was impeached there was a majority of Senators including Republicans who voted for conviction. The constitution sets a very high bar for actual removal, but that doesn't mean he wasn't guilty of the crimes he was accused, it simply meant that 43 Republicans Senators chose to play politics and pander to Trumps base by refusing to convict him.
Now that is a straight up lie on your part. You even quoted me in your 5 page long response .
Your links were not Senate related, which you know, which is why you are suddenly trying to deny I said Senate.
Yes, the Impeachment Managers did present evidence both old from the House Impeachment and new video evidence in the Senate Trial.
I don't think Hillary will go to prison, just because, well, she's Hillary....no matter if she is ever found guilty in a court of law for something.
However, this trial did open a whole new can of worms when it was brought out that Hillary herself gave the OK to release what was known as false information to the press and FBI.
This information will be used in later trials, in front of far less biased juries.
Link to that FBI thingy please.
BTW, I'm SHOCKED, SHOCKED I tell you that candidates release false information to the media about opponents. /s
Look, Dulay..even the most uneducated of the liberal masses know, so yes....you know that Robby Mook told Durham that Hillary approved of false information being released to the press and then was funneled to the FBI.
Don't be obtuse with your comments. They are being...well...overly obtuse.
BTFW, tell our dear readers, Dulay, when was the last time false opposition research was released to the press, funneled to the FBI, causing a massive 3 year investigation into a president that the FBI KNEW a short time after the release of the information (dossier and alpha bank info) was false, but was told to proceed with the investigation anyway. This investigation led to an impeachment that should have never happened, but the rabid loons on the left demanded it. so the dumbfucks in the democratic congress obliged.
Thankfully, those dumbfucks will be paying a political price this November.
This
So what part of our posts are made up? Be specific and show your work when you try and debunk that which can't be debunked.
That requires work and honesty. You know that's not what they do.
Well, that was on hell of a movement of the goal post bugsy. You ORIGINALLY claimed:
Now it's:
What a load of utter bullshit bugsy.
The whole fucking point of opposition research is to release the results to the press. It isn't 'funneled to the FBI'. Even the fucking FBI interacts with and reads the media. It's not a fucking 'conspiracy' it's something that's practiced EVERY election.
More bullshit. Mueller's investigation lasted less than 2 years. Try citing a fact bugsy.
Prove it bugsy.
Prove that too.
That's a fucking delusional comment bugsy. Do you seriously not know that the Mueller investigation had NOTHING to do with Trump's impeachment? Are you really THAT uninformed?
You may want to review the concept of correlation vs. causation.
Oh and BTFW bugsy, I note that you FAILED to post a link to your claim about the FBI. Instead you post a lot of unsubstantiated and/or false blather. Typical.
Maybe you can help bugsy refute my reply to his post. He's gonna need it.
I have no doubt they won't answer those questions. If they are actually honest the answers will destroy everything the have been told.
I just saw this morning here on NT that they now believe John Durham's Flop Is Only The Latest Of Many Trump Russia Coverup Failures
Looks like he's telling YOU to provide your proof. Is that what you are having problems doing?
What he did was post a false scenario which neither he nor you can support.
I had no problem refuting [debunking] his comment and I note that YOU failed to help him out with a link to his support his claim about the FBI.
I used simple math, facts and logic. Y'all should give them a try.
Sorry, Dulay, but my post stands as posted. Just because YOU don't like it is not my problem. Maybe you should read the link to Time, in which I provided, but obviously you did not read, answers all of your spin you are trying to put in to defend your goddess Hillary.
Bit of friendly advice. Stop parsing words you cannot backup yourself. Mook provided what he knew was false information, and leaked it to the FBI. There is no other logical scenario. Your imagination does not count.
No. You actually dodged is question. He ask:
And you did everything but answer his question.
They usually cut and run. I guess the Big Giant Head hasn't transmitted their responses.
There is at least one that will troll you for a few days.
Really Jeremy? Let's review, here's my comment:
So WHAT are you claiming bugsy is telling me to provide proof of? Please be specific Jeremy.
He didn't ask ME that question, DID he Jeremy?
Your comment is just MORE kneejerk bullshit.