Former Hillary Clinton lawyer Michael Sussmann, charged with lying to the FBI, acquitted

[onthedarkside]

 

WASHINGTON – A federal jury acquitted a cybersecurity lawyer Tuesday in the first trial of special counsel John Durham’s investigation into what sparked the FBI investigation of Russian interference in the 2016 election.

 

The verdict provided the first outside evaluation of Durham’s three-year investigation. Durham has charged three men with lying to or for the FBI, with one having pleaded guilty and one awaiting trial.

 

Michael Sussmann was charged with lying to the FBI about whether he represented Hillary Clinton’s Democratic presidential campaign when he reported concerns about communications between Russia-based Alfa Bank and the Trump Organization.

 

(more)

 

https://news.yahoo.com/former-hillary-clinton-lawyer-michael-162557137.html

 

 

[Bluespunk]

25 minutes ago, onthedarkside said:

The verdict provided the first outside evaluation of Durham’s three-year

witch hunt…

 

Sarcasm alert. 

[ozimoron]

Donald Trump pitched a tantrum after the acquittal of Democratic lawyer Michael Sussman.

 

https://www.rawstory.com/donald-trump-john-durham/

[candide]

4 hours ago, Bluespunk said:

witch hunt…

 

Sarcasm alert. 

So basically, Durham's investigation found peanuts.  Three years of investigation and more than $3.8 million of taxpayer money wasted just to satisfy Trump's capricio! What a shame! 

https://www.politico.com/news/2021/12/22/durham-probe-cost-38-million-525985

 

There should be an investigation into the origins of the Durham probe! ????

[SunnyinBangrak]

3 hours ago, ozimoron said:

Donald Trump pitched a tantrum after the acquittal of Democratic lawyer Michael Sussman.

 

https://www.rawstory.com/donald-trump-john-durham/

Not surprised. He was falsely accused of a major crime for years. The coverage was both 24/7 and hysterical in nature. My question to those that falsely berated Trump for being Putin's poodle/asset is when did you know it was all lies, that Trump did NOT collude with Putin to advantage himself in the 2016 election? We know the WSJ now admit they were "not surprised" to learn Hillary was the origin of the false claims which leaves me stunned due to the narrative being pushed by the MSM.

 

"The Russia-Trump collusion narrative of 2016 and beyond was a dirty trick for the ages, and now we know it came from the top—candidate Hillary Rodham Clinton. That was the testimony Friday by 2016 Clinton campaign manager Robby Mook in federal court, and while this news is HARDLY A SURPRISE, it’s still bracing to find her fingerprints on the political weapon."

https://www.wsj.com/articles/hillary-clinton-did-it-robby-mook-michael-sussmann-donald-trump-russia-collusion-alfa-bank-11653084709

 

sorry to use this WSJ article again, but it looks like the only media outlet that admits that while they called people who were correct about this "conspiracy theorists" that they knew otherwise all along. When did the prominent AN posters realize this?

[SunnyinBangrak]

In court testimony we learned that Clinton's team gave the fake evidence of Trump's collusion with Alfa bank/Russia/Putin to a media outlet that would not check the veracity of the claims before publishing due to the media outlet being pure propaganda for the democrat party. This is Slate. So Slate rushes to publish a complete lie to benefit the Clinton campaign. This is the very essence of disinformation.

 

 I am wondering why mediabiasfactcheck did not list this famous instance of disinformation with nefarious intent on the Slate ratings page? In fact they rate this propaganda outlet as having a HIGH

factual rating and completely ignore the worst disinformation story I can remember.

 

 

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/slate/

 

[placeholder]

1 hour ago, SunnyinBangrak said:

Not surprised. He was falsely accused of a major crime for years. The coverage was both 24/7 and hysterical in nature. My question to those that falsely berated Trump for being Putin's poodle/asset is when did you know it was all lies, that Trump did NOT collude with Putin to advantage himself in the 2016 election? We know the WSJ now admit they were "not surprised" to learn Hillary was the origin of the false claims which leaves me stunned due to the narrative being pushed by the MSM.

 

"The Russia-Trump collusion narrative of 2016 and beyond was a dirty trick for the ages, and now we know it came from the top—candidate Hillary Rodham Clinton. That was the testimony Friday by 2016 Clinton campaign manager Robby Mook in federal court, and while this news is HARDLY A SURPRISE, it’s still bracing to find her fingerprints on the political weapon."

https://www.wsj.com/articles/hillary-clinton-did-it-robby-mook-michael-sussmann-donald-trump-russia-collusion-alfa-bank-11653084709

 

sorry to use this WSJ article again, but it looks like the only media outlet that admits that while they called people who were correct about this "conspiracy theorists" that they knew otherwise all along. When did the prominent AN posters realize this?

Where was it proved that it was all lies about Trump - Russia collusion? The Senate Committee headed by Republicans found that there was plenty of evidence to suggest that the Trump campaign colluded with Russia.

 

As for the Mueller report:

AP FACT CHECK: Trump, Barr distort Mueller report findings

The Mueller report said the investigation did not find a criminal conspiracy between the Trump campaign and Russia, saying it had not collected sufficient evidence “to establish” or sustain criminal charges.

The report noted that some Trump campaign officials had declined to testify under the 5th Amendment or had provided false or incomplete testimony, making it difficult to get a complete picture of what happened during the 2016 campaign. The special counsel wrote that he “cannot rule out the possibility” that unavailable information could have cast a different light on the investigation’s findings.

https://apnews.com/article/north-america-donald-trump-lindsey-graham-politics-russia-f9c0ab20229140f18ea34e1f15a9f597

[LarrySR]

So the jury found it was a lie that Michael Sussmann lied to the FBI in the Trump-Russia probe. Acquitted. Big news.

The Fox News audience will be so disappointed.... if they ever hear about it...

 

 

[Rimmer]

An unattributed claim/post has been removed

[candide]

2 hours ago, mikeymike100 said:

DC Jury Pool

Three Hilary Donors

One AOC Donor

Obama appointed judge

 

No big surprise really!!

With Trumpers, It's always the same story. When you don't like an outcome, it must be rigged! Rigged elections, rigged jury, biased media, etc....

It's time to grow up, guys!

[Jingthing]

3 minutes ago, candide said:

With Trumpers, It's always the same story. When you don't like an outcome, it must be rigged! Rigged elections, rigged jury, biased media, etc....

Very predictable and pathetic. They're a cult.

[ozimoron]

2 minutes ago, candide said:

With Trumpers, It's always the same story. When you don't like an outcome, it must be rigged! Rigged elections, rigged jury, biased media, etc....

and yet they are the ones trying hardest to rig the election by gerrymandering and restricting the vote by means they know target people least likely to vote for them. Furthermore, the most indictments for election fraud recently have been against republicans. And dirty tricks like running a candidate with the same name as a dem but extolling left wing policies just to draw the vote away from the real candidate while knowing the person can't win. Hypocrites.

[Jingthing]

12 hours ago, ozimoron said:

Donald Trump pitched a tantrum after the acquittal of Democratic lawyer Michael Sussman.

 

https://www.rawstory.com/donald-trump-john-durham/

That's how he rolls.

Hopefully to prison.

[LarrySR]

2 minutes ago, Jingthing said:

Very predictable and pathetic. They're a cult.

A cult of snowflakes, crybabies & sore losers.

[candide]

8 hours ago, SunnyinBangrak said:

Not surprised. He was falsely accused of a major crime for years. The coverage was both 24/7 and hysterical in nature. My question to those that falsely berated Trump for being Putin's poodle/asset is when did you know it was all lies, that Trump did NOT collude with Putin to advantage himself in the 2016 election? We know the WSJ now admit they were "not surprised" to learn Hillary was the origin of the false claims which leaves me stunned due to the narrative being pushed by the MSM.

 

"The Russia-Trump collusion narrative of 2016 and beyond was a dirty trick for the ages, and now we know it came from the top—candidate Hillary Rodham Clinton. That was the testimony Friday by 2016 Clinton campaign manager Robby Mook in federal court, and while this news is HARDLY A SURPRISE, it’s still bracing to find her fingerprints on the political weapon."

https://www.wsj.com/articles/hillary-clinton-did-it-robby-mook-michael-sussmann-donald-trump-russia-collusion-alfa-bank-11653084709

 

sorry to use this WSJ article again, but it looks like the only media outlet that admits that while they called people who were correct about this "conspiracy theorists" that they knew otherwise all along. When did the prominent AN posters realize this?

You failed to notice that the FBI did not found the Alpha server data to be reliable and decided not to use it. You would also have noticed that the investigation into Russian interference started before Sussman went to meet the FBI. So Sussman was not at the origins of the Russia probe and was not included in it.

 

You also failed to notice that Mook declared under oath that no one directed or authorised Sussman to present his evidence to the FBI.

 

The Durham probe has been a waste of taxpayer money!

[SunnyinBangrak]

14 minutes ago, candide said:

With Trumpers, It's always the same story. When you don't like an outcome, it must be rigged! Rigged elections, rigged jury, biased media, etc....

Can you blame conservatives for not trusting the system? The jury was stacked with Clinton donors, one was a donor for AOC, one has a daughter in the same sport's team as one of Sussman's kids, and on and on and on. No credibility in this jury, and to be fair they didn't even pretend to be a fair jury.

 

" 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. 

https://thehill.com/opinion/judiciary/3492664-tale-of-two-trials-how-sussmann-is-receiving-every-consideration-denied-to-flynn/

 

"The problem for Durham is the jury and the judge. He's facing a jury that has three Clinton donors, an AOC donor and a woman whose daughter is on the same sports team as Sussmann's daughter. With the exception of randomly selecting people out of the DNC headquarters, you could not come up with a worse jury."

https://www.foxnews.com/media/sussmann-trial-jury-clinton-aoc-donor-sussmann-turley

 

So now you got Sussman acquitted, but his sworn testimony about the origins of the Trump Russia collusion hoax is pure gold. We all now know where the whole thing came from. And thank goodness nobody is calling those that called this right for years "conspiracy theorists" This is the best outcome we could have hoped for in a deeply corrupt system. I am happy with the way this played out (considering it was not a fair trial as per the above). I wonder if Trump ever comes to trial for something and the jury is stacked with Trump donors and Q'anon believers if they would find that fair?)

[mikeymike100]

26 minutes ago, candide said:

With Trumpers, It's always the same story. When you don't like an outcome, it must be rigged! Rigged elections, rigged jury, biased media, etc....

Not saying it was rigged, just stating facts!

[ozimoron]

4 minutes ago, mikeymike100 said:

Not saying it was rigged, just stating facts!

without substantiating them as facts.

[candide]

30 minutes ago, SunnyinBangrak said:

So now you got Sussman acquitted, but his sworn testimony about the origins of the Trump Russia collusion hoax is pure gold. We all now know where the whole thing came from. And thank goodness nobody is calling those that called this right for years "conspiracy theorists" This is the best outcome we could have hoped for in a deeply corrupt system. I am happy with the way this played out (considering it was not a fair trial as per the above). I wonder if Trump ever comes to trial for something and the jury is stacked with Trump donors and Q'anon believers if they would find that fair?)

No, not at all. It has been confirmed during the trial that Sussman's claim was not at the origins of the Russia investigation, and was not considered to be reliable enough to be taken into account. Mook also testified that no one directed or authorised Sussman to present his evidence to the FBI.

[metisdead]

Off topic posts with unsubstantiated "facts" have been removed.

[SunnyinBangrak]

23 minutes ago, candide said:

No, not at all. It has been confirmed during the trial that Sussman's claim was not at the origins of the Russia investigation, and was not considered to be reliable enough to be taken into account. Mook also testified that no one directed or authorised Sussman to present his evidence to the FBI.

Half correct. The Trump Russia collusion investigation opened a couple of months before this episode, but also involved Mrs Clinton.

 

"But on July 28, 2016, then-CIA Director John Brennan briefed then-President Obama purported proposal from one of Hillary Clinton's campaign foreign policy advisers "to vilify Donald Trump by stirring up a scandal claiming interference by the Russian security service."

 

""They are investigating an alleged Russian connection with Trump, and just weeks before the investigation began, the President and the Vice President, the FBI leadership and Strzok had been put on notice by the CIA of the fact that Hillary was going to implement a false flag operation that specifically focused on Trump and Russia," 

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/despite-acquittal-durham-trial-of-sussmann-added-to-evidence-clinton-campaign-plotted-to-tie-trump-to-russia

[Gottfrid]

Easy to understand that he got acquitted. Simple, because everyone lies to the FBI, and they have nothing to compare with. ????

[Jingthing]

Big Fail!

Add it to the pile.

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2022/05/31/sussmann-durham-hillary-fbi/

 

 

A clever effort to try to de-Putinize Trump

 

Well, that was a quick acquittal! The Michael Sussmann prosecution brought by Trump administration special counsel John Durham tried to generate a Clinton-conspiracy bang but ended with a not-guilty-verdict whimper.

 

 

[Berkshire]

1 hour ago, candide said:

With Trumpers, It's always the same story. When you don't like an outcome, it must be rigged! Rigged elections, rigged jury, biased media, etc....

It's time to grow up, guys!

So much losing.  Aren't Trumpers tired of all the losing??   555555555555

[candide]

17 minutes ago, SunnyinBangrak said:

Half correct. The Trump Russia collusion investigation opened a couple of months before this episode, but also involved Mrs Clinton.

 

"But on July 28, 2016, then-CIA Director John Brennan briefed then-President Obama purported proposal from one of Hillary Clinton's campaign foreign policy advisers "to vilify Donald Trump by stirring up a scandal claiming interference by the Russian security service."

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/despite-acquittal-durham-trial-of-sussmann-added-to-evidence-clinton-campaign-plotted-to-tie-trump-to-russia

Yet the article also confirms that the Alfa server allegations have not been taken into account. Of course, Faux news argues that, because it has not been mentioned and used in the investigation, It's because they wanted to hide the fact that it was at the origins of the investigation, Typicall Fox News tactics.

 

Anyway, there's a long and expensive investigation into the origins of the Russia probe, so if there is something to be found, I guess it will find it

 

[LarrySR]

59 minutes ago, SunnyinBangrak said:

Half correct. The Trump Russia collusion investigation opened a couple of months before this episode, but also involved Mrs Clinton.

 

"But on July 28, 2016, then-CIA Director John Brennan briefed then-President Obama purported proposal from one of Hillary Clinton's campaign foreign policy advisers "to vilify Donald Trump by stirring up a scandal claiming interference by the Russian security service."

 

""They are investigating an alleged Russian connection with Trump, and just weeks before the investigation began, the President and the Vice President, the FBI leadership and Strzok had been put on notice by the CIA of the fact that Hillary was going to implement a false flag operation that specifically focused on Trump and Russia," 

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/despite-acquittal-durham-trial-of-sussmann-added-to-evidence-clinton-campaign-plotted-to-tie-trump-to-russia

Seriously? You’re posting a link to a Fox story? lol 

[placeholder]

1 hour ago, SunnyinBangrak said:

So now you got Sussman acquitted, but his sworn testimony about the origins of the Trump Russia collusion hoax is pure gold. We all now know where the whole thing came from. And thank goodness nobody is calling those that called this right for years "conspiracy theorists"

Nonsense. What the continuing failure of the Durham investigation shows was the validity of the finding by Inspector General Horowitz that the FBI investigation had sound predicates for investigating the Trump campaigns connections to Russia.

As you clearly don't recall, and maybe never knew, Barr had been insinuating that the FBI had participated in a conspiracy to bring down Trump. It was a ridiculous idea since the FBI had actually kept the investigation secret until after the election. When Horowitx completed his investigation that there was no such conspiracy not just Barr, but Durham also posted public notices that they disagreed with the findings. This kind of behavior was unprecedented and clearly unethical. That said, here we are about 3 years later and guess what, Durham's case against Sussman was not that the FBI conspired against Trump, but rather that it was duped by Michael Sussman. Just the opposite of what he was contending.

And what you don't seem to understand is that for the charges to stick, there would have to be 2 assertions that needed to be proved:

1) That Sussman lied

2) That the lie was material to the conduct of the investigation.

So even if Sussman lied, that wouldn't be enough. And the jury would be asked to believe that the FBI would not factor Sussman's employment into account when he shared evidence with them.. That would be a remarkable example of naivete. 

And by the way, the only conviction that Durham has gotten so far was based on evidence that came from the Horowitz investigation. And the offense for which that DOJ lawyer, Clinesmith was convicted, is a very minor one.

 

Does anyone besides me remember how right wingers were claiming that scores of high ranking government officials were going to be tried and convicted for conspiring to illegally undermine the Trump administration? So far the score is one lawyer at the bottom of the food chain. It is to laugh.

[candide]

1 hour ago, LarrySR said:

Seriously? You’re posting a link to a Fox story? lol 

I love this Trumper's statement highlighted in the Fox News article:

"I just think it is really disappointing that the FBI had rejected these stories—whether it is Alfa Bank and the secret server with the Trump Organization, or the dossier that the FBI reviewed and rejected as legitimate...."

So basically, they are disappointed that the FBI did its job properly by rejecting questionable information, so that they are now unable to criticize the FBI about it! Priceless! ????

[Slip]

5 hours ago, placeholder said:

Nonsense. What the continuing failure of the Durham investigation shows was the validity of the finding by Inspector General Horowitz that the FBI investigation had sound predicates for investigating the Trump campaigns connections to Russia.

As you clearly don't recall, and maybe never knew, Barr had been insinuating that the FBI had participated in a conspiracy to bring down Trump. It was a ridiculous idea since the FBI had actually kept the investigation secret until after the election. When Horowitx completed his investigation that there was no such conspiracy not just Barr, but Durham also posted public notices that they disagreed with the findings. This kind of behavior was unprecedented and clearly unethical. That said, here we are about 3 years later and guess what, Durham's case against Sussman was not that the FBI conspired against Trump, but rather that it was duped by Michael Sussman. Just the opposite of what he was contending.

And what you don't seem to understand is that for the charges to stick, there would have to be 2 assertions that needed to be proved:

1) That Sussman lied

2) That the lie was material to the conduct of the investigation.

So even if Sussman lied, that wouldn't be enough. And the jury would be asked to believe that the FBI would not factor Sussman's employment into account when he shared evidence with them.. That would be a remarkable example of naivete. 

And by the way, the only conviction that Durham has gotten so far was based on evidence that came from the Horowitz investigation. And the offense for which that DOJ lawyer, Clinesmith was convicted, is a very minor one.

 

Does anyone besides me remember how right wingers were claiming that scores of high ranking government officials were going to be tried and convicted for conspiring to illegally undermine the Trump administration? So far the score is one lawyer at the bottom of the food chain. It is to laugh.

Thank you.  The alt-right on here can be exhausting and irritating, but as long as we pull together to show the lies they tell, we can maintain an environment where the truth is key.  

[ozimoron]

Trump pardoned a long list of cronies with ties to the Russia scandal (Paul Manafort, Roger Stone, Michael Flynn, George Papadopoulos). And every Republican is pretty much required to say it’s no big deal if a hostile foreign power helps a presidential candidate get elected, provided that candidate is a Republican," they wrote. "But the long-held dream of Trump and his allies to erase the enormous significance and depravity of the Russiagate scandal stands as decidedly unfulfilled.

 

https://www.rawstory.com/special-counsel-john-durham/?traffic_source=Connatix