Sussmann, who worked for Clinton, acquitted of lying to FBI in 2016

[yankintx]

And of course weenie liberals who live in their Mom's basement playing video games completely ignore the Democrat judge allowing obviously partisan liberals to dominate the jury.

Cite up!!

 

[Athanasius68]

So you think Sussmann went to the FBI, whose policy is to NOT disclose active investigations, in order to gin up an investigation to score political points? That's an interesting theory...tell me, did it work? Did the FBI publicly announce they were investigating Trump/Russia connections, either with regards to Alfa Bank or even just connections in general, before the 2016 election?

But there was a leak and stories about such an investiagtion.
Which is why a week or so before the election, the clinton campaign called upon the fbi for such an investigation.

So...you're saying that if Sussman DID lie (which he has always maintained he did not), that lie would not have been material, since the FBI already knew his allegiances?

The most interesting stuff came from the defense.
The defense showed that FBI knew Sussman was a political operative, that they lied to their agents doing the actual investigation as to the source of the report, that the fbi quickly debunked the story, and that after being debunked the agents were ordered to continue to investigate.
Since false statement charges require the lie to be material, the defense was able to show the lie was not material.

And even if sussman did tell the truth about who he represented, nothing about the above changes.
which is the problem.

So conviction or acquittal, it wouldn't matter-- the alfa bank conspiracy story was campaign opposition research pushed onto the fbi, who was more than eager to run with it.

In other words...you're now agreeing the jury got the verdict correct? I'm glad to see you finally coming around.

as above-- conviction or acquittal doesn't change what happened.

 

[Slyfox696]

But there was a leak and stories about such an investiagtion.

Before the election? No, there wasn't. The first acknowledgement of an FBI investigation came after the election.

Since false statement charges require the lie to be material, the defense was able to show the lie was not material.

So, again...the jury reached the correct verdict, right?

And even if sussman did tell the truth about who he represented, nothing about the above changes.
which is the problem.

We have come to the point in the discussion where you clearly have absolutely no idea what you're talking about anymore. That's fun.

So conviction or acquittal, it wouldn't matter-- the alfa bank conspiracy story was campaign opposition research pushed onto the fbi, who was more than eager to run with it.

Again, this data SHOULD have been investigated, no matter who discovered it and who it affected. Trying to pretend it should not have been investigated is just stupid.

as above-- conviction or acquittal doesn't change what happened.

So, again...the jury got the verdict correct, right? Just go ahead and say it.

 

[Integrityrespec]

A federal jury found Michael Sussmann, a lawyer for Democrats including the Hillary Clinton presidential campaign, not guilty of lying to the FBI when he brought them allegations against Donald Trump during the 2016 presidential race. Tuesday’s verdict was a major setback for Special Counsel John Durham, who was appointed during the Trump administration and has spent three years probing whether the federal agents who investigated the 2016 Trump campaign committed wrongdoing. Sussmann was the first person charged by Durham to go to trial. Another person charged in the investigation is due to face a jury later this year.​

​

The Sussmann jury began deliberating Friday, weighing testimony of current and former FBI officials, former Clinton campaign advisers, and technology experts. In closing arguments, prosecutors told the jury that Sussmann thought he had "a license to lie” to the FBI at the height of the 2016 presidential campaign. Sussmann’s defense lawyers countered that the case against Sussmann was built on a “political conspiracy theory.” . . . ​

​

. . . Sussmann was charged with a single count of lying to the FBI when he delivered allegations of a secret communications channel between the Trump Organization and Alfa Bank, which is based in Russia. The jury was tasked with answering a fairly simple legal and factual question — whether Sussmann lied about his client and whether that lie was relevant to the FBI investigation.​

[cont.]​

https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/2022/05/31/sussmann-not-guilty-lying-fbi-hillary-clinton/

Womp-womp for an actual witch hunt, launched in tawdry revenge for perfectly legitimate investigations that unconvered that Trump invited, knowingly received, and did not disclose Russian interference in his 2016 election victory; relatedly, that he went to great lengths to obstruct those investigations (Garland be damned for not testing it before a jury in the name of institutional appearances).

If you've been following it, you know that Durham went beyond merely trying to prove charges against Sussman, rather trying to tarnish Hillary. At the end of the day, Durham was just doing what they always accuse everyone else of. Except he couldn't go after Hillary (and Trump's DOJ didn't even try to indict), so he was stuck weaving a bare-bones case around a thirty minute meeting between this shlub while trying to make it about Hillary and Democrats. They had one direct witness, a guy who waffled between saying Sussman was representing cybersecurity clients, saying later that he didn't remember the portion of the conversation where that supposedly came up, and indeed "In response to questions on the witness stand, he said he couldn’t remember 116 times, according to Berkowitz."
Thus concludes our latest production, Episode ∞: Trumpism Strikes Back. What'd look good on a poster advertisement?

View attachment 67393986


__________________
INB4: "The acquittal is proof that the conspiracy exists because if it didn't exist, nobody would have been able to hide the evidence from the jury and he would have been convicted" or somesuch; maybe just more threats of witch hunts as revenge for legitimate investigations.

And the Senate failed to convict Trump of the impeachment the democrats initiated..

 

[Integrityrespec]

But there was a leak and stories about such an investiagtion.
Which is why a week or so before the election, the clinton campaign called upon the fbi for such an investigation.



The most interesting stuff came from the defense.
The defense showed that FBI knew Sussman was a political operative, that they lied to their agents doing the actual investigation as to the source of the report, that the fbi quickly debunked the story, and that after being debunked the agents were ordered to continue to investigate.
Since false statement charges require the lie to be material, the defense was able to show the lie was not material.

And even if sussman did tell the truth about who he represented, nothing about the above changes.
which is the problem.

So conviction or acquittal, it wouldn't matter-- the alfa bank conspiracy story was campaign opposition research pushed onto the fbi, who was more than eager to run with it.




as above-- conviction or acquittal doesn't change what happened.

So you are saying the FBI is really culprit in this faked claim presented to them by Sussman andHillary's team?

 

[Integrityrespec]

Ok-- the man went to the fbi because he was a clinton partisan who hoped to gin up an investigation so he could make political points.




yes-- the fbi knew he was a clinton partisan.


yet again-- the allegation was that trump and/or his campaign conspired with Russian efforts.


yes-- it was nothing.

Investigating Donald Trump, F.B.I. Sees No Clear Link to Russia (Published 2016)

After lengthy investigations, officials also believe that a hacking of Democratic emails was aimed at disrupting the election rather than electing Mr. Trump.

www.nytimes.com

No the collusion charges were made up, the Alfa bank story was made up. If Trump had done this to Clinton he would have faced impeachment charges. Oh yea he did on more made up s--t.

 

[Integrityrespec]

Calling in opposition research is BS when it was made up and put together by the opposition. It ought to be called opposition Lies. The democrats colluded with one another and the FBI and DOJ to keep Trump out of office and then to remove him. Every one of them ought to be in jail. At some point it something similar happens to the democrats, I hope they just keep their mouth shut and figure it's monkey see monkey do.

 

[Athanasius68]

Before the election? No, there wasn't. The first acknowledgement of an FBI investigation came after the election.

Investigating Donald Trump, F.B.I. Sees No Clear Link to Russia (Published 2016)

After lengthy investigations, officials also believe that a hacking of Democratic emails was aimed at disrupting the election rather than electing Mr. Trump.

www.nytimes.com

So, again...the jury reached the correct verdict, right?

We have come to the point in the discussion where you clearly have absolutely no idea what you're talking about anymore. That's fun.

Again, this data SHOULD have been investigated, no matter who discovered it and who it affected. Trying to pretend it should not have been investigated is just stupid.

So, again...the jury got the verdict correct, right? Just go ahead and say it.

The defense showed the FBI knew Sussman was there as Clinton partisan; they lied to their investigating agents as to who provided the tip, and when nothing was found, ordered the investigation to continue.

Durham is investigating why the FBI thought Trump had conspired with Russia. What we learned in the trial is there was no conspiracy with Alfa Bank and that the FBI was bound and determined to investigate a conspiracy theory between Trump and Russia-- regardless as to the lack of evidence to support it.

Conviction or acquittal doesn't change the above.
And that is what this is all about.

 

[RAMOSS]

Investigating Donald Trump, F.B.I. Sees No Clear Link to Russia (Published 2016)

After lengthy investigations, officials also believe that a hacking of Democratic emails was aimed at disrupting the election rather than electing Mr. Trump.

www.nytimes.com

The defense showed the FBI knew Sussman was there as Clinton partisan; they lied to their investigating agents as to who provided the tip, and when nothing was found, ordered the investigation to continue.

Durham is investigating why the FBI thought Trump had conspired with Russia. What we learned in the trial is there was no conspiracy with Alfa Bank and that the FBI was bound and determined to investigate a conspiracy theory between Trump and Russia-- regardless as to the lack of evidence to support it.

Conviction or acquittal doesn't change the above.
And that is what this is all about.

Well, after 3 years, much more money than Mueller spent, he's come up with a total of 2 indictments. One of those two indictments just got acquitted. The other one is coming up this fall, but according to some folks, the case for that is even weaker than it was with Sussman. If Durham loses that case, it will demonstrate that Durham , unlike the Mueller investigation, actually engaging in witch hunts.

 

[MTAtech]

Well, after 3 years, much more money than Mueller spent, he's come up with a total of 2 indictments. One of those two indictments just got acquitted. The other one is coming up this fall, but according to some folks, the case for that is even weaker than it was with Sussman. If Durham loses that case, it will demonstrate that Durham , unlike the Mueller investigation, actually engaging in witch hunts.

I think Garland should just pull the plug on Durham. He’s a waste of taxpayer money and impugning the reputation of the DoJ.

 

[Slyfox696]

Investigating Donald Trump, F.B.I. Sees No Clear Link to Russia (Published 2016)

After lengthy investigations, officials also believe that a hacking of Democratic emails was aimed at disrupting the election rather than electing Mr. Trump.

www.nytimes.com

So, then, you agree there was no public acknowledgement of an investigation by the FBI before the election, as I said? Which means the "strategy" to go to the FBI to score political points doesn't make much sense? Do you agree with that, based on the article you just posted?

Also, a mea culpa from me, as I did not accurately read your comment about leaks...I interpreted that as you claiming official FBI acknowledgement (and I don't know why, your comment was not unclear on that point), so my apologies there.

But, in the larger scheme of things, you agree there was no FBI acknowledgement of an investigation (as they had done for Clinton) of Trump? And since that NY Times headline was clearly false, I think you agree it helped Trump, rather than hurt him, correct?

The defense showed the FBI knew Sussman was there as Clinton partisan;

So, again, the jury's verdict was correct, yes?

Durham is investigating why the FBI thought Trump had conspired with Russia.

No, he's not. We know for a fact why the FBI opened an investigation. To be honest, there's no telling what Durham is really doing, since his investigation has yet to do anything of real note. A single changed line in an email (which wasn't even a false statement), an acquittal on a dubious charge, and an indictment for a Russian national for something that happened in February 2017...that's all we've seen from Durham.

What we learned in the trial is there was no conspiracy with Alfa Bank

Again, that is not what we learned.

and that the FBI was bound and determined to investigate a conspiracy theory between Trump and Russia-- regardless as to the lack of evidence to support it.

Except we know for a fact there was collusion between Trump and Russia.

Conviction or acquittal doesn't change the above.
And that is what this is all about.

No, what it is about is that the jury saw through Durham's attempt at sleight of hand and saw what an absolutely abysmal case he brought in order to try and score political points. And that's why they acquitted Sussman in a relatively short amount of time.

Also, indictments are not supposed to be about creating a media narrative, they are supposed to be about whether a crime was committed. If you're claiming Durham's point was not to uphold the law, but rather score political points, then that says quite a bit about how seriously to take Durham's investigation, does it not?

 

[Athanasius68]

So, then, you agree there was no public acknowledgement of an investigation by the FBI before the election, as I said? Which means the "strategy" to go to the FBI to score political points doesn't make much sense? Do you agree with that, based on the article you just posted?

Whether it made sense or not doesn't really matter now does it?

Baker testified that a lot of times reporters are more interested in the fact there is an FBI investigation as opposed the facts of the investigation.
At the end of October, after the campaign leaked the story about Alfa Bank, Mrs. Clinton tweeted that she hoped the FBI was investigating.

But, in the larger scheme of things, you agree there was no FBI acknowledgement of an investigation (as they had done for Clinton) of Trump? And since that NY Times headline wa

clearly false, I think you agree it helped Trump, rather than hurt him, correct?

The article was correct and has stood the test of time.

The reason why the Clinton investigation was known was because the original allegation (that she was using a home brewed server to transmit official documents) was released in public. After that, it was a news story as to what was happening.

No such way with respect to Trump.

No, he's not. We know for a fact why the FBI opened an investigation. To be honest, there's no telling what Durham is really doing, since his investigation has yet to do anything of real note. A single changed line in an email (which wasn't even a false statement), an acquittal on a dubious charge, and an indictment for a Russian national for something that happened in February 2017...that's all we've seen from Durham.

What we are seeing is that the FBI was eager to take unsubstantiated political claims from the Clinton campaign and run with it.

 

[MTAtech]

Durham attempted to use the Sussmann trial to prove a version of the theory Trump claimed all along: that the Clinton campaign and the FBI had opened an investigation into Trump, knowing its evidence was fake, and then leaked the evidence of the investigation to the media in order to elect Hillary.

 

[LouC]

And of course weenie liberals who live in their Mom's basement playing video games completely ignore the Democrat judge allowing obviously partisan liberals to dominate the jury.

Awwwww!

Aren't you just the cutest little Right Wing conspiracist running around playing at knowing all about us "weenie Liberals" and so certain an evil "Democrat judge" let "partisan Liberals" go off and
dominate" the Sussmann jury!

Just so cute, I just want to squeeze your little puffed up Right Wing conspiracist cheeks!

You wittle conspiracist baby, cutie pie!

 

[Athanasius68]

Durham attempted to use the Sussmann trial to prove a version of the theory Trump claimed all along: that the Clinton campaign and the FBI had opened an investigation into Trump, knowing its evidence was fake, and then leaked the evidence of the investigation to the media in order to elect Hillary.

Technically Durham is investigating why the FBI thought there was a Trump/Russia conspiracy.
The facts that have come out during Durham investigation, and also other ones, suggest a certain plausability to the idea that the FBI was placed into the service of partisan politics.

 

[Slyfox696]

Whether it made sense or not doesn't really matter now does it?

Yes...because it determines if you're making things up that don't make sense or if it was a potential logical thought process.

Baker testified that a lot of times reporters are more interested in the fact there is an FBI investigation as opposed the facts of the investigation.
At the end of October, after the campaign leaked the story about Alfa Bank, Mrs. Clinton tweeted that she hoped the FBI was investigating.

Yeah...and?I'm sure you feel you made a point here...

The article was correct and has stood the test of time.

The article is clearly false. There were numerous links between the Trump campaign and Russia. Are you really still pushing this obvious lie?

The reason why the Clinton investigation was known was because the original allegation (that she was using a home brewed server to transmit official documents) was released in public. After that, it was a news story as to what was happening.

So..the FBI confirmed an investigation into Clinton but not Trump is what you're saying?

And as far as the "public" goes, give me a break. Has the FBI announced an investigation into Trump for taking classified material to Florida, in violation of the law?

To be clear, I'm not claiming favoritism, I'm saying your entire logic makes zero sense.

What we are seeing is that the FBI was eager to take unsubstantiated political claims from the Clinton campaign and run with it.

No, what we saw was the the FBI investigated suspicious data, as they should have, especially considering all the other ties between Trump and Russia the FBI already knew about.

Also, you keep ignoring my questions. Let's try them again.

1) The jury's verdict was correct, yes?
2) Also, indictments are not supposed to be about creating a media narrative, they are supposed to be about whether a crime was committed. If you're claiming Durham's point was not to uphold the law, but rather score political points, then that says quite a bit about how seriously to take Durham's investigation, does it not?

 

[Slyfox696]

Technically Durham is investigating why the FBI thought there was a Trump/Russia conspiracy.

Then Durham should be immediately fired, because we already know why the FBI was investigating links between Trump and Russia.

Of course, as has been seen numerous times in this thread, you are posting things which are not true.

The facts that have come out during Durham investigation, and also other ones, suggest a certain plausability to the idea that the FBI was placed into the service of partisan politics.

Only if you're a mindless partisan hack.

 

[Athanasius68]

Yes...because it determines if you're making things up that don't make sense or if it was a potential logical thought process.

Making sense from their perspectve.

Yeah...and?I'm sure you feel you made a point here...

The point being that if the FBI is investigating Trump, that is a story in and of itself.
The merits of the investigation is separate.

The article is clearly false. There were numerous links between the Trump campaign and Russia. Are you really still pushing this obvious lie?

The article is saying there is nothing to them.
That has what stood the test.

So..the FBI confirmed an investigation into Clinton but not Trump is what you're saying?

The FBI never confirmed an investigation into Clinton.
But it was known it was happening.

And as far as the "public" goes, give me a break. Has the FBI announced an investigation into Trump for taking classified material to Florida, in violation of the law?

No. They don;t do that. We know it was referred to the FBI.

No, what we saw was the the FBI investigated suspicious data, as they should have, especially considering all the other ties between Trump and Russia the FBI already knew about.

A lot of stuff we have heard about we now know is false.
And it was also known by the time of the inauguration.


So, for example we know:
1. The dossier was never verified and was supplied to Steele by a suspected Russian agent who also said Steele did not accurately convey what he was told.
2. Mifsud never told Papadapolous about emails; nor did Downer say anything to the FBI about emails
3. The DOJ and DHS leadership of the Obama Admin never saw evidence of a Trump/Russia conspiracy.
4. Trump was never told that Russia was targeting his campaign

There are probably others.

Also, you keep ignoring my questions. Let's try them again.

1) The jury's verdict was correct, yes?

I have no issue one way or the other with it.
Except to Sussman and his friends and family, it means nothing.

2) Also, indictments are not supposed to be about creating a media narrative, they are supposed to be about whether a crime was committed. If you're claiming Durham's point was not to uphold the law, but rather score political points, then that says quite a bit about how seriously to take Durham's investigation, does it not?

Well, the allegation was that Sussman lied. Its pretty clear he did.
Sussman was able to show the lie was not material. And how he showed it is what matters.

 

[Callen]

Technically Durham is investigating why the FBI thought there was a Trump/Russia conspiracy.
The facts that have come out during Durham investigation, and also other ones, suggest a certain plausability to the idea that the FBI was placed into the service of partisan politics.

No, he is not specifically why the FBI thought there was a Trump/Russia conspiracy. He was assigned by Barr to investigate the origins of the intelligence that led to the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 U.S. elections and more broadly the Trump campaign

 

[poweRob]

I believe that most juries take their duties seriously. sorry for you loss here, it obviously hurts.

With as much losing as trump nation has they should be used to it by now.

 

[Athanasius68]

No, he is not specifically why the FBI thought there was a Trump/Russia conspiracy. He was assigned by Barr to investigate the origins of the intelligence that led to the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 U.S. elections and more broadly the Trump campaign

Fine-- the origins of the intelligence they received indicating a conspiracy.
Same difference.

The Sussman trial indicates it came form the Clinton campaign.
We already know the dossier came from the clinton campaign, from a paid contractor via a suspected Russian agent.

 

[Callen]

Fine-- the origins of the intelligence they received indicating a conspiracy.
Same difference.

The Sussman trial indicates it came form the Clinton campaign.
We already know the dossier came from the clinton campaign, from a paid contractor via a suspected Russian agent.

No, the Sussman trial indicated some small piece of it may have cone from the Clinton campaign but my bet is that when we finally see the Durhame report much came from other intelligence sources both domestic and foreign.

 

[Athanasius68]

No, the Sussman trial indicated some small piece of it may have cone from the Clinton campaign but my bet is that when we finally see the Durhame report much came from other intelligence sources both domestic and foreign.

The FBI agents who did the actual investigation testified and said nothing about that.

 

[Callen]

The FBI agents who did the actual investigation testified and said nothing about that.

Why would he? Why would he even know anything outside of his piece of the pie,?

 

[SCrider]

The FBI agents who did the actual investigation testified and said nothing about that.

Why would they give up sources that might still be useful?