[W:#290]Michael Sussmann found not guilty of lying to FBI in Durham investigation

[Plasmaball]

Not sure why you are dancing.
the jury found that he went to the fbi as an agent of the clinton campaign.

I don't give a **** what he did.

The best part about this whole thing is the fact that it came out that manafort had even more dealings with the Russians that amounted to there being a Ukraine deal. Which pretty much would be what we have today just with trump undermining Ukraine for the sake of putin..

But yeah sure Sussman "lying" is clearly the problem here.

 

[Plasmaball]

Bad jury selections that should have been removed, but that's the breaks. Durham may appeal or he may not, but at any rate the former Clinton campaign manager testified in court that Hillary gave the ok for putting together the false report and sending it to the FBI. Seems like that's pretty bad. The not guilty of Sussman seems like they jury didn't pay attention.

Mmmm smells like some made up salt here.

 

[Plasmaball]

It's pretty clear that Sussman worked to prepare fake information and then pass it on to the FBI. Seems something there isn't right.

Try a little harder with this...

 

[ApersonLIKEallOFyou]

that is not his excuse-- he is saying he told the truth that he was going to them as an agent of the clinton campaign.

Isn’t it more that he didn’t tell them that, they assumed it was a good citizen coming in, but they also knew his connections?

 

[upsideguy]

I'm not going to relitigate these ****ing impeachments, but it was stated that the case against Sussman was pretty clear.

No, it wasn't. Trump was impeached for abuse of power in using his office to attempt to get political favors. He was also impeached for his role in the January 6th insurrection/riot. This had nothing to do with Sussman. The FBI investigation of Trump was over the number and range of contacts his campaign had with Russian officials. That investigation led to the Mueller probe. This too had nothing to do with Sussman.

Sussman is one of the most irrelevant people in Washington. He had nothing to do with anything of consequence. This whole trial was whether he lied to the FBI, the standard of proof of which not only dealt with whether he lied, but whether the lies were material. It has been found that at least one of the elements can not be proven.

At this writing there are 1175 posts on one of the most irrelevant events of our lifetime. If Sussman did or did not, it is not a matter of consequence to anything. The only thing this was is an outward expression of the depth of Durham's investigation, which is shown to have been a big nothing. He has nothing, and even if he did, the statue of limitations has expired. The Durham investigation, at this point, is just wasteful government spending.

People are way too invested in such a moot matter. It just does not matter, any of this. Move on. Get a life people!

 

[Mustachio]

Yawn. No surprise. I'd be willing to bet the deed to my house on the verdict being decided this way.

This is a good time to take note of your recurring, conspiratorial and factually unfounded views. You opined that there was a huge, federal coverup working to protect Hillary Clinton. yet the ultimate arbiters of our judicial system - the American public - heard the facts and said "nah."

It's no surprise that the left is treating this as a nothing burger. We both know that the Russian collusion story was a losing hand they played yet are unwilling to let go of. Had they done so the latest developments probably wouldn't have surfaced.

I doubt those at the top will be held accountable. Why? Because Hillary is already positioning herself for 2024 and the MSM won't allow this story to harm her chances. She's still the Queen.

So the left wasn't held accountable because "they" (who is "they" by the way? Sussman I guess?) were put on trial (despite you declaring a massive conspiracy) and found not guilty (despite your declaration of guilty) and Hillary isn't position herself for 2024 (that was a bad prediction) and the mainstream media STILL covers it. Every word was wrong. Amazing.

 

[post]

Bad jury selections that should have been removed, but that's the breaks. Durham may appeal or he may not, but at any rate the former Clinton campaign manager testified in court that Hillary gave the ok for putting together the false report and sending it to the FBI. Seems like that's pretty bad. The not guilty of Sussman seems like they jury didn't pay attention.

Who would Durham "appeal" to, aside from Fox News talking heads? Please quote the testimony! (LOL !)

the former Clinton campaign manager testified in court that Hillary gave the ok for putting together the false report and sending it to the FBI.

 

[Athanasius68]

I don't give a **** what he did.

The best part about this whole thing is the fact that it came out that manafort had even more dealings with the Russians that amounted to there being a Ukraine deal. Which pretty much would be what we have today just with trump undermining Ukraine for the sake of putin..

But yeah sure Sussman "lying" is clearly the problem here.

Who cares what Manafort did or did not do? He is only interesting in the context of Trump.

A few years ago, Mueller said he could not "establish" that a Trump/Russia conspiracy existed. Nothing has been found since then that would alter that conclusion.

That allegation dominated American politics, impacted governance domestically and internationally.

But in the past few years, we have found that the FBI lied to courts and to its own agents in order to justify investigating such an allegation. We have learned that the leadership of the Obama DOJ and intelligence services saw no evidence of such a conspiracy. We have also found that making such an allegation was Clinton campaign strategy.

 

[snakestretcher]

What a lousy excuse . Please cite how you know about the jury.

It's always the same with those on the right; things don't go their way so there must be some nefarious goings-on to accuse others of.

 

[Athanasius68]

The FBI investigation of Trump was over the number and range of contacts his campaign had with Russian officials. That investigation led to the Mueller probe. This too had nothing to do with Sussman.

Its not against the law to meet with Russian officials.
What Trump was investigated for was CONSPIRING with those Russian officials in Russia's efforts tomtarget the 2016 election.

Sussman is one of the most irrelevant people in Washington. He had nothing to do with anything of consequence. This whole trial was whether he lied to the FBI, the standard of proof of which not only dealt with whether he lied, but whether the lies were material. It has been found that at least one of the elements can not be proven.

What we learned in the trial supported Mueller's conclusion there was no Trump/Russia conspiracy.

It also showed that the FBI was wiling to lie in order to justify an investigation into such a conspiracy. This continues something we saw earlier with respect to the FISA warrant on Mr. Page

It also shows that the Clinton campaign was pushing a conspiracy narrative in order to be ale to say there was such an investigation.

On a side note, it should be pointed out that Sussman recommended (and the advice taken) that the DNC not turn over the original files files and servers to the FBI investigating the famous hack of the system. So there was some consequence there.

At this writing there are 1175 posts on one of the most irrelevant events of our lifetime. If Sussman did or did not, it is not a matter of consequence to anything. The only thing this was is an outward expression of the depth of Durham's investigation, which is shown to have been a big nothing. He has nothing, and even if he did, the statue of limitations has expired. The Durham investigation, at this point, is just wasteful government spending.

People are way too invested in such a moot matter. It just does not matter, any of this. Move on. Get a life people!

Well, either he lied to the FBI about being a political partisan.
Or he did not lie to the FBI about being a political partisan.
The court said the latter.

 

[post]

Jesus ! They're "all in on it"! God help Trump and the cultists he, Fox News, Barr, and Durham have grifted.

FBI's Russian Hack-and-Leak Investigation as Disclosed by the Sussmann Trial - emptywheel

Michael Sussmann's involvement with the FBI in 2016 looks very different when viewed from his perspective as the key point of contact between the FBI and several entities victimized by Russia.

www.emptywheel.net

June 1, 2022
(In the comments, below the post linked above)

Charlie Savage says:
June 1, 2022 at 8:27 pm
Interestingly this post by Marcy popped up on my Google alert for items mentioning my byline, even though this was just in the comments. Anyway, this just published: https://www.nytimes.com/2022/06/01/us/politics/john-durham-michael-sussmann.html

Link to archived image of this article,
https://www.nytimes.com/2022/06/01/us/politics/john-durham-michael-sussmann.html
NEWS ANALYSIS

Sussmann Acquittal Raises Question: What Is Durham Actually Trying to Do?​

Supporters of the Trump-era prosecutor are lauding his work as a success in unearthing politically charged information, even though his first case to go to trial ended in failure.
By Charlie Savage

June 1, 2022
"...Still, that Mr. Durham’s cheerleaders have embraced this explanation for Mr. Durham’s actions is striking. Stephen Gillers, a New York University professor of legal ethics, said the case was “incredibly weak” and he doubted a prosecutor pursuing normal law enforcement goals would have brought it.

A spokesman for Mr. Durham did not respond to a request for comment. But in a pretrial filing in the Sussmann case in April, the Durham team denied any suggestion it was “a political actor when, in fact, nothing could be further from the truth.”

When Attorney General William P. Barr assigned Mr. Durham in May 2019 to investigate the Russia investigation, he did not have a reputation for pursuing iffy cases or for using law enforcement power to publicize politically fraught information....
...Mr. Durham seemed to begin by searching for signs of political bias among F.B.I. officials Mr. Horowitz had already scrutinized and by hunting for wrongdoing among intelligence agencies outside Mr. Horowitz’s jurisdiction. No charges resulted. .."

 

[Athanasius68]

Jesus ! They're "all in on it"! God help Trump and the cultists he, Fox News, Barr, and Durham have grifted.

FBI's Russian Hack-and-Leak Investigation as Disclosed by the Sussmann Trial - emptywheel

Michael Sussmann's involvement with the FBI in 2016 looks very different when viewed from his perspective as the key point of contact between the FBI and several entities victimized by Russia.

www.emptywheel.net

June 1, 2022
(In the comments, below the post linked above)

Charlie Savage says:
June 1, 2022 at 8:27 pm
Interestingly this post by Marcy popped up on my Google alert for items mentioning my byline, even though this was just in the comments. Anyway, this just published: https://www.nytimes.com/2022/06/01/us/politics/john-durham-michael-sussmann.html

Link to archived image of this article,
https://www.nytimes.com/2022/06/01/us/politics/john-durham-michael-sussmann.html
NEWS ANALYSIS

Sussmann Acquittal Raises Question: What Is Durham Actually Trying to Do?​

Supporters of the Trump-era prosecutor are lauding his work as a success in unearthing politically charged information, even though his first case to go to trial ended in failure.
By Charlie Savage

June 1, 2022
"...Still, that Mr. Durham’s cheerleaders have embraced this explanation for Mr. Durham’s actions is striking. Stephen Gillers, a New York University professor of legal ethics, said the case was “incredibly weak” and he doubted a prosecutor pursuing normal law enforcement goals would have brought it.

A spokesman for Mr. Durham did not respond to a request for comment. But in a pretrial filing in the Sussmann case in April, the Durham team denied any suggestion it was “a political actor when, in fact, nothing could be further from the truth.”

When Attorney General William P. Barr assigned Mr. Durham in May 2019 to investigate the Russia investigation, he did not have a reputation for pursuing iffy cases or for using law enforcement power to publicize politically fraught information....
...Mr. Durham seemed to begin by searching for signs of political bias among F.B.I. officials Mr. Horowitz had already scrutinized and by hunting for wrongdoing among intelligence agencies outside Mr. Horowitz’s jurisdiction. No charges resulted. .."

Look-- the last few years has been dominated by a claim that President Trump was basically an agent of Russia,
The largest investigation into this (Mueller) could not establish it was true.
Nothing since then has been revealed that would change that conclusion.

But we are learning that the FBI lied to pursue this investigation.
And that the Clinton campaign tried to push this theory onto the the FBI for campaign strategy.

Durham is doing this because his assignment is find out why the FBI thought there was a conspiracy. The charges against Sussman fit into completing that goal.

 

[post]

Who cares what Manafort did or did not do? He is only interesting in the context of Trump.

A few years ago, Mueller said he could not "establish" that a Trump/Russia conspiracy existed. Nothing has been found since then that would alter that conclusion.

That allegation dominated American politics, impacted governance domestically and internationally.

But in the past few years, we have found that the FBI lied to courts and to its own agents in order to justify investigating such an allegation. We have learned that the leadership of the Obama DOJ and intelligence services saw no evidence of such a conspiracy. We have also found that making such an allegation was Clinton campaign strategy.

You ignore the facts, a predictable component of your posts.

Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

"...
The Special Counsel's report, made public in April 2019, examined numerous contacts between the Trump campaign and Russian officials but concluded that, though the Trump campaign welcomed the Russian activities and expected to benefit from them, there was insufficient evidence to bring any conspiracy or coordination charges against Trump or his associates.

The Republican-led Senate Intelligence Committee submitted the first in their five-volume 1,313-page report in July 2019 in which they concluded that the January 2017 intelligence community assessment alleging Russian interference was "coherent and well-constructed". The first volume also concluded that the assessment was "proper", learning from analysts that there was "no politically motivated pressure to reach specific conclusions". The final and fifth volume, which was the result of three years of investigations, was released in August 2020,[6] ending one of the United States "highest-profile congressional inquiries."[7][8] The Committee report found that the Russian government had engaged in an "extensive campaign" to sabotage the election in favor of Trump, which included assistance from some of Trump's own advisers.[7]

In November 2020, newly released passages from Special Counsel Robert Mueller's report indicated that "Although WikiLeaks published emails stolen from the DNC in July and October 2016 and Stone—a close associate to Donald Trump—appeared to know in advance the materials were coming, investigators ‘did not have sufficient evidence’ to prove active participation in the hacks or knowledge that the electronic thefts were continuing."[9].."


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roger_Stone#Trial_and_conviction
"..former Trump campaign deputy chairman Rick Gates testified that Stone told campaign associates in April 2016 of WikiLeaks' plans to release documents, far earlier than previously known. Gates also testified that Trump had spoken with Stone about the forthcoming releases. After a week-long trial and two days of deliberations, the jury convicted Stone on all counts – obstruction, making false statements, and witness tampering – on November 15, 2019. After the trial, one of the jurors emphasized that the jury did not convict Stone based on his political beliefs. On November 25, a decision denying a defense motion for acquittal was released. The judge wrote that the testimony of Steven Bannon and Rick Gates was sufficient to conclude that Stone lied to Congress.

Sentencing​

Intervention by Trump and Justice Department officials .."​

Continued

 

[post]

Continued from last post,

Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

"...Around midnight, Trump characterized the sentencing recommendation as "horrible and very unfair situation" in tweeted, "Cannot allow this miscarriage of justice!" The next morning a senior Justice Department official said the department would recommend a lighter sentence, adding that the decision had been made before Trump commented. That afternoon the Department of Justice filed a revised sentencing memorandum, saying the initial recommendation could be "considered excessive and unwarranted under the circumstances." All four of the Assistant U.S. Attorneys who were prosecuting the case – ..Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer sent a letter to the Department of Justice Inspector General requesting a probe into the reduced sentencing recommendation, over fears of potential improper political interference in the process. Trump later said he had not asked the Justice Department to recommend a lighter sentence, but also asserted he had an "absolute right" to intervene. The next day he praised U.S. Attorney General William Barr for "taking charge" of the case and thanked Justice Department officials for recommending a lesser sentence than was proposed by the prosecutors who tried the case.

The politicization of Stone's sentencing by Trump and senior Trump administration officials at the Justice Department caused controversy and prompted allegations of political interference; the Justice Department's unusual decision to overrule the prosecutors on the case, as well as Stone's close association with Donald Trump, led to the affair being described as a crisis in the rule of law in the U.S. More than 2,000 former employees of the Department of Justice signed an open letter calling on Barr to resign, and the Federal Judges Association convened an emergency meeting on the matter....

On February 11, 2020 – the same day the four Stone prosecutors withdrew from the case after the Justice Department intervened in the sentencing recommendation – Trump withdrew the nomination of Jessie K. Liu, former U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia, to become an Under Secretary of the Treasury, two days before her scheduled confirmation hearing. As U.S. attorney, Liu had overseen some ancillary cases referred by the Mueller investigation including the Stone prosecution, as well as a politically charged case involving former FBI deputy director Andrew McCabe, until attorney general Barr replaced her with his close advisor Shea in January 2020. CNN reported the next day that Liu's nomination was withdrawn because she was perceived to be insufficiently involved in the Stone and McCabe cases.."

Mutually Assured Blackmail: Roger Stone Tries to Undercut Steve Bannon's Power - emptywheel

Roger Stone has accused Steve Bannon of blackmailing Trump to obtain a pardon. That's interesting, because Bannon witnessed Stone presenting the materials Stone himself may have used to blackmail Trump to get a pardon.

www.emptywheel.net

June 23, 2021
"..
Stone is absolutely right that Bannon perjured himself, though the record shows that he perjured himself before HPSCI, not the grand jury and Stone’s own trial. As I’ve noted, Bannon was basically reciting a White House script handed to him at that HPSCIi appearance. But over the course of multiple interviews with Mueller’s team, Bannon was slowly made to hew closer to the truth about Stone and other things, presumably because he was faced with more and more documents showing that his original story did not resemble the documentary record (HPSCI got none of these documents, which is how he was able to read directly from the White House script).

I’ll return to Stone’s war on the Mercers.

But given Stone’s claim that Bannon blackmailed Trump for a pardon, I want to look at a detail
from Bannon’s October 26, 2018 interview with Mueller’s team that goes to the core of Stone’s own successful effort to blackmail Trump for, first, a commutation, and then a pardon.."

 

[Athanasius68]

You ignore the facts, a predictable component of your posts.

Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

"...
The Special Counsel's report, made public in April 2019, examined numerous contacts between the Trump campaign and Russian officials but concluded that, though the Trump campaign welcomed the Russian activities and expected to benefit from them, there was insufficient evidence...

... And nothing has been learned since changes that conclusion.

Meanwhile we now know that Obama DOJ and intelligence leadership saw no evidence of a conspiracy, the FBI lied to justify investigating such an allegation and that the Clinton campaign pushed the allegation as a political tool

 

[Athanasius68]

"...Around midnight, Trump characterized the sentencing recommendation as "horrible and very unfair situation" in tweeted, "Cannot allow this miscarriage of justice!" The next morning a senior Justice Department official said the department would recommend a lighter sentence, adding that the decision had been made before Trump commented. That afternoon the Department of Justice filed a revised sentencing memorandum, saying the initial recommendation could be "considered excessive and unwarranted under the circumstances." All four of the Assistant U.S. Attorneys who were prosecuting the case – ..Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer sent a letter to the Department of Justice Inspector General requesting a probe into the reduced sentencing recommendation, over fears of potential improper political interference in the process. Trump later said he had not asked the Justice Department to recommend a lighter sentence, but also asserted he had an "absolute right" to intervene. The next day he praised U.S. Attorney General William Barr for "taking charge" of the case and thanked Justice Department officials for recommending a lesser sentence than was proposed by the prosecutors who tried the case.

The politicization of Stone's sentencing by Trump and senior Trump administration officials at the Justice Department caused controversy and prompted allegations of political interference; the Justice Department's unusual decision to overrule the prosecutors on the case, as well as Stone's close association with Donald Trump, led to the affair being described as a crisis in the rule of law in the U.S. More than 2,000 former employees of the Department of Justice signed an open letter calling on Barr to resign, and the Federal Judges Association convened an emergency meeting on the matter....

On February 11, 2020 – the same day the four Stone prosecutors withdrew from the case after the Justice Department intervened in the sentencing recommendation – Trump withdrew the nomination of Jessie K. Liu, former U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia, to become an Under Secretary of the Treasury, two days before her scheduled confirmation hearing. As U.S. attorney, Liu had overseen some ancillary cases referred by the Mueller investigation including the Stone prosecution, as well as a politically charged case involving former FBI deputy director Andrew McCabe, until attorney general Barr replaced her with his close advisor Shea in January 2020. CNN reported the next day that Liu's nomination was withdrawn because she was perceived to be insufficiently involved in the Stone and McCabe cases.."

The judge agreed with Barr that the recommendation from the lawyers involved in the prosecution was excessive.
In other words, the politicizing came from Mueller's attorneys prosecuting rather than the DOJ exercising leadership over its direct reports.

In any event, the Stone trial demonstrated there was no conspiracy, inasmuch as Stone lied about being asked by the campaign to find out about future wikileaks releases after the initial ones.

 

[Ouroboros]

I agree that it's quite possible that other jurors donated to Republicans, but the Washington Times only seemed interested in the jurors who donated to Clinton. Interesting, that. It's almost as if the Washington Times cherry picked in order to create a narrative that the not guilty verdict was due to the left wing jurists on the panel.

Yes, that's certainly possible, which is why we need CNN or someone similar to do their usual hard-hitting investigation in order to set things straight.

 

[Cardinal]

Yes, that's certainly possible, which is why we need CNN or someone similar to do their usual hard-hitting investigation in order to set things straight.

Why didn't the good folks at the Washington Times and the Washington Examiner do their jobs?

 

[Ouroboros]

Not only you ignored the words of the text (Sullivan's ruling). You actually substituted them with your own words to support your claims regarding what Sullivan supposedly said after the pardon. You have no interest in the facts, thus any conversation with you about justice is pointless.

No, the quote was all by itself. I'm not obligated to refrain from commenting, much as you might prefer it. By itself, Sullivan's statement that Flynn was possibly guilty of treason shows him a moron. What, we're supposed to believe that the incoming WH staff can't communicate with Russia until the outgoing staff is completely gone? News flash: no matter what policy Obama had, or how he justified it, once Trump came in, then Trump's policy toward Russia would be America's policy. No "treason," no matter how Mad Libs try to spin things.

 

[Ouroboros]

Why didn't the good folks at the Washington Times and the Washington Examiner do their jobs?

We don't know that they didn't until it's proven that they were guided by partisanship.

 

[Cardinal]

We don't know that they didn't until it's proven that they were guided by partisanship.

They were guided by partisanship. They're heavily right wing rags and they only told you the three jurors who donated to Democratic causes so that you could tell yourself that the jury was biased. Nary a word about the other nine jurors.

It's almost as if they omitted the conservative jurists because then you wouldn't have your "biased jury" narrative. They lied by omission.

 

[Ouroboros]

This is post 17:

"According to Fox News:

"The jury included one federal government employee who told the judge they donated to Democrats in 2016 and another government employee who told the judge they 'strongly' dislike former President Trump. Both of those jurors told the judge they could be impartial throughout the trial."

Durham was part of that jury selection. I didn't hear anyone claiming that the jury was owned by the Clinton camp until the verdict was announced. Also, I know it's not always fashionable to bash a source, but last night Fox reported that gun violence is caused by marijuana.

At least one Fox pundit, Jesse Watters, claimed that he announced that the pool would be poisoned in advance of the verdict.

Fox also claimed that the CDC buried a report talking about how lives had been saved by people able to use guns defensively. That shouldn't be quite as easy to dismiss, but you can do so if you like.

 

[TheDoctorWasIn]

At least one Fox pundit, Jesse Watters, claimed that he announced that the pool would be poisoned in advance of the verdict.

He likely realized how weak Durham's case was, saw the writing on the wall, and came up with an excuse ahead of time.

Jesse Watters is not any sort of expert in criminal trials or jury selection. He's not an authority.

 

[Ouroboros]

No. Other than linking to a talking head spending a lot of time doing running commentary on the transcript he somehow got hold of.


But equally important I do have access to the 30 some page voir dire juror question document that sheds considerable light on the whole process as well as some very important and pertinent questions that all of the jurors survived.

In particular are some questions that obviously cleared the Jury Foreperson for duty as well as the other Jurors selected.



That is a good one to start with.



That is another really good one.

There are another 8 that really does the trick of getting to whether the jurors were good to be seated, but I haven't included them here because of the text limits in DP posts.

But you can read the full document here: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.dcd.235638/gov.uscourts.dcd.235638.134.0_5.pdf

So there is that.

Not seeing any way that these questions would prevent a partisan juror from saying one thing and doing another.

 

[Ouroboros]

He likely realized how weak Durham's case was, saw the writing on the wall, and came up with an excuse ahead of time.

Jesse Watters is not any sort of expert in criminal trials or jury selection. He's not an authority.

You asked if anyone had anticipated the outcome before it was announced, and I provided an example. Obviously you can put any complexion on it that you please, and so can anyone else.