The acquittal of Clinton campaign lawyer Michael Sussmann has been the subject of furious debate among politicians and pundits. Some have argued that the case collapsed from lack of evidence while others have alleged that prosecutors faced as biased judge and jury. For his part, Sussmann claimed that the jury found that “I told the truth.” The truth is more complex and few would assume that the verdict was based on Sussmann’s veracity. However, a statement from a juror immediately after the verdict fueled speculation of the impact of juror bias. According to the Washington Times’ Jeff Mordock, the juror reportedly said “I don’t think it should have been prosecuted. There are bigger things that affect the nation than a possible lie to the FBI.” If that statement had been made during voir dire, it is likely that the juror would have been challenged.
Before the verdict, some of us noted the adverse elements for the prosecution. Few would honestly question that trying a Clinton campaign lawyer in a city that voted over 90 percent for Clinton was not an advantage for the defense. The same is true for some cases tried in conservative areas. In this case, prosecutors challenged some jurors but were overruled by Judge Christopher Cooper. I believe that the court was wrong on a couple of those rulings. In the end, the prosecution was faced with a jury that contained three Clinton donors, an AOC donor, and a woman whose daughter played on the same team as Sussmann’s daughter. As I previously said, that does not mean that the jurors could not be impartial.
The prosecutors were also hit with a series of adverse rulings by the judge that limited the scope of evidence and examinations. That denied the prosecution the ability to show how the campaign knowingly pushed unsupported claims.
Nevertheless, I noted at the outset that “this is not an easy case to prove.” There was overwhelming evidence, in my view, that Sussmann lied to conceal his work with the Clinton campaign. Yet, the defense did a good job in attacking elements like materiality in how the allegedly false statement impacted the FBI.
The juror statement is not something that is likely to be raised with the court. The juror could have still rendered an unbiased decision despite viewing the prosecution as much to do about nothing. If such a statement were made during voir dire, it would have been viewed as more serious as a preexisting view that could impact the impartiality of the juror.
In the end, there is no proof of actual juror nullification. While the evidence of lying seems overwhelming to some of us, there were interstitial questions on how the lying impacted the investigation. Yet, I believe that the court undermined the prosecution in a number of its rulings. Moreover, there is a legitimate concern over how this trial was handled as opposed to the trial of figures like Michael Flynn in the same courthouse.
The more important issue following this verdict is whether Special Counsel John Durham will be allowed to release a public report on his overall findings. Democrats previously demanded such a report from Special Counsel Robert Mueller. Some even demanded the release without redactions, including grand jury material. In the end, a report was released with a comparably small number of redactions. The same should be true with Durham. This trial resulted in the release of new information, but it is clear that Durham was strictly limited in what he could reveal at trial. The public has a legitimate interest in a full account of these findings, as it did after the Mueller investigation.
The FBI editing press releases from the Clinton campaign. Propping up the narrative about the hacking that they never investigated.
Copy of the court documents at the link
Documents released during Michael Sussmann’s federal trial show the FBI solicited advice from Hillary Clinton’s lawyer on a press release describing the intelligence agency’s awareness of the Democratic National Committee hack in 2016.
The original press release sent over to Sussmann by Jim Trainor, the assistant director of the FBI’s Cyber Division, noted that the FBI was aware of “a possible cyber intrusion involving the DCCC,” or the Democratic National Campaign Committee, via “recent media reporting.”“Michael – our press office is once again getting a ton of calls on the DCCC matter. A draft response is provided below. Wanted to get your thoughts on this prior to sending out,” Trainor wrote.
In his reply, Sussmann asked the FBI to change the first line of the press release to reflect the DNC’s messaging on the hack. He explained that he preferred a more definitive statement that made clear “the FBI is aware of the cyber intrusion involving the DCCC that has been reported in the media.”
https://thefederalist.com/2022/05/31/trial-docs-sussmann-edited-fbi-press-release-about-dnc-hack-because-it-undermined-the-dncs-narrative/
“but it is clear that Durham was strictly limited in what he could reveal at trial.”
And the reason the Judge did this is because he did all he could, to get that piece of far left wing nut 🌰 Dingle Berry off!!! The judge, and the jury was as biased against Durham as all get-out!!!!
I think the real question is – has ever in the history of the country a lawyer been prosecuted for meeting with the FBI without revealing who his client is? I do not think this has ever happened before. I mean, it should not make a difference – the FBI should investigate whatever information they have based on the evidence and not the people bringing it forward. The information seems to have been brought in good faith.
People are told “if you see something, say something.” But here he saw something, said something, and was prosecuted for it.
“The information seems to have been brought in good faith.”
Are you kidding me?
Translation “There are things more important than my obligations as a juror and your so-called jury instructions. I answer to a Higher Power – Herbert Marcuse”..
Mueller Got Tangible Results
But Durham Has Little To Show
Mueller’s final report detailed “numerous links between the Russian government and the Trump Campaign.” He obtained indictments in 2018 of 13 Russian individuals and three companies operating a troll farm in the United States to help the Trump campaign and then the indictments of the 12 Russian military intelligence officers who had directed the effort. He obtained six convictions of Trump officials who had connections to the Russians. The bipartisan Senate Select Committee on Intelligence found that “the Russian government engaged in an aggressive, multifaceted effort to influence, or attempt to influence, the outcome of the 2016 presidential election” to favor Trump.
The myopia of the Durham prosecutors was never more dramatic than when they argued that Sussmann’s actions in contacting the FBI were part of a Democratic effort to create an “October surprise” to torpedo the Trump campaign.
There was, of course, a truly dramatic and lethal surprise that October, but it came at the expense of the Democratic candidate and, many polling experts think, tipped the election to Trump: On Oct. 28, 2016, then-FBI Director James B. Comey announced he was reopening the Clinton emails investigation — at a time when the bureau had studiously kept secret its own three-month-old investigation of the Trump campaign’s dealing with the Russians.
Edited From:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2022/05/31/sussmann-durham-hillary-fbi/
He obtained indictments in 2018 of 13 Russian individuals and three companies operating a troll farm in the United States to help the Trump campaign and then the indictments of the 12 Russian military intelligence officers who had directed the effort.
Indictments that Muller knew he would never have to defend in court. >>>>>until one did show up to challenge the charges. Mueller promptly filed for and extension. The Judge had to explain to Mueller, the filing of an indictment, signals the Prosecution is ready for trial. Mueller was forced to wave all charges.
None of the people charged by Mueller had any connection to the Russia hoax. Something Mueller knew in the first hour of showing up, and asked for the evidence….and months of FBI investigations produced zero facts.
The bipartisan Senate Select Committee on Intelligence found that “the Russian government engaged in an aggressive, multifaceted effort to influence, or attempt to influence, the outcome of the 2016 presidential election” to favor Trump.
Conclusion with no evidence. The very most was $100K in facebook ads. That would $100k in an election that saw almost $2 billion in advertising. Those ads were designed to sow create kaos and confusion on both sides.
Meanwhile, The Clinton campaign was sending their press releases to the FBI for editing and approval.
Heard a prosecutor say that getting an indictment is not an indication of guilt. That any half decent prosecutor can get a grand jury to indict a ham sandwich. So what if Trumpers were indicted. In Washington they had indictments filled out before they got to town. Durham just proved it was ALL a pack of orchestrated lies and that Democrats in Washington don’t care about truth but only that there guys win. That is what is wrong with Washington and politics. It should matter to both sides when the laws are skirted, ignored or broken and when we the people are played for fools by either side.
Hillary Clinton Pus
Depp-Herd
Jury Perceives and Certifies Clear and Manifest Facts
___________________________________________
Sussmann
Judge and Jury Reject, Nullify and Void Clear and Manifest Facts
What is a man. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nqG_YE1x1sI
There were several ways in which the Jury could have concluded that Durham did not prove his case beyond a reasonable doubt:
1. Sussman may in fact not have been acting for a client at the meeting. This is seemingly belied by the billing records, though there is no specific reference to the meeting in the 3.3 hours billed. It is also belied by Sussman’s testimony before Congress in December 2017, though I don’t know if this was allowed into evidence. Still, the jury might have remained not fully convinced that he was acting for the campaign at the meeting.
2. Sussman may not have said to Durham at the meeting that he was there on his own and not on behalf of any client. Since he said that in the text the night before he might not have repeated it at the meeting. Since Durham could not amend the indictment because of the statute of limitations, he had to prove that Sussman made the statement at the meeting. The only evidence for that is Baker’s testimony. The notes of others Baker spoke to are unclear as to whether Sussman said that at the meeting — they could merely have reflected what Baker told them based on Sussman’s text message.
3. Even if Sussman lied it was immaterial. The FBI could have known he was lying (he was known to be a lawyer for the DNC). Whether they knew or not might be irrelevant in any event because they investigated and quickly determined there was nothing to the allegations. They most likely would have investigated anyway, even if Sussman had told them he was a lawyer for the campaign, since the allegations were serious, and Sussman was thought to be a responsible former DOJ official. So the jury may not have been fully convinced that the lie could have made much difference.
Durham’s case was helpful in that it revealed the origins of the Alfa/Trump hoax. It was flawed in that it positioned the FBI as a duped victim rather than as a co-conspirator.
The senior leadership of the FBI was eager to investigate Trump. Crossfire Hurricane was already underway, the Steele dossier had reached them, and a FISA warrant making use of it was being finalised. So they jumped on this too. This all despite an official communication from the CIA to Comey and Strzock that the Clinton campaign was seeking to link Trump to Russia to distract from her own problems.
In this case, the FBI lied about the source of the information, saying to its investigators and in the EC opening the case that it was forwarded by the DOJ, not Sussman. And it refused to allow the investigators to interview Sussman and his sources when it appeared the allegations were rubbish. And they made no effort to get to the bottom of this once they knew the allegations were unsound, and in fact so untenable as to be suspicious.
I agree with Turley that an unredacted report by Durham is critical. While we likely will learn more from the Danchenko case, there is a lot that remains obscure, including the roles of Mifsud and Downer. Early on Durham questioned the IG’s conclusion about the proper predication of Crossfire Hurricane, and we are owed an explanation of what precisely he meant.
Daniel:
Oh please. Life (and juries) are a lot more simple than that. You bring the lawyer for the Dims on a process crime before.a panel of Dims and you expect anything more than a shrug? People decide emotionally and justify rationally. Every lawyer knows this. Apparently, every lawyer but Durham. I think he’s a legend in his own mind. Tough prosecutor? He’s a caricature with the Snuffy Smith mustache and furrowed brow in his glamour shots. Typical bureaucrat – win easy battles, build a reputation and then fail miserably and predictably when skill is needed.
I agree that Durham’s reputation may be inflated. He investigated the enhanced interrogation allegations and found no one to indict. I may be wrong, but has he indicted any government official other than Clinesmith since the Whitey Bulger cases? And Clinesmith was handed to him by the IG.
I am not arguing that the Jury had to acquit. I am saying that there were several ways they could have concluded Durham failed to prove his case beyond a reasonable doubt. Of the 12 jurors, four have been identified as Clinton or AOC donors and one with a personal connection to Sussman (their daughters play on the same sports team). That leaves seven without a publicised bias. I understand the jury was unanimous.
Regardless of the verdicts, what Durham has shown in this case and the Danchenko indictment is that operatives acting for the Clinton campaign helped to invent the collusion narrative and seed it with the FBI and the media. The FBI and DOJ then used the false information they were provided to investigate Trump, and to continue to do so regardless of all exculpatory evidence and despite explicit CIA warnings of a Clinton plot.
What is unfortunate is that, aside from Clinesmith, Durham has not been able to hold a single government official accountable. Instead he has positioned them as victims of a Clinton scheme. Unless he writes a detailed report explaining how the actions of Comey, McCabe, Strzock, Page, Baker, Priestap, Pientka, etc, and Mueller and his team, led to a three year investigation into a false narrative about Trump, and no investigation into the sources of that false narrative, and why he did not charge them, he will have failed.
The American Founders would like to say a few words on the subject.
Gentlemen.
Go ahead, Gentlemen.
Ahem!
_____
Article 2, Section 4
The President, Vice President and all civil officers of the United States, shall be removed from office on impeachment for, and conviction of, treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors.
___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
6th Amendment
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed; which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defence.
_____________________________________
_____________________________________
The judge must be impeached and convicted for his deliberate failure to conduct a trial by an impartial jury (the jury was partial to Sussmann), his deliberate failure to conduct a trial in an impartial venue (the venue was partial to Sussmann), and for excluding incriminating evidence.
The accused shall not enjoy a trial by a partial jury; the accused shall enjoy a trial by an impartial jury.
Juries may not provide partiality, and nullify and corrupt the law with impunity.
There are statutes against driving a car poorly (i.e. corruptly); there must be statutes against effecting a verdict politically, corruptly, illicitly and illegally.
Statutes must provide penalties for jury corruption and corruption by the jury of the process of fair and impartial adjudication.
The verdict of the jury must be juxtaposed with the law and the facts.
In the Sussmann case, the law against making false statements to the FBI was manifestly violated.
Sussmann made a patently false and perjurious statement, aka a lie to the FBI.
A guilty party, Sussmann, was erroneously and egregiously exonerated by acts of political and juridical corruption committed by the jury.
The law is juridical, distinctly not political.
The jury usurped the power of the people through their elected representatives which exists in the law.
Penalties for jury corruption must be severe and sufficient to deter.
In addition from “Federalist 8 “ Alexander Hamilton
“This is an idea not superficial nor futile, but solid and weighty. It deserves the most serious and mature consideration of every prudent and honest man of whatever party. If such men will make a firm and solemn pause, and meditate dispassionately on its vast importance; if they will contemplate it in all its attitudes, and trace it to all its consequences, they will not hesitate to part with trivial objections to a constitution, the rejection of which would in all probability put a final period to the Union. The airy phantoms that now flit before the distempered imaginations of some of its adversaries, would then quickly give place to the more substantial prospects of dangers, real, certain, and extremely formidable.”
Thank you. You understand.
The Civil War must have never happened per the right to secession in the U.S. Constitution, and anti-Constitutional communism should have never been introduced to America by Abraham Lincoln, a president with NO mandate, having been elected by a mere 38.9%.
Abraham Lincoln had no authority to deny fully constitutional secession, to commence and conduct a wholly unconstitutional Civil War, to conduct a vicious “Reign of Terror,” including the suspension of habeas corpus, the destruction of the freedom of the press and the denial of the freedom of speech, as many of Lincoln’s opponents were summarily thrown in prison, to fail to enforce immigration law and compassionately repatriate freed slaves per the Naturalization Act of 1802, which was in full force and effect in 1863, and to forcibly impose Karl Marx’s “Reconstruction Amendments,” understanding that it is nearly impossible to ratify one constitutional amendment, much less three, in an extremely short period of time.
Indeed, Lincoln received a letter of congratulation and commendation from Karl Marx for his efforts toward “…the RECONSTRUCTION of a social world…” which engendered the “RECONSTRUCTION Amendments, which were rammed through by Lincoln’s successors with a gun to America’s head and under the duress of brutal, post-war military occupation and oppression, which, you would agree, is not a constitutionally prescribed part of the amendment process.
https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/iwma/documents/1864/lincoln-letter.htm
Everything Lincoln and his successors did was illicit, illegal, illegitimate and unconstitutional in the 1860s and it all remains illicit, illegal, illegitimate and unconstitutional today.
Just like Vietnam, the Civil War was grotesquely counterfactual and invalid; it must have never happened.
As the Supreme Court reversed itself in the Roe v Wade decision by the Supreme Court, the Supreme Court must reverse the erroneous, egregious disaster and debacle that was Abraham Lincoln in its entirety.
Jonathan: We have pretty much exhausted the Sussman verdict so let’s move to other important news. While we focused on the Sussman trial Elon Musk has continued his bizarre tweets. He just said it is “morally wrong and dumb” to use the word “billionaire” as a pejorative because billionaires make products that “make millions of people happy”. He also thinks a recession would be a “good thing” because it could affect “unproductive work-from-home employees”. Musk apparently thinks these workers should be the first to go in a recession. I have a neighbor who has worked at home for 2 years because of Covid. He says he is actually more productive because he doesn’t have a 2 hour commute back and forth to work. Other studies confirm this. My neighbor doesn’t take kindly to Musk’s demeaning tweet. But Musk has other things to say about work-at-home “unproductive” workers–even his workers at Tesla. In a tweet yesterday Musk responded to an email from his Tesla executive staff: “Anyone who wishes to do remote work for a minimum (and I mean *minimum*) of 40 hours per week or depart Tesla”. In “Musk” speak he means Tesla workers are free to work-at-home after doing 40 hours in the office. And we thought “Scrooge” was bad!
You would think Trump has better things to do besides tweeting ad nauseum. He is having a lot of problems finalizing his deal to buy Twitter. Twitter investors are suing him for market “manipulation”. Tesla investors are also suing because the value of their stock has tanked. The FTC is investigating whether Musk violated a law that requires companies and individuals to report large transactions to antitrust enforcement agencies. With all these problems it is no wonder Musk has become unhinged. Do you still think Musk would be good for Twitter?
Freudian slip in the last paragraph?
Another day and yet another “two minutes of hate” from our resident blowhard. Except, as you point out, he slipped a cog and mixed up Trump and Musk.
It is quite telling to observe how quickly the left was able to turn their lemming followers against Musk once he left the plantation.
That’s right, nothing to see here folks, just move along.
…..guess what, dude… this isn’t your forum to lead… if you want to continue spinning your negative biased political fantasies.. go start your own blog….
Montesquieu vol. 1
“…Their laws not being made for one individual more than another, each considers himself as a monarch; and, indeed, the men of this nation are rather confederates than fellow-subjects.
As the climate has given many persons a restless spirit and extended views, in a country where the constitution gives every man a share in its government and political interests, conversation generally turns upon politics: and we see men spend their lives in the calculation of events, which, considering the nature of things and the caprices of fortune, or, rather, of men, can scarcely be thought subject to the rules of calculation.
In a free nation, it is very often a matter of indifference whether individuals reason well or ill; it is sufficient that they do reason: from hence springs that liberty which is a security from the effects of these reasonings.
But, in a despotic government, it is equally pernicious whether they reason well or ill; their reasoning is alone sufficient to shock the principle of that government…”
“…Free nations are haughty; others may more properly be called vain…”
“…In monarchies extremely absolute, historians betray the truth, because they are not at liberty to speak it; in states remarkably free, they betray the truth, because of their liberty itself, which always produces divisions, every one becoming as great a slave to the prejudices of his faction as he could be in a despotic state.”
Inside the Mind of the Typical DC Juror Candidate: “Two wrongs may not necessarily make a right, but when I judge one wrong to be less important than another wrong, the wrong that I consider to be the lesser of the two can become right by comparison.”
Add Sussman to the expanding list of persons who should consider wearing Kevlar for the foreseeable future.
So a violent rightwing extremist would want to kill him for being acquitted?
Arkancide
If the Russians just want to loot some washing machines, this war in Ukraine sure is a roundabout way of going about it.
The District of Columbia – Washington, D.C. – is a one-party city-state – the Forbidden City of Democrat Party officialdom, bureaucrats and apparatchiks who administer the Greater Nation as one might expect from a foreign occupying power. It is a multi-generational redoubt for Democrat wonks, think-tanks and – above all things – lobbyists greasing the skids of American corruption.
Show me on the doll where DCA hurt you.
“Hunter’s search history reveals his obsession with porn and sex fantasies including ’18yrs old,’ ‘lonely widow’ and ‘MILF crack cocaine porn,’ he uploaded his OWN amateur videos and texted Pornhub link to phone listed in his contacts as ‘Dad’
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10846603/Hunter-Bidens-search-history-reveals-obsession-porn.html
The left says its no big deal to lie to the FBI. Unless you’re Gen. Flynn
By now it must be clear even to Turley that it just doesn’t matter any more. The courts and law enforcement are corrupt far beyond redemption in our life time.
Jonathan: They are piling on you. The website “Above the Law” has a headline: “Michael Sussmann Not Guilty as Trumpland’s Great Stupid Hope Falls Predictably Flat”. Above the Law cites your Fox opinion piece (2/16/22) in which you alleged the “media has largely buried or downplayed the alarming disclosures by Durham on the origins of the Russian conspiracy claim, Durham keeps adding new details implicating top Democratic figures in what he describes as an ongoing investigation. You can only hold your breath so long and Durham shows no signs that he is done by a long shot”. Well, that was then and we don’t have to hold our collective breaths any longer. Sussmann is innocent, he did not lie, and Durham’s and your case has collapsed under its own weight! Above the Law adds: “Speaking of competent legal commentators—Jonathan Turley is gonna be very confused at this outcome”.
You, Fox and Trump/Barr put too much faith in John Durham. He brought his charges that I don’t really think in his heart of hearts he believed had legs. The conspiracy wet dreams you hoped would put Hilary Clinton in an orange jumpsuit only exist in the imagination of the MAGA crowd. AG Garland should shut down Durham’s investigation. It’s been a huge waste of taxpayer money.
…just love the way some folks make up all this fluff that, in their microcosm, Prof. Turley allegedly stands for… missing the bigger points, especially that this is about The Court and The Legal System in this country…. and not about spinning Political bias tall tales…
Dennis McIntyre – Sussmann is Not Guilty not innocent. For these jurors, the state didn’t make its case.
Paul, Sadly Dennis is part of the group that cannot comprehend the difference if it satisfies his political narrative. McCarthy in the NY Post today said that Durham made the mistake of focusng on the Sussman lie duping the FBI when in fact the FBI were willing accomplices ( as per the testimony that the 7th floor was excited about “investigating)
Bingo. The FBI was not duped. That is the biggest lie of all.
Paul:
For these jurors, convicting the Eiffel Tower of being in France would have been impossible. (You didn’t prove Paris was in France. naaah, naaah) Hell, the judge had his thumb on the scale – letting Clinton donors and the mother of a kid on the defendant’s rowing crew stay on the jury? Oh please, I’ve seen a juror removed for just working at the same location as a defendant in a huge corporate office.
No Sussman is not innocent. He was found “not guilty”.
In fact according to the Jury foreman he was not even found not guilty – they just found they did not think that leading the entire country down a rabbit hole for years was important.
Even Sussman did not argue that what he was selling the FBI has true, or even beleiveable, or even that he beleived it.
\He did not argue that he did not lie.
He argued that because the FBI eventually knew he was lying and may have known at the time, that the lie was not material.
Durham’s problem was that he argued that the FBI was duped, when it is clear the FBI was complicit.
Regardless a LIE that triggers an investigation that tears the country apart for years – is always material.
If I call the FBI and tell them Dennis McIntyre is a pedophile, that he has downloaded child porn over the internet
How long do you think I am going to remain a free person ?
After the FBI tears your life apart completely – They are going to prosecute me and convict me, and you are going to sue my ass off.
A LIE that results in an investigation is ALWAYS material.
In your hypothetical, you’re alleging that Dennis committed a crime.
Sussmann did not allege that anyone committed a crime.
Right Sussman did not allege a crime – and the FBI investigates parents choices of of colors for their childrens bedrooms.
Get a clue – absent an allegation of a crime the FBI can not investigate. That is pretty much straight out of the 4th amendment.
The FACT that the information that Sussman brought to the FBI resulted in an investigation prima fascia means that it alleges a crime.
Sussman;’s mere providing the information to the FBI constituted prima fascia evidence Sussman was alleging a crime.
We do not contact the FBI to report the weather.
“absent an allegation of a crime the FBI can not investigate”
That’s as false as your claim “x^2 + y^2 = 4 can be rewritten as y = SQRT(-2 + ln(4)/ln(x)) which can be turned into a function,” and just as you couldn’t bring yourself to admit that you were wrong about your attempted solution for y and whether it could be “turned into a function” (it cannot), you probably also won’t admit that you’re wrong about when the FBI can investigate. The FBI does not need an allegation of a crime to carry out a counterintelligence investigation.
Rather than offering YOUR spin – cite my actual post in which you think I have made this error.
You have a piss poor record for honesty and intelligence
Please read the constitution – particularlyt he 4th amendment and 2 centuries of 4th amendment law.
Plus the legal discussions that have gone on over this for the past 6 years,.
Plus the Mueller and the Horowitz Report.
Durham has quite ably pointed out that Horowitz was wrong – the FBI NEVER had the required predicates to conduct an investigation.
Regardless, even Horowitz makes it clear – Investigations of US person’s requires credible allegations of crimes.
Absent those – there will be no investigation.
The standard for credible is low, – opening an investigation requires an allegation of a crime. But various steps in an investigation – surveilance, gathering records, issuing warrants each require successively higher burdens of proof that a crime has been committed.
Sussman alleged a crime – had he not done so there would be no investigation PERIOD.
The fact that it is necescary to prove to your the OBVIOUS is the evidence that you are not credible and badly informed.
“ In fact according to the Jury foreman he was not even found not guilty – they just found they did not think that leading the entire country down a rabbit hole for years was important.”
No, the jury found Sussman not guilty of the charge of lying to the FBI.
Durham couldn’t charge Sussman with conspiracy like he wanted to because he didn’t have any evidence to substantiate the conspiracy theory of the DNS data being a hoax. There never was any evidence.
“ Durham’s problem was that he argued that the FBI was duped, when it is clear the FBI was complicit.”
No, what was evident at the trial is that Durham’s attempt to push a conspiracy theory collapsed due to a lack of evidence. The FBI wasn’t duped or was complicit. All Sussman did was relay information that he believed was important and wanted the FBI to check it out. It’s as simple as that. Durham and the right are making it much more than what it is because they have been duped themselves by latching on to a conspiracy theory that had no evidence to support it other than pure conjecture and wild assumptions. This is why Durham’s case was so weak from the start. Sussman was essentially giving a tip to the FBI.
Svelaz, Happy Day for you, as it is your big day!!! so happy for you!!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Whores'_Day
International Wh80res’ Day or International Sex Workers’ Day is observed annually on June 2 of each year, honours sex workers and recognises their often exploited working conditions. The event commemorates the occupation of Église Saint-Nizier in Lyon by more than a hundred sex workers on June 2, 1975 to draw attention to their inhumane working conditions.[1] It has been celebrated annually since 1976. In German, it is known as Hurentag (Wh80re’s Day). In Spanish-speaking countries, it is the Día Internacional de la Trabajadora Sexual, the International Day of the Sex Worker.
I beleive the foreman when she said the court wasted here time hearing an unimportant cause.
But you are correct, they checked the not guilty box. That means as a matter of Law Sussman is not guilty – in much the Same was as Bill Cosby is not guilty.
Durham could have charged Sussman with conspiracy – but hat is a double edged sword. It would have allowed him the ability to get more evidence in, but it would have clouded the issues on his primaryu case, and it would have impacted the testimony of witness who would be affraid of being prosecuted as conspirators.
I do not agree with several o Durham’s tactical choices, But I do not think they cost him the trial. Nor did Judge cooper – short of empannelling a jury that was never going to convict.
Despite the Problems with Copper – far more than enough evidence got in to convict.
They jury engaged in Jury nullification – which they have effectively admitted.
I actually support Jury nullification, and wish the courts would allow defense attorneys to openly argue for it.
The British actually allowed colonial lawyers to argue for Jury nullifaction prior to the revalution – yet we prohibit that today.
Regardless, the problem with the verdict is that much of the country sees it as lawless, as obvious left wing nut double standards.
That should not be surprising – read your own remarks. On every issue your view is openly based on who will benefit – not what does the law and constitution say.
This is a core flaw in the left’s means of interpreting law and constitution.
In a perfect would the verdict of juries and the rulings of judges would be the same everywhere.
Trying to acheive that is a REQUIREMENT of the rule of law.
It is self evidence from the differences between Muellers cases – with a hoax as the prosecutions foundations – and their outcomes, and the Durham cases and their outcomes, that actual justice is not possible with DC juries. Stone was actually convicted of something Mueller’s report said never happened. That is how bad DC juries are.
It is noteworthy that Mueller LOST his cases in New York – which is significantly left of the rest of the US but not a fraction as bad as DC.
Durham did not push a conspiracy theory
You live in bat$shit crazy world.
While it is evident to the majority of us there was an ACTUAL conspiracy – and DEFENSE witnesses repeatedly established that.
Durham’s strategy was not conspiracy.
I disagree with some of Durham’s choices – but he did not stand a chance – her had the evidence, Even with the limitations the judge placed on him – which MOSTLY I do not disagree with.
The primary error of the judge was allowing this jury to be impaneled. But we have not seen a proper jury in a political case in DC in 6 years.
You keep trying to spin this. There is no jeopardy free “relaying information” to the FBI.
The FBI is not there to gather random information., It is not there to gather interesting information.
It is there to investigate CRIMES. Contacting the FBI with “information” that you feel they might find interesting is ALLEGING A possible CRIME.
The FBI may not “check out” information that is not an allegation of a crime.
Though there was a difference because the relevant constitutional standards were met there, this discussion already took place with Faux Trump impeachment one.
Trump’s communications with Zelensky would be an abuse of power Absent reasonable suspicion that a crime was committed.
To open an investigation – the FBI has to have reasonable suspicion – not a relay of interesting information.
There is a reason that false reports is a crime everywhere. You do not want me calling up the FBI and telling them you have child porn on your computer.
That is essentially what Sussman did. He contacted the FBI and said I have evidence that Trump is communicating with the Russians.
He did not say I have have informaton that Trump will wear a blue tie to the inauguration.
Sussman “relayed” information that the FBI was constitutionally permitted to investigate – allegations of a potential crime.
The Alpha Bank data was not “interesting information” – it was a HOAX, a fraud, manufactured evidence of a potential crime.
The Steele Dossier was not”interesting information” – it was a HOAX, a fraud, manufactured evidence of a potential crime.
The Alpha bank data was human manipulated to get a speicifc outcome – according to both FBI and CIA analysts.
I would note that the FBI & CIA did not know where the data came from, But Sussman did. That is the whole POINT here. Sussman KNEW the data came from dubious sources – sources with an axe to ground, the Clinton campaign. And he hid that.
You can claim all you want that the FBI knew that – and maybe they did – and NORMALLY that would matter. Had Sussman been honest the FBI would have started by investigating the SOURCE.
And as a result the investigation would have died.
But Sussman LIED, and whether the FBI knew hoe was lying or not they went forward as if he was telling the truth.
Was there a conspiracy – Probably. But that need not be proven.
Sussman Lied and the FBI preceded as if he had not lied. That meets the materiality standard Fully. The FBI wa required to act differently had Sussman said the source was the clinton campaign.
Maybe the FBI knew, maybe it did not. Does not matter – because they preceded on the basis Sussman had not lied.
There is really no doubt there was a conspiracy.
Sussman’s defense witnesses actually established that.
Even the Defense argument that the FBI KNEW that Sussman was lying – and proceded anyway is actually proof of a conspiracy.
But Durham was not prosecuting a conspiracy in this case. It is YOU that is fixated on the conspiracy here.
You do not seem to grasp – you have an investigation that we now know was unconstitutional from the start.
One way or another that is a CRIME.
The only question is WHO committed the crime. You keep trying to duck that.
You want to pretend that An investigation that never met the constitutional requirements to start, and was therefore a crime,
magically happened without any person actually committing that crime.
The Alpha Bank Hoax and the Steele dossier were not only the start of the invesitgation, there were virtually the only evidence that ever existed of Russian collusion.
So we have two HOAXes, that resulted in a massive FBI investigation, a Special Counsel investigation, Several house and Senate investigations, massive investigations by the press.
All not just resting on but relying entirely on Hoaxes and frauds.
If you wish to pretend there is no conspiracy there – that is fine. then we are dealing with mass psychosis. Either way much of the country was LIED to, about something incredibly important that resulted in innumerable and massive investigations both by the press and myriads of portions of government.
Those who started this – should never be trusted again.
Those who sustained this – in the FBI, in the DOJ, through the government, through the press – should never be trusted again.
The NYT received a Pulitzer for its reporting – on a Hoax, that they never uncovered as a Hoax. They should never be trusted again.
Most of the media should never be trusted again.
Schiff, Swalwell, Warner, myriads of others – democrats and a few republicans should never be relected, and should never be trusted again.
This is much like the discovery in the 70’s that the FBI was investigating the civil rights movement.
It is worse than Nixon’s plumbers bugging the DNC
Clinton managed to use the DOJ and FBI to engage in a fraudulent investigtation of a sitting president, political rival and competing presidential candidate.
These people should never be trusted again.
As I said before – if you do not like calling it a conspiracy – OK – it is mass psychosis that primarily infected those on the left.
Everyone who bought into this – whether in power or not, has shown to have very bad judgement.