Michael Sussmann Is Acquitted in Case Brought by Trump-Era Prosecutor
Michael Sussmann, a prominent cybersecurity lawyer with ties to Democrats, was acquitted on Tuesday of a felony charge that he lied to the F.B.I. about having no client in 2016 when he shared a tip about possible connections between Donald J. Trump and Russia.
Yes, the photo above is of John Durham, the prosecutor TFG’s AG, Bill Barr, personally selected to find someone, anyone, to blame for Russia’s helping Trump win in 2016. The story is really about Durham and the fact that after all his efforts, he could only find one person to charge, and even then, he lost the case.
The verdict was a blow to the special counsel, John H. Durham, who was appointed by the Trump administration three years ago to scour the Trump-Russia investigation for any wrongdoing.
Mr. Durham expressed disappointment in the verdict but said he respected the decision by the jury, which deliberated for about six hours.
---------------------—
Here’s a bit more, from WaPo: Sussmann, who worked for Clinton, acquitted of lying to FBI in 2016
Jurors were 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. Prosecutors argued Sussmann’s lie was just one part of a larger scheme by Clinton loyalists to use the FBI and news reporters to launch a damaging, last-minute revelation against Trump that would tip the election to Clinton.
However, the defense made a counter-argument:
Prosecutors showed the jury emails, law-firm billing records and even a Staples receipt for thumb drives to tie Sussmann to the Clinton campaign. But [Sussmann attorney] Berkowitz said much of the witness testimony showed that the Clinton campaign did not want the Alfa Bank allegations taken to the FBI, because they preferred to see a news story about the issue and feared an investigation might complicate or delay such stories.
“There is a difference,” Berkowitz said, “between having a client, and doing something on their behalf.”
The prosecution’s star witness wasn’t much help, either:
Since Sussmann did not testify, Baker gave the only direct witness account of the conversation. Sussmann’s attorneys repeatedly challenged Baker’s credibility, noting that in one earlier interview, Baker said Sussmann was representing cybersecurity clients; in another, he seemed to say he didn’t remember that part of the talk. In response to questions on the witness stand, he said he couldn’t remember 116 times, according to Berkowitz.
Speaking as a taxpayer, I want my money back.
Tuesday, May 31, 2022 · 7:54:57 PM +00:00 · Dan K
TFG responds as expected: Trump on Sussmann verdict: ‘Our country is going to hell’
“Our Legal System is CORRUPT, our Judges (and Justices!) are highly partisan, compromised or just plain scared, our Borders are OPEN, our Elections are Rigged, Inflation is RAMPANT, gas prices and food costs are “through the roof,” our Military “Leadership” is Woke, our Country is going to HELL, and Michael Sussmann is not guilty,” Trump wrote in a post on Truth Social, the small conservative social networking site he founded.
Meantime, Jonathan Chait is already out with an analysis of Durham’s failures: John Durham Tried to Prove Trump’s Russiagate Theory. Instead He Debunked It.
However focused he may be, Durham is not winning prosecutions. His investigation has produced one extremely small fish – a guilty plea by FBI lawyer Kevin Clinesmith* for a likely immaterial error. And now he is losing prosecutions. Durham abused his authority by trying to prosecute Michael Sussmann, a lawyer working for Hillary Clinton, whom Durham tried to convict on a single perjury charge. And the case turns out to have been so pathetically threadbare that it resulted in a rapid acquittal.
(H/T to Lorell, who noted in the comments that Sussmann wasn’t Durham’s only victim.)
The trial went badly enough for Durham that his fans in the right-wing media were already laying the groundwork for acquittal by blaming the judge for allowing a juror who believed (but wasn’t sure) she had contributed to Clinton’s campaign. That excuse might have held some water in the event of a hung jury. But the jury’s unanimous and extremely speedy verdict suggests a single possible former Clinton-donating juror is not the reason. The reason is that Durham didn’t have the goods.
The fact Durham even had to bring this case was a testament to the failure of his probe. He had set out to uncover the FBI’s crimes against Mr. Trump. He was reduced to trying, and failing, to prosecute somebody for lying to the FBI. [emphasis added]
Malicious prosecution occurs when one party has knowingly and with malicious intent initiated baseless litigation against another party. IANAL, but I’d say Sussmann probably has a case.
Summary of Chait’s analysis:
[T]o the extent Durham deepened the public understanding of Trump’s conspiracy theory of the Russia investigation, he inadvertently undermined it. I argued in 2020 that Joe Biden’s Justice Department was correct to let Durham continue his investigation because it would expose the hollowness of Trump’s allegations. And it has. [emphasis in original]
