Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

former9thward

(31,940 posts)
Thu Sep 16, 2021, 04:29 PM Sep 2021

Durham grand jury indicts lawyer whose firm represented Hillary Clinton's campaign

Source: Washington Post

A grand jury working with special counsel John Durham’s office handed up an indictment Thursday of lawyer Michael Sussmann, who prosecutors have accused of making false statements to the FBI during the 2016 presidential campaign.

Sussmann, the indictment charges, “lied about the capacity in which he was providing ... allegations to the FBI” of potential cyber links between a Russian bank and a company owned by former president Donald Trump.

An attorney at Perkins Coie, a prominent law firm tied to the Democratic party, Sussmann had been bracing for possible indictment.

Charging him marks a strange twist in the special counsel’s probe championed by Trump and his Republican allies, and which to date has resulted in a single conviction of a low-level FBI lawyer.

Read more: https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/john-durham-michael-sussmann-hillary-clinton/2021/09/16/ed8ba0e6-1696-11ec-a5e5-ceecb895922f_story.html?utm_source=alert&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=wp_news_alert_revere&location=alert&wpmk=1&wpisrc=al_news__alert-politics--alert-national&pwapi_token=eyJ0eXAiOiJKV1QiLCJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiJ9.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.Uf6imqiSaWsTtAfb42vdlRKKcTtGV7iScMV3Iyv4CQA

33 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Durham grand jury indicts lawyer whose firm represented Hillary Clinton's campaign (Original Post) former9thward Sep 2021 OP
"Lying to the FBI"? Roy Rolling Sep 2021 #1
NEVER, NEVER, NEVER, Miguelito Loveless Sep 2021 #3
He is a lawyer gab13by13 Sep 2021 #9
Apparently not a very good one Jose Garcia Sep 2021 #14
But a prudent lawyer gets himself a lawyer wnylib Sep 2021 #20
Or just tell the truth, if you haven't done anything wrong then you should be fine. Escurumbele Sep 2021 #18
Not necessarily. Testimonies can be twisted wnylib Sep 2021 #21
Not necessarily true.nt Trueblue Texan Sep 2021 #25
Please tell me you are kidding Miguelito Loveless Sep 2021 #29
That argument didn't work for General Flynn's defenders and it's unlikely to work in this case. n/t PoliticAverse Sep 2021 #4
The deadline for filing charges is here, so he had to come up with something to keep it going... IthinkThereforeIAM Sep 2021 #2
The statute of limitation is not extended though. Jon King Sep 2021 #7
This charge is utter nonsense, just a tiny little formality about who was working for whom..... groundloop Sep 2021 #5
here's a link to the actual indictment cadoman Sep 2021 #17
Well, Trump did fire James Comey, the head of the FBI.. kentuck Sep 2021 #33
All these years and millions and he got this nothingburger? Jon King Sep 2021 #6
The charge is based on a very selective reading of the terms and statute. It entirely ignores Ford_Prefect Sep 2021 #8
Watch TFG seize on this and the MSM to follow. 3, 2, 1.... Evolve Dammit Sep 2021 #10
From what I understand, gab13by13 Sep 2021 #11
The prosecutor on MSNBC said it was immaterial to the actual investigation. Jon King Sep 2021 #12
Anything that can put the Clintons in a headline... BlueIdaho Sep 2021 #28
I hope those FBI agents who lied about the sexual assaults by Nassar get more than just firing for JohnSJ Sep 2021 #13
The story I heard is that the purposefully falsified some of their reports. mackdaddy Sep 2021 #23
Exactly JohnSJ Sep 2021 #24
Wow. Sure took a long time to bring a perjury charge. Raven123 Sep 2021 #15
He was indicted, but it probably won't go anywhere. halfulglas Sep 2021 #16
sensational headline designed to get a click. riversedge Sep 2021 #19
Watching CNN (Anderson) I thought it was one of Trumps lawyers underpants Sep 2021 #22
yes. I have already blocked many for this issue. riversedge Sep 2021 #30
You can UnderThisLaw Sep 2021 #26
And Ashli Babbit's estate still hasn't seen a penny LanternWaste Sep 2021 #27
Turns out the lawyer had a whistler162 Sep 2021 #31
From Google--"indict a ham sandwich meaning" Maeve Sep 2021 #32

Miguelito Loveless

(4,454 posts)
3. NEVER, NEVER, NEVER,
Thu Sep 16, 2021, 05:22 PM
Sep 2021

speak to law enforcement. If you must, then have your attorney with you to avoid traps.

wnylib

(21,341 posts)
21. Not necessarily. Testimonies can be twisted
Thu Sep 16, 2021, 08:15 PM
Sep 2021

by interrogators. Always have the best legal counsel that you can get.

Miguelito Loveless

(4,454 posts)
29. Please tell me you are kidding
Thu Sep 16, 2021, 11:04 PM
Sep 2021

I speak as a robbery victim who not only couldn’t get the police to do anything for him, but wound up being accused of inventing the robbery.

I wouldn’t give the police the color of the sky without a lawyer present.

IthinkThereforeIAM

(3,075 posts)
2. The deadline for filing charges is here, so he had to come up with something to keep it going...
Thu Sep 16, 2021, 05:12 PM
Sep 2021

... even though the filing itself is just some kind of trolling/chum bait while they try to find something real.

Jon King

(1,910 posts)
7. The statute of limitation is not extended though.
Thu Sep 16, 2021, 05:43 PM
Sep 2021

From what a prosecutor said on MSNBC, charging him for this does not extend the statute on other crimes. SO unless he did something other than this within the last 5 years, this is all they will get.

groundloop

(11,514 posts)
5. This charge is utter nonsense, just a tiny little formality about who was working for whom.....
Thu Sep 16, 2021, 05:35 PM
Sep 2021

I found an article not behind a paywall about this matter (I hate when I can't read a linked article ), once you dig into it just a teeny tiny bit you begin to understand that it's a pure bullshit indictment with no real meat in it. It's a real shame that this kind of bullshit is happening in a Democratic administration (although I understand that it's pretty difficult to make a special counsel go away).

cadoman

(792 posts)
17. here's a link to the actual indictment
Thu Sep 16, 2021, 07:07 PM
Sep 2021
https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/21063441/sussmann.pdf

From my reading of the indictment, it doesn't paint the FBI in a very flattering light. Sounds like a very gullible organization.

kentuck

(111,052 posts)
33. Well, Trump did fire James Comey, the head of the FBI..
Fri Sep 17, 2021, 09:01 AM
Sep 2021

He was not very fond of the organization. It would follow that he would hire those with similar views, in an "acting" position, of course.

Jon King

(1,910 posts)
6. All these years and millions and he got this nothingburger?
Thu Sep 16, 2021, 05:41 PM
Sep 2021

Wow, the guy might not have been completely clear about who he worked for. Yawn.

Ford_Prefect

(7,872 posts)
8. The charge is based on a very selective reading of the terms and statute. It entirely ignores
Thu Sep 16, 2021, 06:04 PM
Sep 2021

a critical larger context of interpretation. A judge with reasonable experience is probably going to void the case as unsupportable.

gab13by13

(21,264 posts)
11. From what I understand,
Thu Sep 16, 2021, 06:12 PM
Sep 2021

the FBI understood that Sussmann was just a private citizen bringing information. It appears, I could be wrong, that Sussmann was working for the Clinton campaign. I believe that there is a good case to be brought for lying to the FBI. Another reason I believe that this indictment has legs is that Merrick Garland let it proceed.

With all of that said, this guy had 3 years and could only come up with 2 indictments.

Jon King

(1,910 posts)
12. The prosecutor on MSNBC said it was immaterial to the actual investigation.
Thu Sep 16, 2021, 06:19 PM
Sep 2021

Sure he may have been less than honest about who he worked for but the prosecutor said in almost every case she has seen, this is never actually prosecuted when it is immaterial to the main investigation. Now if Durham had discovered he lied about where he worked because that lie was to hide a bigger crime related to the investigation, different story. His less than honest answer in no way harmed the investigation.

So Durham decided to prosecute a minor white lie that in almost every other case would have been let go. So technically yes, the guy may have 'lied' about an immaterial matter.

BlueIdaho

(13,582 posts)
28. Anything that can put the Clintons in a headline...
Thu Sep 16, 2021, 08:52 PM
Sep 2021

Is raw meat for the GQP. My understanding mirrors yours Jon - that this is not a significant misstatement of fact, but the sort of thing that usually doesn’t rise to a chargeable offense. If Durham’s authority weren’t expiring on Saturday and the Clintons weren’t somehow loosely connected this never would have been handed up.

JohnSJ

(92,061 posts)
13. I hope those FBI agents who lied about the sexual assaults by Nassar get more than just firing for
Thu Sep 16, 2021, 06:35 PM
Sep 2021

what they did

mackdaddy

(1,522 posts)
23. The story I heard is that the purposefully falsified some of their reports.
Thu Sep 16, 2021, 08:15 PM
Sep 2021

How is that not at a minimum "lying to the FBI" by these agents.

Does not seem to be a years long special prosecutor investigating this.

Raven123

(4,792 posts)
15. Wow. Sure took a long time to bring a perjury charge.
Thu Sep 16, 2021, 06:58 PM
Sep 2021

Lots of taxpayer dollars. Hopefully this is the end and Garland can tell Durham to close up shop.

halfulglas

(1,654 posts)
16. He was indicted, but it probably won't go anywhere.
Thu Sep 16, 2021, 07:01 PM
Sep 2021

He probably won't be bullied into pleading guilty and I could be wrong but it's going to wind up being a talking point for the right, but no conviction.

underpants

(182,615 posts)
22. Watching CNN (Anderson) I thought it was one of Trumps lawyers
Thu Sep 16, 2021, 08:15 PM
Sep 2021

This is going to be set in concrete in RW world.

 

LanternWaste

(37,748 posts)
27. And Ashli Babbit's estate still hasn't seen a penny
Thu Sep 16, 2021, 08:50 PM
Sep 2021

despite the dime-store prophecies.



self-styled attorneys. Go figure, eh?

Maeve

(42,271 posts)
32. From Google--"indict a ham sandwich meaning"
Fri Sep 17, 2021, 07:03 AM
Sep 2021
People also ask
What does it mean you can indict a ham sandwich?
The one-sidedness, combined with the low standard of proof (probable cause), means that federal grand juries almost always vote to indict someone. ... The ease of getting an indictment is why it is said that a grand jury would indict a ham sandwich.
Latest Discussions»Latest Breaking News»Durham grand jury indicts...