Durham grand jury indicts lawyer whose firm represented Hillary Clinton's campaign
Source: Washington Post
A grand jury working with special counsel John Durhams 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 counsels 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
Roy Rolling
(6,908 posts)Seems like real selective prosecution.
Miguelito Loveless
(4,454 posts)speak to law enforcement. If you must, then have your attorney with you to avoid traps.
gab13by13
(21,264 posts)Jose Garcia
(2,586 posts)wnylib
(21,341 posts)instead of handling his own case.
Escurumbele
(3,378 posts)wnylib
(21,341 posts)by interrogators. Always have the best legal counsel that you can get.
Trueblue Texan
(2,420 posts)Miguelito Loveless
(4,454 posts)I speak as a robbery victim who not only couldnt get the police to do anything for him, but wound up being accused of inventing the robbery.
I wouldnt give the police the color of the sky without a lawyer present.
PoliticAverse
(26,366 posts)IthinkThereforeIAM
(3,075 posts)... 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)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)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)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)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)Wow, the guy might not have been completely clear about who he worked for. Yawn.
Ford_Prefect
(7,872 posts)a critical larger context of interpretation. A judge with reasonable experience is probably going to void the case as unsupportable.
Evolve Dammit
(16,697 posts)gab13by13
(21,264 posts)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)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)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 doesnt rise to a chargeable offense. If Durhams authority werent expiring on Saturday and the Clintons werent somehow loosely connected this never would have been handed up.
JohnSJ
(92,061 posts)what they did
mackdaddy
(1,522 posts)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.
JohnSJ
(92,061 posts)Raven123
(4,792 posts)Lots of taxpayer dollars. Hopefully this is the end and Garland can tell Durham to close up shop.
halfulglas
(1,654 posts)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.
riversedge
(70,084 posts)underpants
(182,615 posts)This is going to be set in concrete in RW world.
riversedge
(70,084 posts)UnderThisLaw
(318 posts)almost feel the joy at the news in some of these posts
LanternWaste
(37,748 posts)despite the dime-store prophecies.
self-styled attorneys. Go figure, eh?
whistler162
(11,155 posts)breakfast burrito instead of the egg mcmuffin he claimed to have had.
Maeve
(42,271 posts)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.