Sussman was charged with lying to the FBI. For that to stick he had to have been found to lie, and for the lie to be material. Their was evidence that the FBI likely knew he was on the Clinton campaign, but the FBI was anxious to investigate Trump despite the source of this material. So, the lie was not material. This is more a statement about the FBI, than Sussman not lying.
CDL was SO sure Durham was a big deal. But no.....From the Times....
"WASHINGTON — 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.
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.
The case centered on odd internet data that cybersecurity researchers discovered in 2016 after it became public that Russia had hacked Democrats and Mr. Trump had encouraged the country to target Hillary Clinton’s emails.
The researchers said the data might reflect a covert communications channel using servers for the Trump Organization and Alfa Bank, a Kremlin-linked bank. The F.B.I. briefly looked at the suspicions and dismissed them.
On Sept. 19, 2016, Mr. Sussmann brought those suspicions to a senior F.B.I. official. Prosecutors accused him of falsely telling the official that he was not there on behalf of any client, concealing that he was in fact working for both Mrs. Clinton’s campaign and a technology executive who had brought him the tip.
Mr. Durham and his trial team used court filings and trial testimony to detail how Mr. Sussmann, while working for a Democratic-linked law firm and logging his time to the Clinton campaign, had been trying to get reporters to write about the Alfa Bank suspicions.
But trying to persuade reporters to write about such suspicions is not a crime. Mr. Sussmann’s guilt or innocence turned on a narrow issue: whether he made a false statement to a senior F.B.I. official at the 2016 meeting, by saying he was sharing those suspicions on behalf of no one but himself.
Mr. Durham used the case to put forward a larger conspiracy: that there was a joint enterprise to essentially frame Mr. Trump for collusion with Russia by getting the F.B.I. to investigate the suspicions so reporters would write about it — a scheme involving the Clinton campaign; its opposition research firm, Fusion GPS; Mr. Sussmann; and a cybersecurity expert who brought the odd data and analysis to him.
That insinuation thrilled supporters of Mr. Trump who share his view that the Russia investigation was a “hoax,” and have sought to conflate the actual inquiry with sometimes thin or dubious allegations developed by private citizens. In reality, the Alfa Bank matter was a sideshow and tangent: The F.B.I. had already opened its inquiry on other grounds before Mr. Sussmann passed on the tip, and the final report by the special counsel, Robert S. Mueller III made no mention of the Alfa Bank suspicions."
It was a jury trial. I wonder if Trump will complain that the jury vote was rigged by Italian satellites or Chinese bamboo jury ballots.
.
Ooops! I almost submitted before checking for Trump's comments:
.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10871985/Hillary-Clinton-lawyer-Michael-Sussmann-NOT-GUILTY-lying-FBI-John-Durham-probe.html
... The Washington, DC jury deliberated for six hours before reaching the verdict.
... 'Our Legal System is CORRUPT, our Judges (and Justices!) are highly partisan, compromised or just plain scared,' Donald Trump wrote on Truth Social.
CDL was SO sure Durham was a big deal. But no.....From the Times....
"WASHINGTON — 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. ..."
that he reported it on TER as breaking news a la CKS:
http://www.theeroticreview.com/discussion-boards/politics-and-religion-39/hillary-clinton-lawyer-----408681?frmSearch=1#408681
And for someone who Can't Do Links, CDL went to an awful lot of trouble to ask his army of "tech guys" to help him post a link about Sussman being indicted. Gee, CDL must be disappointed.
How about that other great prognosticator - cks175. He predicted:
"There’s more to come. Sussman’s indictment came early because the statute of limitations demanded it."
http://www.theeroticreview.com/discussion-boards/politics-and-religion-39/re-this-is-all-they-could-come-up-with-more-to-come-408867?page=
More to come - BWAHAHAHAHAHA!
Bookmark your post, because there is more to come!
of the trial that several of the jurors were Hillary Clinton donors, I knew the fix was in. No way was he going down for anything connected to Hillary. The judge should have dismissed those jurors for cause. If the trial had been moved somewhere else, he might have been convicted.
On the other hand, the reason he was acquitted was damning to the leadership of the FBI, so the Durhan show might not be over yet. Stay tuned.
...and a woman whose daughter is on the same sports team as Sussmann's daughter.
And of course you're taking poetic license by saying "...several of the jurors were Hillary Clinton donors..." You posted NO link to prove that because IT'S NOT TRUE. As many as three Hillary Clinton donors — including one who also supported AOC were among the PROSPECTIVE jurors in the jury pool but you offer NO proof of how many of the prosective jurors who were Clinton donors actually made it onto the jury.
You said: "The judge should have dismissed those jurors for cause." That shows you know NOTHING about the case. It never stopped you from posting before about things of which you have no knowledge so why should it stop you in this case.
In FACT, Durham wanted to strike one of the Clinton donor prospective jurors for cause, but the judge wouldn't allow it. The judge said Durham could exercise one of his peremptory challenges to strike the prospective juror from the panel for the trial. Therefore, if there were Clinton donors on the jury, it was Durham's fault. But what else would you expect from Trump/Barr/Durham?
http://nypost.com/2022/05/16/hillary-aoc-donors-among-jury-pool-in-ex-clinton-lawyers-trial/
BTW, Mr. Vague & Ambiguous, who is the "they" who "announced" that several of the jurors were Hillary Clinton donors? Is that more "poetic license?"
The radicalized, ultra-MAGA, right-wing extremists and insurrectists won't accept the results of a legitimate election so of course they won't accept an unfavorable jury verdict. When they lose they cry - without a scintilla of proof mind you - it was fraud, it was stolen from us, it was rigged. Biggest babies and poorest losers ever. Man up you wimps.
famous DEMOCRATIC attorney, said that this was the "jury pool from hell" and they got it wrong because the evidence was clear and convincing. He said they might have well gone to the DNC headquarters for jurors. Not a single juror followed the oath they took to be fair and impartial and decide based on the evidence presented. The jury forewoman confirmed they breached their oath when she told the NY Times afterward, "With all the trouble in the world right now, lying to the FBI doesn't seem like a big deal." So she is admitting that the Jurors KNEW he lied to the FBI and that it was a statutory crime to do so, but they will not hold him accountable because he's part of the Clinton machine. I'm not an attorney, so I don't now if this statement is grounds for appeal by the prosecution, or not, but it's pretty clear that there are two standards of the Justice, one for all of us, and one for the Democratic elites.
He may have been once, but in recent years he was the only Republican witness during one of Trump's impeachment trials. He's also a Faux News legal expert. And he's said supportive things about 2020 election fraud.
Just one more example of your deceptive posting habits.
(there are) grounds for appeal by the prosecution..."
CDL isn't an attorney?!?! I'm shocked...NOT!!!!!!!!!!!! Even perpetual first-year law student marikod knows that the prosecution canNOT appeal an acquitttal by a jury.
You're correct. No double-jeopardy. My mistake this time.
Sussman was charged with lying to the FBI. For that to stick he had to have been found to lie, and for the lie to be material. Their was evidence that the FBI likely knew he was on the Clinton campaign, but the FBI was anxious to investigate Trump despite the source of this material. So, the lie was not material. This is more a statement about the FBI, than Sussman not lying.