Anonymous ID: 622f5b Sept. 21, 2021, 10:02 a.m. No.14630227   🗄️.is 🔗kun   >>0255 >>0279 >>0298 >>0326

''SPINNING WHEELS''

 

JOHN DURHAM

On the Special Counsel’s Weird Prosecution of Michael Sussmann

By Benjamin Wittes Monday, September 20, 2021, 12:21 PM

 

https://www.lawfareblog.com/special-counsels-weird-prosecution-michael-sussmann

 

…Attorney General William Barr appointed John Durham, lo these increasingly-many years ago, to investigate a supposed scandal inside the FBI: There had been an attempted coup, President Trump alleged, and Barr himself hinted that there had been an effort spuriously to investigate a candidate for president. The FBI counterintelligence investigation of figures surrounding Donald Trump, the attorney general warned darkly, may have begun earlier than the FBI said it did. It may not have been properly predicated. There may have been other agencies involved.

 

Durham himself at times lent his solid reputation as a career prosecutor to such fantasies. When the Justice Department’s inspector general found that the investigation of L’Affaire Russe had been properly predicated and had, in fact, begun when the FBI always said it had, Durham publicly questioned the judgment. He also has taken a mind-bogglingly long time to complete his as-yet almost-wholly unproductive investigation, which has gone on longer than the Mueller investigation itself, building up expectations among many Trump supporters that Durham was going to deliver the goods.

 

And until this week, Durham’s investigation had added exactly zero new facts to the public’s understanding of the FBI’s handling of the Russia matters. The only case he had brought—against a low-level FBI lawyer for altering a document in connection with a surveillance application—was entirely derivative of facts developed by the inspector general….

 

…So What is this Really About?

 

Nothing I have said so far is news to John Durham… So what is he up to here?

 

I think the Sussmann case—particularly given the lengthy and irrelevant verbiage about the efforts of the Clinton campaign, its lawyers, cybersecurity experts and private investigators—is an effort to pressure Sussmann to cooperate with a broader effort to prosecute Clinton-world operatives for an attempt to defraud the FBI on Trump-Russia matters…

 

But there are two big problems with this approach. The first is that digging dirt on political opponents and trying to interest law enforcement in that dirt is not presumptively a crime. It’s presumptively the ugly normal of political campaigns. In the particular case of Donald Trump, who in fact had extensive connections with Russia about which he was actively lying, it was also a perfectly valid line of opposition research. While one cannot peddle information one knows to be false to the FBI without violating the law, that is not what Durham is alleging here about Sussmann.

 

More fundamental, however, is the fact that the Russia investigation in the main did not turn on these efforts or flow from them. The Alfa Bank investigation in the Bureau went nowhere. The Steele Dossier affected only the Carter Page matter, which was only one relatively unimportant thread of the larger Russia investigation. While a bad FISA application is always important, the errors in the Carter Page FISA matter did not affect anything beyond the surveillance of Carter Page.

 

Indeed, none of what we think of as the fruits of the Russia investigation had anything to do with Clinton-world opposition research efforts. Not the Papadopoulos matter. Not the Michael Flynn investigation. Not the investigation of Paul Manafort and his business relationship with the Russian intelligence officer Konstantin Kilimnik. Not the indictment of Russian intelligence officers for hacking and dumping Democratic emails—all with the public endorsement of Donald J. Trump. Not the investigation of Roger Stone. And not the indictments of other Russian operatives for social media manipulations. The extensive findings of the Mueller Report depend not a whiff on Perkins Coie or FusionGPS.

 

Not even if Michael Sussmann lied to Jim Baker about his clients.

Anonymous ID: 622f5b Sept. 21, 2021, 10:12 a.m. No.14630279   🗄️.is 🔗kun   >>0364

>>14630227

 

''SPINNING WHEELS ''

Opinion

Durham's Sussmann indictment is a bizarre coda for DOJ's Russia investigation

''The Mueller Report spells out all the ways in which the Russia investigation was not a hoax. The only hoax is the charge contained in this indictment.''

 

https://www.msnbc.com/opinion/durham-s-sussman-indictment-bizarre-coda-doj-s-russia-investigation-n1279490

 

Sept. 19, 2021, 4:30 AM EDT / Updated Sept. 20, 2021, 10:21 AM EDT

By Barbara McQuade, PMSNBC Opinion Communist

''Special Counsel John Durham was tasked with investigating the origins of the FBI’s Russia investigation. He now appears to have ended his work not with a bang, but with a whimper.''

 

It is hard to see how the case Durham filed on Thursday against Washington lawyer Michael Sussmann meets Justice Department standards. The indictment alleges that Sussmann met with FBI General Counsel Jim Baker in September 2016 to provide information about connections between a Russian bank and the Trump Organization. The FBI was unable to substantiate any links between Alfa Bank and former President Donald Trump’s businesses, but the charge against Sussman — making false statements to the FBI — doesn’t allege that the substance of the information was false. Instead, Sussman is accused of having misrepresented on whose behalf he was providing it…

 

…Even assuming the prosecution can prove that the statement was false, that Sussmann knowingly lied and that the crime is in the FBI’s jurisdiction, it still cannot establish materiality. The materiality element requires a showing that the statement could influence a matter under consideration; not every false statement is a crime, only those that matter. If Sussmann had also bragged to Baker, say, that he runs a six-minute mile, but in fact, he runs a ten-minute mile, that statement might be false, but it would not be material to the matter at issue.

 

Here, the indictment alleges that Sussmann’s statement that he was not acting on behalf of any client was material because if the FBI had known that Sussmann was providing the information on behalf of the Clinton campaign, it would have treated the information differently. But this allegation is refuted by its own witness. In his 2018 congressional testimony, Baker was asked whether it would have mattered if Sussmann had told him he was there on behalf of the Clinton Campaign. He said it wouldn’t, a devastating admission for Durham’s case…

 

…Of course, that points us to the final problem with Durham’s investigation: His assignment was to investigate the origins of the Russia investigation. The DOJ inspector general already found that the investigation opened in July 2016 was properly predicated on information received from a government ally about statements Trump campaign aide George Papadopoulos regarding stolen email messages. Any statement made by Sussmann months later could not possibly have sparked the Russia investigation.

 

Instead of a quest for justice, the indictment appears to be one more shot fired in the information war. Attorney General Merrick Garland had the power to stop this indictment from being filed, and did not do so, perhaps because he believed it to be a valid charge — or maybe because he feared that stopping it would create the appearance that he was acting in furtherance of partisan political interests. While protecting the independence of the institution is a noble cause, it cannot come at the expense of an innocent man being used as a pawn in an ugly political game that will further erode trust in our institutions.

 

''The Mueller Report spells out all the ways in which the Russia investigation was not a hoax. The only hoax is the charge contained in this indictment.''

 

 

Barbara McQuade https://twitter.com/BarbMcQuade

Barbara McQuade is a PMSNBC communist and NBC News and MSNBC legal anulist. She is a professor at the University of Michigan Law School Spartan and a former U.S. attorney for the Eastern District of Michigan.