John Durham Case Update: Jury Finds Michael Sussmann NOT guilty of lying to the FBI

[bodecea]

The indictment alleges that Sussmann lied in the meeting, “falsely stating to the General Counsel that he was not providing the allegations to the FBI on behalf of any client.”

Durham, in his Monday filing, writes that Sussmann “had assembled and conveyed the allegations to the FBI on behalf of at least two specific clients,” including Tech Executive-1, who has been identified as Rodney Joffe, and the Clinton campaign.

…”Indeed, on September 18, 2016 at 7:24 p.m., i.e., the night before the defendant met with the General Counsel, the defendant conveyed the same lie in writing and sent the following text message to the General Counsel’s personal cellphone,” Durham wrote in the filing.

The text message, according to Durham, stated: “Jim—it’s Michael Sussmann. I have something time-sensitive (and sensitive) I need to discuss. Do you have availability for a short meeting tomorrow? I’m coming on my own—not on behalf of a client or company—want to help the Bureau. Thanks.”

Baker replied: “Ok. I will find a time. What might work for you?”


^^^^^^Looks contemporaneous to me^^^^^^^

And Sussman was found to be not guilty by a jury who heard all the evidence presented by Durham.

 

[meaner gene]

The indictment alleges that Sussmann lied in the meeting, “falsely stating to the General Counsel that he was not providing the allegations to the FBI on behalf of any client.”

…”Indeed, on September 18, 2016 at 7:24 p.m., i.e., the night before the defendant met with the General Counsel, the defendant conveyed the same lie in writing and sent the following text message to the General Counsel’s personal cellphone,” Durham wrote in the filing.

Where you're "stuck on stupid" is that the indictment was for lying in the meeting, not lying in the text.

Lying in the text, (prior behavior) doesn't prove lying in the meeting, just as lying in the meeting wouldn't prove lying in the text.

 

[bodecea]

Do you have proof that they are Republicans?

I have the proof that they found Sussman not guilty.

 

[bodecea]

Finally a not guilty verdict even more ridiculous than the O.J. verdict.

Poor Republican white-wingers.....your faith in Durham..........poof!

 

[meaner gene]

Weird, I don't see where I said anything about "substantially delaying" the trial.

You are a lying sack of shit. Give it up.

He just needs to give the other party time to review and prepare for it.

Substantial time?

 

[bodecea]

It is ironic that prosecutors could convincingly prove a defendant made a false statement to the FBI and yet lose a case because of the FBI’s own machinations. But that is what happened.

And Sussman was found to be not guilty by a jury who heard all the evidence presented by Durham.

 

[bodecea]

I'm didn't follow the case that closely, but what others are saying is Durham could care less about a guilty verdict. He just wanted to get statements under oath be they true or false. If true, it helps him dig deeper in the case. If false, it's perjury.

Pretty much why all the trump minions are avoiding testifying under oath.

 

[meaner gene]

And Sussman was found to be not guilty by a jury who heard all the evidence presented by Durham.

Not guilty by the 8 completely impartial jurors. That's the part they can't explain.

 

[Dragonlady]

Manfort's crimes were committed a decade before Trump ran for office, and had no connection to Trump, Dumbass.

So how does that absolve Trump from his criminal associations??? Why would so many people in the pay of the Russian government, or beholding to Russian oligarchs, volunteering to work for Donald Trump, for free. You never even asked any of these questions. You just swallowed Trump's "Russian Hoax" lie unchallenged.

Manafort's criminal behaviour made him an ideal target of Russian handlers, and Manafort delivered Republican polling data to the Russians. You should read his elocution at his second Trial.

If Manafort, Flynn and Stone had all testified honestly to the FBI and the Mueller Grand Jury, would the conspiracy have been proven??? Mueller said there was "insufficient evidence" to gain a conviction, not that there was "no evidence"

You need to read the links that are posted, instead of parroting Donald Trump's bullshit day in and day out, and then calling people "morons".

We may have lost the little fish (Sussman), but the bigger fish are now fully exposed and it's a matter of court record.

The judge and the jury rejected Dunham's claims outright and said the case should never have been brought to court. Just became the prosecution made the claim, doesn't mean it's true. They certainly failed utterly to provide evidence of their claims.

 

[bendog]

Nostra knows nothing about federal law. He thought a judge could allow evidence that would substantially delay the trial. And ignore the delay requiring the indictment being thrown out due to the constitutional right to a speedy trial.

It's not just federal law. I'd give it pass because it is sort of technical as to why the indictment could not be "changed." But if this involved Flynn, Nostra would have a different view. LOL

Nostril is simply 'not going to get' the notion that evidence (including the email) went both ways as to what Sussman told Baker in the meeting about whom he represented or didn't represent.

But the real issue is whether Sussman (and Hill's campaign) lied about thinking the Russian Bank to Trump emails were suspicious. And Durham apparently had nothing. And that's why he waited until literally the last minute for indict Sussman on something/anything. But as bodeca cuts to the chase on .... a jury is not likely to convict someone for reporting a possible crime. LOL

 

[Dragonlady]

I'm didn't follow the case that closely, but what others are saying is Durham could care less about a guilty verdict. He just wanted to get statements under oath be they true or false. If true, it helps him dig deeper in the case. If false, it's perjury.

The case is OVER. The statute of limitations has expired. This was the ONLY case Dunham could make prior to the expiry of the SOL.

3 years of investigations without a single case to come out of it. Kinda like the 7 Benghazi investigations, Fast and Furious, the IRS, and every other Republican rumour about "crimes" committed by Democrats.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

The case is OVER. The statute of limitations has expired. This was the ONLY case Dunham could make prior to the expiry of the SOL.

3 years of investigations without a single case to come out of it. Kinda like the 7 Benghazi investigations, Fast and Furious, the IRS, and every other Republican rumour about "crimes" committed by Democrats.

Durham's farce took twice as long as the Mueller investigation... and look at the results. One has to be pretty detached from reality not to see it for the farce it is.

 

[Dragonlady]

Manfort's crimes were committed a decade before Trump ran for office, and had no connection to Trump, Dumbass.

So how does that absolve Trump from his criminal associations??? Why would so many people in the pay of the Russian government, or beholding to Russian oligarchs, volunteering to work for Donald Trump, for free. You never even asked any of these questions. You just swallowed Trump's "Russian Hoax" lie unchallenged.

Manafort's criminal behaviour made him an ideal target of Russian handlers, and Manafort delivered Republican polling data to the Russians. You should read his elocution at his second Trial.

If Manafort, Flynn and Stone had all testified honestly to the FBI and the Mueller Grand Jury, would the conspiracy have been proven??? Mueller said there was "insufficient evidence" to gain a conviction, not that there was "no evidence"

You need to read the links that are posted, instead of parroting Donald Trump's bullshit day in and day out, and then calling people "morons".

There was testimony under oath that Hitlery was behind all of it.

Why would I take your word on anything, FuckBoi? Where are your links?

 

[bendog]

The case is OVER. The statute of limitations has expired. This was the ONLY case Dunham could make prior to the expiry of the SOL.

3 years of investigations without a single case to come out of it. Kinda like the 7 Benghazi investigations, Fast and Furious, the IRS, and every other Republican rumour about "crimes" committed by Democrats.

Honestly, imo the Durham "investigation" is actually worse.

Obama did send out Rice to lie about Benghanzi but .... what did it matter except to the election, and Romney beating a dead "equestrian" horse was no better ... fast and furious, well, Holder did try to hide the DOJ's screw up, but thing's happen ... the IRS yah they messed up but without Citizens United it never wudda happened, so ....

But Trump's connections to Russia were suspicious. And with Ukraine, they still smell bad.

 

[meaner gene]

So how does that absolve Trump from his criminal associations??? Why would so many people in the pay of the Russian government, or beholding to Russian oligarchs, volunteering to work for Donald Trump, for free.

I'm sure they would have said the same if Donald Trump hired Jeffrey Epstein.

Just change Maniford to Epstein

Manfort's crimes were committed a decade before Trump ran for office, and had no connection to Trump, Dumbass.

 

[bripat9643]

LOL

Fucking moron, that text message was not admitted in court. I challenged to show the evidence Durham presented "in court" but you're such a fucking moron, you offer evidence that wasn't presented in court.

It doesn't matter. It's hard evidence that he lied. The judge is obviously a sleazy dishonest douchebag.

 

[bripat9643]

I have the proof that they found Sussman not guilty.

It doesn't matter. We all know what the truth is.

 

[Nostra]

Where you're "stuck on stupid" is that the indictment was for lying in the meeting, not lying in the text.

Lying in the text, (prior behavior) doesn't prove lying in the meeting, just as lying in the meeting wouldn't prove lying in the text.

Good Lord you are one stupid person.

The text was a lie. Do you think he went in the next day and said "I was just joking in my text, I'm actually being paid by Hitlery right now to come in here and give these two thumb drives of Russian lies to you"? If so, produce your evidence he said that instead of claiming once again he was just there as a concerned citizen.

Are you really that stupid?

 

[Nostra]

Substantial time?

Your story, not mine, liar.

 

[Nostra]

And Sussman was found to be not guilty by a jury who heard all the evidence presented by Durham.

A judge with a professional relationship with the defendant. Automatic recusal.

3 Hitlery donors.

1 AOC donor.

A woman whose daughter is a friend of, and plays HS sports, with the defendant's daughter.

AND NOW: A jury foreman who says this should have never come to trial because the courts have better things to do.