US Attorney John Durham charged Michael Sussman with misleading investigators on "Russiagate," and it went to the jury today, and then came back from the in about 6 hours with a "Not Guilty" verdict.
Seriously, juries never come back this quickly on a case.
This case was beyond thin:
Michael Sussmann, a prominent cybersecurity lawyer with ties to Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign, was acquitted on Tuesday of lying to the F.B.I. in 2016 when he shared a tip about possible connections between Donald J. Trump and Russia.
The verdict was a significant 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.
But Mr. Durham has yet to fulfill expectations from Mr. Trump and his supporters that he would uncover and prosecute a “deep state” conspiracy against the former president. Instead, he has developed only two cases that led to charges: the one against Mr. Sussmann and another against a researcher for the so-called Steele dossier, whose trial is set for later this year.
Both consist of simple charges of making false statements, rather than a more sweeping charge like conspiracy to defraud the government. And both involve thin or dubious allegations about Mr. Trump’s purported ties to Russia that were put forward not by government officials, but by outside investigators.
Basically, Sussman was accused of denying to an FBI agent that he revealing this information in his capacity as a lawyer working for a client. (His clients included the Clinton campaign)
There was one witness, who had repeatedly different recollections over time, which is kind of the definition of reasonable doubt.
Very weak tea, and the jury recognized this.
0 comments :
Post a Comment