berg80
Diamond Member
- Oct 28, 2017
- 25,572
- 21,533
- 2,320
On the Special Counsel’s Weird Prosecution of Michael Sussmann
But now Durham has spoken on his own. He has indicted a cybersecurity lawyer named Michael Sussmann for allegedly making a single false statement in a conversation in 2016 with then-FBI General Counsel Jim Baker. The allegedly false statement concerned not Trump or Russia, but whom Sussmann represented when he brought Baker some information about an alleged electronic connection between the Trump Organization and a Russian bank. (Disclosure: Baker is a personal friend and former colleague at Brookings and Lawfare.)
The indictment is, in other words, far removed from the grave FBI misconduct Durham was supposed to reveal. Very far removed. In fact, it doesn’t describe FBI malfeasance against Trump at all, but portrays the FBI as the victim of agitprop brought to it by outside political operatives. It describes the FBI as diligently running down the leads it had been fed by these operatives and then, well, dropping the matter when it learned they had no merit. The misconduct it portrays is an alleged lie by Sussmann that is, at best, wholly peripheral to the substance of the allegations Durham was supposedly peddling.
On the Special Counsel’s Weird Prosecution of Michael Sussmann
Ahhhhhhh, okay, not really. Like almost everything in Trumpworld the investigation is a fraud. One of the last vestiges of Billy the Bagman's handy work. A shining testament to the steaming pile of horseshit comprised of the baseless allegations made against the FBI in pursuit of justifying Dear Leader's grievance. Another example of the epic corruption and abuses of power Trump demanded and Barr facilitated.
But now Durham has spoken on his own. He has indicted a cybersecurity lawyer named Michael Sussmann for allegedly making a single false statement in a conversation in 2016 with then-FBI General Counsel Jim Baker. The allegedly false statement concerned not Trump or Russia, but whom Sussmann represented when he brought Baker some information about an alleged electronic connection between the Trump Organization and a Russian bank. (Disclosure: Baker is a personal friend and former colleague at Brookings and Lawfare.)
The indictment is, in other words, far removed from the grave FBI misconduct Durham was supposed to reveal. Very far removed. In fact, it doesn’t describe FBI malfeasance against Trump at all, but portrays the FBI as the victim of agitprop brought to it by outside political operatives. It describes the FBI as diligently running down the leads it had been fed by these operatives and then, well, dropping the matter when it learned they had no merit. The misconduct it portrays is an alleged lie by Sussmann that is, at best, wholly peripheral to the substance of the allegations Durham was supposedly peddling.
On the Special Counsel’s Weird Prosecution of Michael Sussmann
Ahhhhhhh, okay, not really. Like almost everything in Trumpworld the investigation is a fraud. One of the last vestiges of Billy the Bagman's handy work. A shining testament to the steaming pile of horseshit comprised of the baseless allegations made against the FBI in pursuit of justifying Dear Leader's grievance. Another example of the epic corruption and abuses of power Trump demanded and Barr facilitated.
