#Michael Sussmann

[dontmeantobepoliticalbut]

Special counsel John Durham’s investigation proved to be a rather embarrassing failure. As The Washington Post reported, it also proved to be quite expensive.

"The special counsel appointed to review the FBI’s investigation of the 2016 Trump campaign has so far cost taxpayers more than $6.5 million, according to a Justice Department report released Friday. ... The special counsel’s work appears to be winding down, but the Justice Department has not yet announced when it will end."

In other words, the $6.5 million figure — in taxpayer money — is where things stand now. It’s difficult to say with confidence how much higher the final price tag will eventually end up.

For those who might benefit from a refresher — you’d be forgiven for thinking, “John Durham’s name sounds familiar, but I can’t remember why I’m supposed to care about him” — let’s revisit our earlier coverage and explain how we arrived at this point.

The original investigation into Donald Trump’s Russia scandal, led by then-special counsel Robert Mueller, led to a series of striking findings: The former president’s political operation in 2016 sought, embraced, capitalized on, and lied about Russian assistance — and then took steps to obstruct the investigation into the foreign interference.

The Trump White House wasn’t pleased with the conclusions, but the Justice Department’s inspector general conducted a lengthy probe of the Mueller investigation, and not surprisingly, the IG’s office found nothing improper.

This, of course, only outraged Trump further, so then-Attorney General Bill Barr tapped a federal prosecutor — U.S. Attorney John Durham — to conduct his own investigation into the investigation. That was more than three years ago.

At this point, Durham’s investigation into the Russia scandal investigation has lasted longer than Mueller’s original probe of the Russia scandal.

After an extended period of apparent inactivity, the prosecutor last year indicted cybersecurity attorney Michael Sussmann for allegedly having lied to the FBI. The case proved to be baseless; Sussmann was acquitted; and one of the jurors publicly mocked Durham’s team for having taken the case to trial.

Five months later, Durham and his team also tried to prosecute Russian analyst Igor Danchenko. That failed too, bringing the probe to an apparent, ignominious end.

The tale of the tape is brutal:

• Two trials

• Zero convictions

• One provocative resignation

• A largely meaningless guilty plea from an obscure figure

• A $6.5 million price tag

By any fair measure, this is the most misguided and inconsequential special counsel investigation in the modern history of American law enforcement.

But the humiliation is not limited to the prosecutor. Every once in a while, Trump still blurts out Durham’s name, hoping the prosecutor might yet bolster some of the former president’s conspiracy theories. As regular readers may recall, the Republican — who predicted that Durham would uncover “the crime of the century” — has even suggested at times that Durham’s probe could serve as a possible vehicle for retaliating against his perceived enemies.

So much for that idea.

Over the summer, The New York Times’ Charlie Savage wrote a report questioning why the Durham investigation existed. He added, “Mr. Barr’s mandate to Mr. Durham appears to have been to investigate a series of conspiracy theories.”

Those theories, however, lacked merit, which is why the Durham probe is ending with an expensive whimper.

There is a degree of irony to the circumstances: For years, Team Trump insisted that the Russia scandal was pointless but the Durham investigation was real. It now appears these Republicans had it exactly backward: The Russia scandal was real, and the Durham investigation was pointless.

[realtalkingpoints]

I thought this all come out during the Sussmann trial, but there must be something new here, I’m just not exactly clear what it is...

[vomitdodger]

Igor Danchenko: Acquitted after lying to FBI about Trump/Russia.

Michael Sussmann: Acquitted by jury of Clinton donors after lying to FBI about Trump/Alpha bank.

Kevin Clinesmith: Walking free and law license restored after pleading guilty to lying in warrants to spy on Trump

[cabaimelaka]

viour is acceptable,

position.

as justify the means and the belief that unethical

even necessary, if it helps attain goals or

protect political

Historically, many philosophers have disagreed on Machiavelli's intentions (Berlin, 1955), but the most popular meaning as understood by these philosophers of 500 years ago had been widely discussed especially based on ideas which derived from Elizabethan thought. Berlin elaborates: "He [Machiavelli] is a man inspired by the Devil to lead good men to their doom, the great subverted, the teacher of evil, ... the inspirer of St. Bartholomew's Eve, the original lago". They condemned his ideas without really understanding what he actually meant.

Modern scholars have adopted this perspective of Machiavelli to examine and understand political dynamics in organisations as were done by many scholars such as Andersson and Bateman (2000); Cheng, (1983); Harrell-Cook et al., (1999); Harrison et al., (1998); Hochwater et al., (2000); Kumar and Beyerlein, (1991); Shankar et al., (1994); Vecchio and Sussmann (1991).

One key factor that was often neglected in discussion of Machiavellian beliefs was Machiavelli's conviction that leadership is a pursuit that serves the needs of the "common good" (Ledeen, 1999). Contemporary political scholar Michael Ledeen (1999) clarifies the intentions of Machiavelli in his book Machiavelli on Modern Leadership (1999), which strengthens our understanding of Machiavelli when he states:

Even after half a millennium, Machiavelli's advice to leaders is as contemporary as tomorrow. He goes to the essence every time. He doesn't allow us the comfort of easy generalisations or soothing moralisms. He wants leaders to play for the highest stakes of all - the advancement of the human enterprise and the defense of the common good - and it infuriates him to see leaders of corporations, religions, armies and nations ignoring the basic rules of power (p. 185).

29/7/24

244am

[mr880fan]

Durham Report: FBI Had No 'Actual Evidence,' Relied on Trump Opponents

The FBI lacked proof to analyze Donald Trump's 2016 presidential marketing campaign and relied too closely on suggestions supplied by Trump's political opponents to gas the probe, U.S. particular counsel John Durham concluded in a report launched Monday. The report marks the top of a four-year probe launched in Could 2019 when then-Legal professional Common William Barr appointed Durham, a veteran prosecutor, to probe potential missteps by the FBI when it launched its early stage "Crossfire Hurricane" inquiry into potential contacts between Donald Trump's 2016 presidential marketing campaign and Russia. That Crossfire Hurricane investigation would later be handed over to particular counsel Robert Mueller, who in March 2019 concluded there was no proof of a felony conspiracy between Trump’s 2016 marketing campaign and Russia. In his new 306-page report, Durham concluded U.S. intelligence and legislation enforcement didn't possess any "precise proof" of collusion between Trump's marketing campaign and Russia previous to launching Crossfire Hurricane. He additionally accused the bureau of treating the 2016 Trump probe in a different way from different politically delicate investigations, together with a number of involving Trump's Democrat rival Hillary Clinton. "The Division and the FBI didn't uphold their necessary mission of strict constancy to the legislation in reference to sure occasions and actions described on this report," Durham wrote. "Senior FBI personnel displayed a severe lack of analytical rigor in the direction of the data that they acquired, particularly data from politically affiliated individuals and entities." Durham's report was launched to Congress on Monday with out redactions, after it was delivered to Legal professional Common Merrick Garland on Friday. His findings are prone to develop into political fodder for Trump, who's planning to run for re-election in 2024 regardless of dealing with felony costs in New York and two federal investigations by Particular Counsel Jack Smith which might be trying each at Trump's retention of labeled data and his function in efforts to overturn the outcomes of the 2020 presidential election. Trump had hoped Durham would launch his report forward of the 2020 election, in what he thought could be a blow to President Joe Biden's marketing campaign. However Durham's investigation has largely failed to provide significant affect, after two separate juries acquitted each defendants he tried to prosecute in 2022. In a single case Durham introduced, a Washington, D.C. jury acquitted Hillary Clinton's former marketing campaign legal professional Michael Sussmann on costs he lied to the FBI when he met with the bureau in September 2016 to share a tip about attainable communications between Trump's enterprise and a Russian financial institution. Durham's investigation was dealt yet one more main set-back only a few months later, when a jury in Virginia acquitted Russian researcher Igor Danchenko of costs that he lied to the FBI when he was interviewed concerning the sources of knowledge he supplied that grew to become a part of a doc referred to as the "Steele file." That doc, penned by former British intelligence officer Christopher Steele, made allegations about ties between Trump's 2016 election marketing campaign and Russia and contained salacious particulars - lots of which had been by no means substantiated. An investigation by the Justice Division's inspector common later discovered that the FBI improperly continued to depend on unsubstantiated allegations within the Steele file when it utilized for court-approved warrant functions to observe the communications of Carter Web page, a former Trump marketing campaign adviser. Durham did safe a profitable responsible plea towards former FBI legal professional Kevin Clinesmith, who was singled out within the inspector common's report, for altering an e-mail that was used to justify a authorities wiretap software for Web page. Durham's report on Monday echoed lots of the considerations the inspector common beforehand raised concerning the rigor of the FBI's course of for making use of to the Overseas Intelligence Surveillance Courtroom for wiretap functions. The FBI has since applied quite a few reforms to the method. © 2023 Thomson/Reuters. All rights reserved. Source link Read the full article

[imperiumallaboveall]

Watch "'Why Did He Have That Special Badge?': Kennedy Grills Garland About Michael Sussmann" on YouTube

5 hours Bellevue

She wrote you off

[t3r3sa-p]

Durham bombshell: Prosecutor unveils smoking gun FBI text message, 'joint venture' to smear Trump | Just The News

🔴In a court filing late Monday night, Durham 👉for the 1st time suggested 👉Hillary Clinton's campaign, her researchers and others formed a 👉"joint venture or conspiracy" for the purpose of weaving the collusion story to harm Trump's election chances...

🔴(Durham) ...while putting the courts on notice 👉he is prepared to show the effort to smear Donald Trump with now-disproven Russia collusion allegations was a "conspiracy"

🔴Durham noted that in House testimony a year later Sussmann admitted he made the FBI approach at 👉the instruction of his client

🔴Sussmann testified in a deposition taken by then-House Intel Committee Republican investigative counsel 👉Kash Patel...

[opedguy]

Senate to Investigate John Durham

LOS ANGELES (OnlineColumnist.com), Jan. 30, 2022.--Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Dick Durham, 78, (D-Ill) said he would investigate nefarious conduct of 72-year-old Special Counsel John Durham, tasked Oct. 19, 2020 by 72-year-old  former Atty. Bill Bill Barr to get to the bottom of the FBI’s counterintelligence investigation of 76-year-old former President Donald Trump during the 2016 presidential campaign.  Durham was given broad authority to look into 62-year-old former FBI Director James Comey who launched a counterintelligence investigation into then Republican nominee Donald Trump in the summer of 2020.  New York Times reported ethical lapses in Durham’s probe, after several of Durham’s staff resigned.  Times’ investigators found that Barr influence the probe as well as prosecuting Justice Department Atty. Kevin Clinesmith and former Hillary Clinton campaign Atty. Michael Sussmann.

Durham prosecuted Clinesmith for deleting information on an email to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act [ACT] court, asking for a warrant to wiretap former Trump campaign official Carter Page. Durham won a conviction Jan 20, 2021 for Clinesmith who doctored an email to prevent the FISA court from knowing that Page worked for the CIA.  Former FISA Court Chief Justice Rosemary Collyer said she would have never granted the FBI warrant to wiretap Carter Page.  Yet Durbin thinks Durham should be prosecuted because of some of staff quitting or that Barr influenced the investigation.  What about the New York Times printing untold stories about Trump’s alleged ties to Moscow, all based on 75-year-old former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton Rodham Clinton’s paid opposition research AKA the Steele dossier, insisting Trump was a Russian asset.

Clinesmith’s Jan.  20, 2021 conviction was the tip of the iceberg showing that the FBI conspired in 2016 to sabotage the Trump campaign with the intent of getting Hillary elected president.  Durham the went after former Justice Department and Hillary 2016 campaign Atty. Michael Sussmann who told the FBI he did not represent any client in when he told the FBI that Trump had contacts with a Russian bank. Sussmann told FBI General Counsel James Baker that he represented himself, telling Baker that Trump had ties with a Russian Bank.  Sussmann at the time worked for Hillary’s campaign, looking for anyway possible way to discredit Trump. Sussman eventually got off May 31, 2022 on a technicality after Durham pled his best case. Democrats and he New York Times were euphoric knowing that Durham hit a dead end on the Sussmann case, making Durham look feeble.

Durbin attacked Durham because he knows that Rep. Jim Jordan (R-Ohio), 58, Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, will initiate probes showing that the Justice Department and FBI were weaponized to go after Trump politically in 2016 and during his presidency.  “The Justice Department should work on behalf of the American people, no for the personal benefit of any president.  As we wait for the results of ongoing internal review, the Senate Judiciary Committee will do its part and take a hard look at these repeated episodes, and the regulations and policies that enabled them, to ensure such abuses of power cannot happen again,” Durbin said.  Durbin wants to turn on its head the kind of obvious abuse during the 2016 presidential campaign, where the FBI clearly tried to sabotage Trump’s campaign.  Durbin wants, with the help of DOJ, to point fingers at Trump, the subject of an FBI sting.

New York Times and Washington post have spent years covering up years of reporting about Trump’s allege ties with 70-year-old Russian President Vladimir Putin and the Russian Federation.  All the specious stories written about Trump were based on Hillary’s Steele Dossier, pure rubbish that proved in court to be completely bogus.  Yet that didn’t stop Comey and his buddy, 67-year-old former CIA Director John Brennan from accusing Trump of Russian conspiracy.  Comey and Brennan knew about the conspiracy against Trump because it was part of the FBI’s sting  against the former president.  Yet no matter how much conspiracy was uncovered at the FBI to sabotage Trump’s 2016 campaign, Dubin goes Orwellian, accusing Durham of conspiracy to defraud the government.  FBI brass under Comey did everything possible to get Hillary elected in 2016.

Whatever conspiracies existed in 2016 at the FBI, they all attempted to sabotage Trump’s 2016 presidential campaign.  Durham couldn’t get enough evidence to prove that former Atty. Gen. Loretta Lynch asked former CIA Director John Brernnan to contact Comey in summer 2016 to launch a counterintelligence investigation, alleging Trump’s ties to the Kremlin.  Democrats like Rep. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.), insisted even after former Special Counsel Robert Mueller cleared Trump of wrongdoing March 23, 2019, that he had categorical proof of Trump’s Russian ties.  Schiff, of course, never produced  proof of anything.  Whatever Durham and Barr couldn’t find, it was because Comey and his top FBI brass did everything possible to cover up the 2016 conspiracy against Trump’s campaign.  Once Sussmann was acquitted May 31, 2022, Democrats and the press used it to discredit Durham.

About the Author

John M. Curtis writes politically neutral commentary analyzing spin in national and global news. He’s editor of OnlineColumnist.com and author of Dodging The Bullet and Operation Charisma.

[pattyspatio]

Michael Sussmann Indicted for Lying To FBI In Russia Probe

Michael Sussmann Indicted for Lying To FBI In Russia Probe

Update: As reported earlier, Durham’s case against Michael Sussman may not succeed. It did not. Michael Sussman, Hillary Clinton’s 2016 presidential campaign lawyer was found not guilty of lying to the FBI A grand jury indicted Michael Sussmann, of Perkins Coie law firm, for allegedly lying to the FBI general counsel about who he was working for when he relayed information about Trump. The…

[arpov-blog-blog]

Republicans promise two years of pointless investigations and economic destruction if they win control of the House. They will tear down our government and nation for DJT and their racist Christian Nationalists ideology. They will give power to the most outrageous MAGA-heads/Q anon personalities..."At this point, Durham’s investigation into the Russia scandal investigation has lasted longer than Mueller’s original probe of the Russia scandal.

After an extended period of apparent inactivity, the prosecutor last year indicted cybersecurity attorney Michael Sussmann for allegedly having lied to the FBI. The case proved to be baseless; Sussmann was acquitted; and one of the jurors publicly mocked Durham’s team for having taken the case to trial.

Yesterday, Team Durham failed again to secure a conviction — and by all accounts, there won’t be any additional charges filed against anyone. The tale of the tape is brutal:

-Two trials

-Zero convictions

-One provocative resignation

-And a largely meaningless guilty plea from an obscure figure

By any fair measure, this is the most embarrassing and inconsequential special counsel investigation in the modern history of American law enforcement.

But the humiliation is not limited to the prosecutor. Every once in a while, Trump still blurts out Durham’s name, hoping the prosecutor might yet bolster some of the former president’s conspiracy theories. As regular readers may recall, the Republican has even suggested at times that Durham’s probe could serve as a possible vehicle for retaliating against his perceived enemies.

So much for that idea.

Over the summer, The New York Times’ Charlie Savage wrote a report questioning why the Durham investigation existed. He added, “Mr. Barr’s mandate to Mr. Durham appears to have been to investigate a series of conspiracy theories.”

Those theories, however, lacked merit, which is why the Durham probe is ending with a whimper.

There is a degree of irony to the circumstances: For years, Team Trump insisted that the Russia scandal was pointless but the Durham investigation was real. It now appears these Republicans had it exactly backward: The Russia scandal was real, and the Durham investigation was pointless."