Special Counsel John Durham failed to convict former Justice Depatment official Michael Sussmann for lying to former FBI senior counsel James Baker about whether he represented a “client” when he told Baker former President Donald Trump had a secret server to Russia’s Alffa Bank. Durham’s problem from the get-go was that it’s nearly impossible to get a perjury conviction because it’s about intent, something difficult to prove. Durham certainly had a good case because Sussmann, when he met with Baker, never old him he was employed by Perkins Cole, the law firm representing former Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton’s 2016 campaign. Sussmann was the perfect mole, planning a false allegation about Trump having a server to Russia’s Alfa Bank. By the time Sussmann spoke with Baker in 2016, the FBI was already well into its counterintelligence investigation into Trump.
All the witnesses made a compelling case for Durham to uncover a nefarious piece of the Russian Hoax conspiracy that had key members of the FBI working feverishly to prevent Trump from becoming president. Durham had a compelling email from Sussmann requesting a “time-sensitive” meeting, telling Baker about the server to Russia’s Alfa Bank. Ulitimately, the jury heard testimony, that despite working for Perkins Cole, Sussamann actually went to Baker as a private citizen. Jurors couldn’t determine Sussmann’s “intent” to lie to Baker, giving Sussmann the not guilty verdict. But the jury and public heard a mouthful about the FBI’s underhanded attempt to sabotage Trump’s 2016 campaign. Sussmann was just one small part of the larger conspiracy to prevent Trump from becoming president. FBI officials said that Sussmann’s disclosure to Baker was already dismissed by the FBI
Perkins Cole Chief Counsel Mark Elias, a key legal piece to Hillary’s 2016 campaign, said at Sussmann’s trial that the campaign would not have asked Sussmann to inform the FBI about a possible server with Alfa Bank. It wasn’t that Durham didn’t make a compelling case, only that it’s hard, in cases of perjury, to prove intent, making conviction of Sussmann difficult. Durham did plenty to expose in his pleadings that Sussmann worked for Perkins Cole, working in overdrive to discredit Trump’s 2016 campaign, with the main theme of Russian collusion. Sussmann knew about the Steele dossier, opposition research fabricated by former MI6 Agent Christopher Steele for Perkins Cole contractor, Glen Simpson’s FusionGPS opposition research firm. Sussmann was as small player compared to former CIA Director John Brennan and former FBI Director James Comey.
Hillary created a whirlwind of lies surrounding Trump’s ties to Russia, something, with Sussmann’s acquittal, may never get unraveled. Former Atty. Gen. Bill Barr, before he retired in Dec. 2020, asked Durham to serve as Special Counsel to get to the bottom of the Russian hoax. But instead of going after low-hanging fruit like Sussmann, Durham would have been had more success going after Brennan, Comeny and many other FBI senior agents and administrators, all caught up in the conspiracy to prevent Trump from becoming president. Sussmann’s case was always about minutia of who said what to whom. Baker testified he was 100% certain that Backer told him he represented no client, meaning he didn’t work for the Hillary campaign. Whether that was false or not, Sussmann’s attorneys argued that it was impossible for Durham that Sussmann’s intent to lie to FBI Senior Counsel James Baker.
After losing his case with Sussmann, it’s hard to know what direction Durham’s Special Counsel investigation will take. Clearly, had Durham convicted Sussmann of lying to the FBI, it would have paved the way for more investigations of various players involved with the Russian hoax to prevent Trump from becoming president. One thing’s for sure, the U.S. press, especially the New York Time and Washington Post, welcomed Sussmann’s acquittal for all the stories they wrote about the Russian hoax. Russian hoax stories flooded the Times and Post and most broadcast outlets for years, all because they despised Trump during the campaign and as president. When you consider all the Democrat House members that put reputations on the line saying Trump was a Russian asset, like House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff (D-Calif.), they also breathed a sigh of relief with Sussmann’s acquittal.
Durham must go back to the drawing board, spending millions for nothing prosecuting Sussmann for lying to the FBI. Getting a perjury conviction was always a long shot, considering Durham would have to prove intent to deceive or lie to a jury. No one doubts that Sussmann was a small part of the monstrous conspiracy by the Hillary Clinton to involved the Obama administration Justice Department, CIA, FBI and NSA, to work day and night to discredit Trump’s 2016 campaign. When former Special Counsel Robert Mueller finished his two-year investigation into Russian collusion March 23, 2019, House Democrats and the media continued to push the Russian hoax. Schiff claimed he would provide compelling evidence of Trump’s ties to the Kremlin, of course that never happened. Durham is left now with what to do next to uncover the origin of the FBI’s Russian hoax.
