The Real Story in Durham’s Indictment of Democratic Lawyer Michael Sussmann

National Review ^ | 9/16/21 | Andrew McCarthy

[martin_fierro]

The special counsel’s final report on the Clinton campaign’s manufacturing of the Trump–Russia collusion narrative will be very interesting reading.

There is a long game and a short game going on in special counsel John Durham’s indictment of Democratic Party lawyer Michael Sussmann on a false-statements count.

The short of it is this: A false statement was allegedly made by Sussmann to the FBI’s then-general counsel, James Baker, on September 19, 2016. In federal law, the false-statement crime has a five-year statute of limitations, meaning it had to be charged by this Sunday (September 19, 2021). Consequently, even if Durham would probably have preferred to wait until his full investigation was concluded before filing indictments, by delaying beyond Sunday, he would have lost what appears to be an eminently provable felony charge. If he was going to indict Sussmann on this conduct, it was now or never.

Now, more critically, the long game.

It is unusual for a one-count false-statement charge, which can be alleged in a paragraph, to be presented as a 27-page speaking indictment. But Durham wrote a highly detailed account of the facts and circumstances surrounding the false-statements charge. It is significant in that it tells us far more about his investigation.

Here is where the prosecutor appears to be going: ... x8

[nicollo]

just hit browser “read mode” and it gets rid of the limits and ads.

[Jacquerie]

And the FIB obviously didn’t squeeze him for damning testimony against his superiors.

All in a day’s work in the Deep State hot tub.

[Robert DeLong]

McCarthy thinks the Durham report could be interesting reading. Well that’s nice, but I want arrests, trials and convictions. Anything less is a sham without the wow.

[lepton]

Then read this:

https://context-cdn.washingtonpost.com/notes/prod/default/documents/3203e975-c59b-42f1-b3c8-8a07e33b01d8/note/9901e223-403a-47ce-93e0-1d78a5ff6627.#page=1

[lepton]

Case 1:21-cr-00582-CRC Document 1 Filed 09/16/21 Page 1 of 27

[Wilderness Conservative]

Cant/wouldnt download as being requested. Do you have another link? Trust me when I say I hope Andrew has seen the light but so far... not so much.

[FryingPan101]

Fascinating.
At the time of the events, I can think of no one who would have been interested in following the trail unless it was someone with financial resources that a special counsel would have.
I keep seeing the final scene of the old political thriller “Three Days of the Condor” in my mind.
“Who will print it?”

[lepton]

The link worked for me when I tried again, but here is another link to the filing:

https://www.justice.gov/sco/press-release/file/1433511/download?utm_medium=email&utm_source=govdelivery

[piasa]

Sussman made the statement to James Baker two days after a subpoena was issued for Platte River Networks records in the Hillary emails case. The conversation with Baker also occurred on the same day that Hillary IT guy Combatta was trying to delete his messages asking for help in deleting names...If I recall correctly.

[T Ruth]

To me, this seems like theater.

I agree with Dershowitz: this is a weak case.

Moreover, a D.C. jury is not going to convict a Democrat lawyer who worked for Hillary Clinton.

This is what is called a modified limited hangout.