WASHINGTON – Michael Susman, a prominent Democrat cybersecurity lawyer, was acquitted on Tuesday on a felony charge of lying to the FBI that he had no client in 2016 when he shared information about possible links between Donald J. Trump and Russia.
The verdict was a blow to Special Prosecutor John H. Durham, who was appointed by the Trump administration three years ago to investigate the Trump-Russia investigation into any violations.
Mr Durham expressed disappointment with the verdict, but said he respected the jury’s decision, which he debated for about six hours.
“I would also like to acknowledge and thank the investigators and the prosecution team for their dedicated efforts in seeking truth and justice in this case,” he said in a statement.
The case focused on strange Internet data that cybersecurity researchers found in 2016 after it became public that Russia had hacked Democrats and Mr Trump encouraged the country to turn to Hillary Clinton’s emails.
Researchers said the data could reflect a hidden communication channel using servers for the Trump Organization and Alfa Bank, a Kremlin-linked bank. The FBI briefly examined the suspicions and dismissed them.
On September 19, 2016, Mr. Sussmann presented these suspicions to a senior FBI official. Prosecutors accused him of lying to the official that he was not there on behalf of any of the clients, concealing that he was in fact working for both Clinton’s campaign and the technology director who tipped him. .
Mr Durham and his judicial team used court documents and testimony to explain how Mr Susman, while working for a Democratic-affiliated law firm and recording his time for the Clinton campaign, was trying to get reporters to write about Alfa Bank suspicions.
But trying to persuade reporters to write about such suspicions is not a crime. Mr. Sussmann’s guilt or innocence addressed a narrow question: whether he made a false statement to a senior FBI official at the 2016 meeting, saying he shared these suspicions on behalf of no one but himself.
Mr Durham used the case to suggest a bigger conspiracy: that there was a joint venture that would essentially put Mr Trump in for a deal with Russia, forcing the FBI to investigate the suspicions so that reporters could write about him. – a scheme involving the Clinton campaign; his opposition research firm Fusion GPS; Mr. Sussmann; and a cybersecurity expert who brought him strange data and analysis.
This insinuation has excited Mr Trump’s supporters, who share his view that the investigation in Russia is a ‘fraud’ and are trying to combine the actual investigation with sometimes subtle or dubious allegations. In fact, the Alfa Bank issue was a side effect: the FBI had already launched an investigation into other grounds before Mr Sussmann handed over the advice, and Special Advocate General Robert C. Mueller III’s final report made no mention of Alfa Bank’s Suspects.
But the case used by Mr. Durham and his team to spread their widespread insinuations was subtle – one of the accusations that they made a false statement at a meeting without other witnesses or modern notes. The evidence and arguments gathered by Attorney General Andrew DePhilippis and his colleagues failed with the 12 jurors who voted unanimously to acquit Mr Sussmann.
Some supporters of Mr Trump were preparing for this result, citing the District of Columbia’s reputation as a highly democratic area and outlining the prospect that the jury could be politically biased against a Trump-era prosecutor trying to convict a defendant who was works for the Clinton campaign.
The judge told the jury that they should not take into account any of their own political views when deciding the facts.
The defense, which described prosecutors’ insinuations as “political conspiracy theories”, said Mr Sussmann only brought the matter to the FBI when he thought the New York Times was on the verge of writing an article on the matter to give to the Bureau. reveal itself so as not to be caught with flat feet.
Clinton’s campaign officials testified during the trial that they did not tell him or authorize him to go to the FBI – and that it was against their interests because they did not trust the bureau and this could delay the publication of any article.
This story is evolving. Check again for updates.
Add Comment