The investigation by John Durham’s special prosecutor suffered a serious blow this week when his leading criminal prosecution against prominent Democratic lawyer Michael Susman led to an acquittal.
The verdict is likely to do significant damage to the reputation of an already controversial investigation and raises the question of what happens to the Trump-era prosecutor.
The two-week trial ended with a unanimous innocent verdict from a federal jury that heard Durham’s office say Sussman was at the center of a 2016 FBI manipulation scheme to investigate then-presidential candidate Donald Trump.
This was a major obstacle to an investigation that began three years ago and was accused of seeking to provide Trump with political ammunition.
During the Trump administration, former Attorney General William Barr instructed Durham to review the origins of the FBI’s investigation into Trump’s 2016 campaign in connection with allegations that he was in a secret agreement with Russia.
Durham’s investigation was launched because Trump claimed he was the target of a slanderous campaign organized by his opponent in 2016, Hillary Clinton and the FBI.
Until the end of Trump’s term, the prosecutor was appointed special lawyer, which allowed his investigation to continue after President Biden took office, despite a 2019 report by the Justice Department’s chief inspector that the FBI was justified in starting the Trump investigation.
Durham has indicted three people, including Sussman, but has so far provided some new information that would support Trump’s claims.
Some legal commentators have questioned the decision to press charges against Sussmann.
The Attorney General’s Office claims that former law firm partner Perkins Coie lied to the FBI’s chief legal counsel when he arranged a meeting in October 2016 to broadcast Internet data that allegedly showed suspicious traffic between the Trump Organization and Russia-based Alpha. Bank.
Sussmann was accused of making false allegations that he did not act on behalf of any of his clients, which at the time included Clinton’s presidential campaign when he provided the data. In the end, the FBI concluded that it could not establish any connection between Trump and the Russian bank.
Some analysts say Sussmann’s decision to prosecute is questionable in part because there were no third witnesses to the meeting, which took place nearly six years ago, making it difficult to prove a lie to a jury.
Veronica Renzi, a former federal prosecutor, says the verdict should spark some introspection from Durham’s office.
“I think this is an indication to Durham’s team that they really need to consider how he chose to bring charges in this case,” Renzi said.
She added that prosecutors should investigate whether “they look at the evidence in the same way they think jurors will look at the evidence and really look at it when deciding whether the issues they raise require prosecution”.
It is unclear what effect, if any, the verdict will ultimately have on Durham’s investigation.
“While we are disappointed with the result, we respect the jury’s decision and thank them for their service,” the special prosecutor said Tuesday in response to the outcome of the trial. “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.
Some critics of Trump see Durham’s case as politically motivated and have begun calling on Attorney General Merrick Garland to end the special prosecutor’s investigation.
But Bruce Green, a law professor at Fordham University and a former federal prosecutor, says previous attorneys general since the Nixon administration in the past have taken an impartial approach to special prosecutors’ investigations, and Garland would provoke a political backlash if he deviates.
“I just don’t think a Democrat nominee can say that very easily and it will probably take a lot of warmth, and I think it’s probably better for public trust in the Justice Department for the Attorney General to just let it happen.” Green said.
Durham’s office is due to return to court in October for a trial against Igor Danchenko, one of the sources in Steele’s controversial file, who faces five charges of lying to the FBI in 2017 when investigators examined the document.
It is unclear whether the special prosecutor will be more successful in bringing his case against Danchenko, but the trial is likely to give him the opportunity to shed light on the FBI’s work with the Trump investigation.
For his part, Trump has continued to challenge his allegations stemming from the 2016 campaign, and seems unlikely to be upset by the outcome of Sussman’s trial.
Earlier this year, he filed a massive federal racketeering lawsuit against Clinton and various Democrats and former law enforcement officials, claiming it was a widespread conspiracy to undermine him politically with a slanderous campaign to link him to the Kremlin.
Five Things You Need to Know About Texas Social Media Law Supreme Court Stops Counting Disputed Balloons in Pennsylvania
On Thursday, Trump’s lawyers will try to persuade a federal judge to allow the case to continue, as various defendants want to be fired.
Following Sussmann’s sentencing on Tuesday, Trump released a May 27 letter to the Pulitzer Prize-winning organization outlining the development of Sussmann’s trial, which described efforts to investigate the opposition in the 2016 Clinton campaign. and urges them to withdraw their 2018 awards from The New York Times and The Washington Post for reporting on Russian interference in the 2016 election.
“Again, I urge you to annul the award you awarded on the basis of blatantly false, humiliating and slanderous news,” Trump wrote. “If you decide not to do so, we will see each other in court.
Add Comment