(Photo by PAUL J. RICHARDS/AFP/Getty Images)
The Trump world put a lot of faith in John Durham.
After spending years and considerable money searching for the smoking gun to “Lock Her Up” Hillary Clinton in Gitmo, his confusing mess of a probe ran aground on the shores of reality. Former Perkins Coie partner Michael Sussmann was acquitted of lying to the FBI today, just like every competent legal commentator patiently explained would happen.
LexisNexis’ Practical Guidance Is Every Attorney’s Essential Concierge
This tool will — seamlessly and authoritatively — take you from initial research to final draft in just about any practice scenario.
Speaking of competent legal commentators… Jonathan Turley is gonna be very confused at this outcome.
As will a lot of folks who never understood this case outside the lens of right-wing media. Watching Fox News, one might have thought Sussmann handing over information about a Russian bank communicating with the Trump campaign was a great criminal lie. But that had nothing to do with the case: Sussmann was charged with not telling the FBI’s general counsel that he also worked for the Clinton campaign.
Which the senior FBI lawyer knew. Because everyone in Washington knew Perkins Coie also represented the Clinton campaign. So it wasn’t misleading and hence… not guilty.
But conservatives never really grasped that and probably won’t for a long time.
Take Control Of Your Firm’s Finances With Tools Built For Success
Position your firm for long-term growth with better financial visibility and control. Learn how to track performance, manage spending, and plan strategically—download the full e-book now.
The coverage they watched described this specific story as “connected” to the Steele dossier, to give it the taint of “pee tape” allegations despite being a distinct claim. Or saw the network deploy certified joke analysts like former Acting-But-Not-Legally-Acting AG Matthew Whitaker to deliberately muddy the description of the case. Whitaker recently described how FBI agents could have figured out that the Trump server allegations were false, which might make you think the case was about Sussmann lying about the information he handed over.
Those charges were never brought because they only existed in the fever dreams of the MAGA-geniuses. Because whether or not there’s an innocent explanation for the Russian pings on the Trump server, Sussmann didn’t lie when he flagged those.
The investigation was baseless, basically an inquiry into whether Sussmann billed his time to the right client, and Durham dumped it on the docket at the last second provided by the statute of limitations to stretch out his grift for a few months more.
And it’s over now.
A right-wing former federal prosecutor speculates that Special Counsel Durham brought a losing case with a long indictment packed with material irrelevant to the charge in order to “establish in the public record the existence of the plot” for ideological allies. pic.twitter.com/bUd4hxW9dB
— southpaw (@nycsouthpaw) May 31, 2022
Oh, for Pete’s sake.
Joe Patrice is a senior editor at Above the Law and co-host of Thinking Like A Lawyer. Feel free to email any tips, questions, or comments. Follow him on Twitter if you’re interested in law, politics, and a healthy dose of college sports news. Joe also serves as a Managing Director at RPN Executive Search.