Durham Probe Is On-Going, Should Get to the Bottom of Russiagate, Analysts Argue

Ex-Clinton campaign lawyer Michael Sussmann has been acquitted by a DC jury, prompting a storm of criticism from conservatives. However, the verdict does not spell the end of Special Counsel Durham's probe, some claim.

"The unanimous verdict to acquit Michael Sussmann by a Washington DC jury despite presentation by Special Counsel Durham and his team of overwhelming evidence of the defendant's pattern and practice of deceit underscores just how broken America's legal system has become," explained Wall Street analyst and investigative journalist Charles Ortel.

"Ordinary Americans who make false statements to the FBI regularly are punished harshly. But super-lawyer Sussmann, whose specialty is helping partisans triumph in elections, emerges unscathed, emboldened to soldier on protecting the swamp. Shameful”, he continued.

Sussmann was charged by Durham on 16 September 2021 with lying to the FBI. In September 2016, the Clinton lawyer - who was then a partner of law firm Perkins Coie - provided the agency with research into supposed "secret communications" between the Trump Organization and Russia's Alfa Bank.

Although the lawyer insisted that he came forward as a concerned citizen, Durham argued that Sussmann "assembled and conveyed the [Russia] allegations" on behalf of the 2016 Hillary Clinton presidential campaign and tech executive Rodney Joffe.

However, the DC jury concluded that the ex-Clinton campaign lawyer is not guilty of lying to the FBI. In explaining this verdict, some observers have suggested that the prosecution collapsed from a lack of evidence, while others claimed that the judge and jury were biased.

"The prosecution was faced with a jury that contained three Clinton donors, an AOC [democrat representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez] donor, and a woman whose daughter played on the same team as Sussmann’s daughter," wrote Jonathan Turley, a Shapiro professor of public interest law at George Washington University. "The prosecutors were also hit with a series of adverse rulings by the judge that limited the scope of evidence and examinations."

Still, this was not an easy case to prove, stressed Turley, admitting that "the defense did a good job in attacking elements like materiality in how the allegedly false statement impacted the FBI."

Earlier, US legal observers argued that ex-FBI lawyer Kevin Clinesmith, who admitted that he doctored an email while investigating Trump’s 2016 campaign, also received a lenient sentence.

"Sadly and especially inside America's capital city, politicians who prove useful in the deep state project to promote unregulated globalism appear untouchable," Ortel said.

Sussmann's Case Exposed Damning Facts

Even though US conservatives expressed dissatisfaction with Sussmann's acquittal, some legal experts argue that the trial helped expose inconvenient truths about Russiagate, Hillary Clinton, the FBI, and their associates and partners.

Margot Cleveland, The Federalist's senior legal correspondent, noted that Sussmann's case shed light on the scheming behind the Alfa Bank and Yotaphone hoaxes; unveiled Hillary Clinton's role in pushing the Alfa Bank hoax to the media; exposed tech executive Rodney Joffe's involvement in Russiagate; and showed that the FBI apparently misled the DoJ about ex-MI6 Christopher Steele’s dirty dossier and the Alfa Bank hoax in March 2017.

For his part, a US lawyer known by his nom-de-plume Techno Fog noted in his blog that the trial indicated that the decision to open an investigation into Trump’s Alfa Bank connections came from the FBI leadership. He also noted that Perkins Coie partner Marc Elias provided the Clinton campaign with updates on the Fusion GPS “research”, and that the FBI investigation into the Russian “hacking” of the US election was "shoddy”.

It was previously revealed that the FBI never examined allegedly "hacked" DNC servers. It was the cyber firm Crowdstrike which blamed "Russian hackers" for the "intrusion". However, Crowdstrike President Shawn Henry admitted under oath in 2017 that the company does not have "concrete evidence" that the alleged "culprits" stole any data from the servers.

Even though the supposed "breach" occurred in spring 2016, the trial revealed that "as of October 13, 2016, the FBI did not have the Crowdstrike images relating to the purported DNC/DCCC hack," Techno Fog wrote, citing a "message from [a] FBI agent via their internal messaging system: 'really, I just want images of what Crowdstrike has'."

Durham's Probe is by No Means Dead

"Until Durham exposes why Sussmann and others worked so hard to destroy Trump and why they feared an unfettered Trump administration, I think the best we can fairly say is that Durham may have earned a Pyrrhic victory," argued Ortel. "In the present era of unregulated globalism, the market to purchase influence from well-connected political dynasties thrives."

Meanwhile, the Durham investigation is continuing.

Christopher Steele's “primary sub-source” Igor Danchenko faces trial later in 2022, the investigation into Hillary Clinton ally Rodney Joffe remains open, and the Clinton campaign Hillary for America, as well as multiple former employees of the campaign, are subject to 'matters before the special counsel'," according to Techno Fog.

In addition to this, other US establishment figures have recently also come under scrutiny. President Joe Biden's son, Hunter, is under federal investigation and could be indicted, according to US lawmakers. The Hunter Biden case casts shadow not only on his father - the incumbent president and former vice president – but also on ex-President Barack Obama and his entourage, according to Ortel.

"A grand jury is already investigating Hunter Biden," says the Wall Street analyst. "Unless President Biden pardons Hunter, I believe Hunter (and others) may well be indicted. Whether Hunter will accept a plea deal or choose to fight in a trial that will likely include lurid evidence is an open question. What I want to understand is why so many people decided to protect the Biden family for so many years? And given President Biden's diminished capabilities, why did Barack Obama select Biden in the first place to serve as Vice President and subsequently keep him on through January 2017?"