# The Durham indictments prosecuting fake Trump 'collusion' **URL:** \ **Category:** Politics & Elections\ **Created:** [September 23, 2021, 8:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-durham-indictments-prosecuting-fake-trump-collusion/951215 "2021-09-23T20:11:52Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![Sam\_Stone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ecccb3/32.png) [@Sam\_Stone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sam_Stone)\ **Post date:** [September 23, 2021, 8:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-durham-indictments-prosecuting-fake-trump-collusion/951215/1 "2021-09-23T20:11:52Z")
This week the Durham investigation into the roots of the Russia/Trump collusion story laid down a second indictment, this time against a lawyer for Perkins-Coie, the law firm that represented Hillary Clinton. Remember the supposed ‘hidden server’ at Alfa Bank that was supposedly connected to a Trump server for the purposes of passing information? The story was a lie concocted by the Hillary campaign, and a lawyer for the firm that represented her has just been indicted for lying to the FBI. He gave them the manufactured Alfa Bank material, claiming that he was bringing it to them as a ‘concerned citizen’ and not as an agent for anyone. It wasn’t true. The whole thing was a fabrication, and he knew it came from the Clinton campaign when he said it. This is the second indictment Durham has brought down, and the first has already resulted in a conviction. In that case, a government lawyer named Clinesmith doctored an FBI interview report (302 file) of Carter Page to remove information (that he was actually a CIA informant) that would have prevented the FISA court from allowing a wiretap. Here’s the current indictment: [https://www.justice.gov/sco/press-release/file/1433511/download](https://www.justice.gov/sco/press-release/file/1433511/download) And here is the press release from the Department of Justice: > **[Grand Jury Indicts D.C. Attorney with Making False Statements to the FBI in...](https://www.justice.gov/sco/pr/grand-jury-indicts-dc-attorney-making-false-statements-fbi-2016-regarding-alleged)** > > Special Counsel John Durham today announced that a federal grand jury returned an indictment in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia charging Michael A. Sussmann, 57, a Washington, D.C.-based attorney, with making a false statement to... From the press release (I bolded some important points): > [@](#): > > As alleged in the indictment, on Sept. 19, 2016, Sussman, a lawyer at a large international law firm, met with the FBI General Counsel at FBI Headquarters in Washington, D.C. Sussmann had requested the meeting to provide the General Counsel with certain data files and “white papers” that allegedly demonstrated a covert communications channel between the Trump Organization and a Russia-based bank. Sussmann, who had previously represented the Democratic National Committee in connection with a cyber hack, falsely stated to the General Counsel that he was not bringing these allegations to the FBI on behalf of any client. This false representation led the General Counsel to understand that Sussmann was providing information as a good citizen rather than a paid advocate or political operative. **In fact, Sussmann assembled and conveyed the allegations to the FBI on behalf of at least two clients, including a U.S. technology executive and the Clinton Presidential Campaign.** > > It is alleged that beginning in July 2016, Sussmann worked with the aforementioned U.S. technology executive, other cyber researchers, and a U.S.-based investigative firm to assemble the data and white papers that Sussmann ultimately provided to the FBI and the media. **The technology executive, for his part, exploited his access to non-public data at multiple internet companies and enlisted the assistance of researchers at a U.S.-based university** who were receiving and analyzing internet data in connection with a pending federal government cybersecurity research contract designed to identify the perpetrators of malicious cyber-attacks and protect U.S. national security. The indictment further alleges that researchers were tasked to mine this internet data to establish “an inference” and “narrative” that would tie then-presidential candidate Donald Trump to Russia, and which the executive believed would please certain “VIPs.” **The indictment also alleges that Sussmann, his law firm, and the technology executive coordinated with representatives and agents of the Clinton Campaign in these efforts.** I am not a lawyer, but I have seen several analyses of this indictment which say it’s a placeholder for further conspiracy charges. A number of individuals are identified by title they held at the time, and these include current National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan and other people currently in the Biden administration. I have also heard that the Durham investigation is now focused on conspiracy charges. This indictment, so I’ve been told, nullifies the statute of limitations for all those who may have been part of the effort to manufacture evidence against Trump. I’d be interested in what the SDMB lawyers have to say to this. ---
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [September 23, 2021, 8:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-durham-indictments-prosecuting-fake-trump-collusion/951215/2 "2021-09-23T20:17:24Z")
IANAL, but Lawfare is filled with 'em – here’s what they say: > **[On the Special Counsel’s Weird Prosecution of Michael Sussmann](https://www.lawfaremedia.org/article/special-counsels-weird-prosecution-michael-sussmann)** > > The indictment of Michael Sussmann is far removed from the supposedly grave FBI misconduct Durham was supposed to reveal. It’s also a remarkably weak case. > [@](#): > > Even taken on its own terms, the document is one of the very weakest federal criminal indictments I have ever seen in more than 25 years covering federal investigations and prosecutions. It depends in its entirety on the testimony of a single witness who is on the record, under oath, saying something rather different from what the indictment alleges. The indictment itself, as I’ll explain, also contains a number of facts that tend to undercut its central allegation. ---
**Author:** ![Sam\_Stone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ecccb3/32.png) [@Sam\_Stone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sam_Stone)\ **Post date:** [September 23, 2021, 9:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-durham-indictments-prosecuting-fake-trump-collusion/951215/3 "2021-09-23T21:34:42Z")
From your cite: > [@](#): > > This story is, indeed, a sleazy one, in which a group of private investigators, computer security researchers, tech executives and Clinton campaign lawyers access nonpublic data to try to make a colorable case that the Alfa Bank connection represented something nefarious. They put together some white papers on the subject, displaying a pretty casual relationship with the truth along the way, and they dangled those documents in front of the press and law enforcement. As for it being one of the ‘weakest’ cases he’s seen, apparently a Grand Jury did not agree. So fhere will be a trial, and we’ll find out how weak the case is then. But even the Lawfare guy agrees with the basics here : That the Alfa Bank story was a Clinton dirty tricks op, and the people who knew it lied. They just aren’t sure who the liar was and whether there is evidence enough to convict Sussman. The same people were behind the Steele Dossier. The Hillary campaign had Perkins Coie hire Fusion GPS, which then hired Steele to gin up the dossier. Does any of this give you any pause whatsoever that maybe Teump wasn’t a Russian stooge? ---
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [September 23, 2021, 9:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-durham-indictments-prosecuting-fake-trump-collusion/951215/4 "2021-09-23T21:37:48Z")
It’s irrelevant to my opinion of whether Trump was a Russian stooge. He was - that’s been established by nothing more than the public record (Trump’s own words and actions as candidate and then president). The only question about it is whether he knew he was a Russian stooge, or if he was an unwitting Russian stooge. ---
**Author:** ![Sam\_Stone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ecccb3/32.png) [@Sam\_Stone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sam_Stone)\ **Post date:** [September 23, 2021, 9:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-durham-indictments-prosecuting-fake-trump-collusion/951215/5 "2021-09-23T21:49:45Z")
So what was the evidence of his stoogeness again? We can certainly agree that Trump is an asshole and all kinds of other horrible things. But I’m having a hard time putting together the Russia connection without the Clinton dirty tricks as ‘evidence’. Oh, is there any evidence also that he acted like a Russian Stooge? Did he do any particular favors for Russia? It seems to me he was pretty hard on them. Remember the 200 Russians killed by the US in Syria? Or the sanctions on Russia? Brookings has a list of all U.S. activity with Russia during the Trump administration: > **[On the record: The U.S. administration’s actions on Russia](https://www.brookings.edu/blog/order-from-chaos/2018/09/25/on-the-record-the-u-s-administrations-actions-on-russia/)** > > What has the administration actually done on Russia? Below is a chronological list of its actions and official statements since January 20, 2017. During that period, the administration has taken 27 actions on Russia. There were 52 policy actions or statements regarding Russia during the Trump administration. Which one of those was a Putin Quid-Pro-Quo? It looks to me that they all go in one direction: Criticizing Russia, leveling sanctions on Russia, expelling Russians from the U.S. banning the use of Russian software, etc. So what thing are you thinking of that shows Trump went easy on Russia because he was a stooge? If there’s nothing, Why didn’t Putin pull in some chips? ---
**Author:** ![naita](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/naita/32/5862_2.png) [@naita](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/naita)\ **Post date:** [September 23, 2021, 9:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-durham-indictments-prosecuting-fake-trump-collusion/951215/6 "2021-09-23T21:56:38Z")
> [@Sam\_Stone](#): > > There were 52 policy actions or statements regarding Russia during the Trump administration. Which one of those was a Putin Quid-Pro-Quo? It looks to me that they all go in one direction: Criticizing Russia, leveling sanctions on Russia, expelling Russians from the U.S. banning the use of Russian software, etc. > > So what thing are you thinking of that shows Trump went easy on Russia because he was a stooge? If there’s nothing, Why didn’t Putin pull in some chips? Do we really need to do the work for you on collating all the news immediately preceding those actions? Trump acted against Russia when his lapdog Republican congress couldn’t stomach his hesitance and forced his hand and even then it was clearly unwillingly. ---
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [September 23, 2021, 9:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-durham-indictments-prosecuting-fake-trump-collusion/951215/7 "2021-09-23T21:59:59Z")
Trump personally disclosed highly classified information to the Russian foreign minister. That alone demonstrates his Russian stooginess. But there’s a whole lot more - chiefly insisting that Russia didn’t try to influence the 2016 election, accepting Putin’s assurance rather than US intelligence. And tons of pro Russian public statements. Being a Russian stooge doesn’t mean that Trump does whatever Putin tells him. It means that he sometimes made statements and took actions that were in Russia’s or Putin’s interest, but not the US. Whether this was because he’s an easily manipulated clown, or because Putin had dirt on him, or something else, I don’t know. But there’s no doubt that he sometimes said and did things that helped Russia and hurt the US. ---
**Author:** ![Sam\_Stone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ecccb3/32.png) [@Sam\_Stone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sam_Stone)\ **Post date:** [September 23, 2021, 10:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-durham-indictments-prosecuting-fake-trump-collusion/951215/8 "2021-09-23T22:14:13Z")
> [@naita](#): > > Do we really need to do the work for you on collating all the news immediately preceding those actions? Somyou are saying that Trump’s actions may not have benefited Russia, but only becuse he was forced into them somehow? As for denying that Russia interfered in the election, that would just be Trump’s usual MO - any elextion he won was ‘the best election ever’, and any one he lost was totally rigged. I would have expected nothing else. And that claim doesn’t help Russia at all. But you might want to note that one of the Administration’s actions was to sanction Russia - for interfering in the 2016 election. Again, from Putin’s point of view, just what did Trump do that unexpectedly benefited Russia? Where did Trump go easy on them? What things did people call for against Russia that Trump didn’t do? Honestly, I’m open to the idea. I do not like Trump. But it’s getting really hard to piece together the ‘collusion’ narrative as big chunks of the ‘evidence’ turn out to be Clinton dirty tricks. ---
**Author:** ![asahi](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/asahi/32/8693_2.png) [@asahi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/asahi)\ **Post date:** [September 23, 2021, 10:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-durham-indictments-prosecuting-fake-trump-collusion/951215/9 "2021-09-23T22:14:44Z")
> [@Sam\_Stone](#): > > As for it being one of the ‘weakest’ cases he’s seen, apparently a Grand Jury did not agree. That’s not a very high bar. As the old saying goes, “A grand jury would probably indict a ham sandwich.” ---
**Author:** ![Sam\_Stone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ecccb3/32.png) [@Sam\_Stone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sam_Stone)\ **Post date:** [September 23, 2021, 10:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-durham-indictments-prosecuting-fake-trump-collusion/951215/10 "2021-09-23T22:19:51Z")
> [@iiandyiiii](#): > > Trump personally disclosed highly classified information to the Russian foreign minister. That alone demonstrates his Russian stooginess. So if I found another President who disclosed classified information to another government would that also be evidence of ‘stooginess’? What was the classified information anyway? Giving up a secret in conversation with another government is perhaps evidence of carelessness, but absent a quid-pro-quo it’s not evidence of being a stooge. > [@iiandyiiii](#): > > Being a Russian stooge doesn’t mean that Trump does whatever Putin tells him. It means that he sometimes made statements and took actions that were in Russia’s or Putin’s interest, but not the US. What actions did he take that helped Russia against US interests? For example, maybe he closed down a major pipeline project at home, then waived sanctions on Russia to allow them to build one? Not saying Biden is a stooge, but if Trump had done that we all know what the Democrats would have screamed. So what favors did he actually do? ---
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [September 23, 2021, 10:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-durham-indictments-prosecuting-fake-trump-collusion/951215/11 "2021-09-23T22:26:12Z")
> [@Sam\_Stone](#): > > So if I found another President who disclosed classified information to another government would that also be evidence of ‘stooginess’? To a strategic opponent like Russia? And doing it in casual conversation without the full involvement of the US intelligence community? Yes. > [@](#): > > Giving up a secret in conversation with another government is perhaps evidence of carelessness, but absent a quid-pro-quo it’s not evidence of being a stooge. Do you have some official criteria for stooge status? IMO it’s a pretty clear sign of stooginess. > [@](#): > > What actions did he take that helped Russia against US interests? For example, maybe he closed down a major pipeline project at home, then waived sanctions on Russia to allow them to build one? Not saying Biden is a stooge, but if Trump had done that we all know what the Democrats would have screamed. So what favors did he actually do? He repeatedly denied Russian attempts to influence the 2016 election, and resisted efforts to investigate it. He attempted to destroy the American system of democracy 9 months ago (forgot to mention that part - very clearly his most significant pro Russian and anti American action of his presidency). It’s very hard to imagine any US president ever doing more to help Russia at our expense than Trump did. ---
**Author:** ![Hamlet](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/hamlet/32/2818_2.png) [@Hamlet](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hamlet)\ **Post date:** [September 23, 2021, 10:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-durham-indictments-prosecuting-fake-trump-collusion/951215/12 "2021-09-23T22:36:46Z")
> [@Sam\_Stone](#): > > I am not a lawyer, but I have seen several analyses of this indictment which say it’s a placeholder for further conspiracy charges. A number of individuals are identified by title they held at the time, and these include current National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan and other people currently in the Biden administration. I have also heard that the Durham investigation is now focused on conspiracy charges. Two years of investigation and they’re just now getting “focused on conspiracy charges”? Good for them for getting probation and community service for Clinesmith. And, once we get more facts, maybe good work for getting Sussman. We will see. Then we can compare those indictments with the ones for Manafort, Stone, Gates, Cohen, Flynn, Papadopolous, VanderZwaan, and the rest. I still don’t see how this new indictment negates the findings in those cases and the Senate and intelligence reports of links between the Russians and Trump’s campaign. YMMV ---
**Author:** ![naita](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/naita/32/5862_2.png) [@naita](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/naita)\ **Post date:** [September 23, 2021, 10:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-durham-indictments-prosecuting-fake-trump-collusion/951215/13 "2021-09-23T22:46:33Z")
> [@Sam\_Stone](#): > > Somyou are saying that Trump’s actions may not have benefited Russia, but only becuse he was forced into them somehow? That is literally what I wrote, yes. Here’s one example: The Republican controlled congress enacted a law for imposing sanctions of Russia and Trump’s administration went: “We’re not going to impose any. Just the existence of the law is enough of a deterrent.” [https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/371333-state-dept-tells-congress-no-additional-russia-sanctions-necessary-at](https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/371333-state-dept-tells-congress-no-additional-russia-sanctions-necessary-at) ---
**Author:** ![Gyrate](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gyrate/32/3588_2.png) [@Gyrate](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gyrate)\ **Post date:** [September 23, 2021, 11:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-durham-indictments-prosecuting-fake-trump-collusion/951215/14 "2021-09-23T23:00:52Z")
If you ignore the multiple reports from intelligence agencies of Russian interference in the 2016 election and the Mueller report’s setting out 140 instances of close interaction between the Trump campaign and Russia and the bipartisan GOP-led Senate committee report that corroborated and expanded on the Mueller findings and the fact that six people associated with Trump and his campaign were convicted of felony perjury due to lying to cover up their meetings with Russia and Jared Kushner “forgetting” multiple times to report his meetings with Russia on his security clearance form (itself a felony) and Trump repeating lying to downplay his personal and business interests in Russia and Trump giving the Russians classified information and ongoing extensive Russian efforts to support Trump on social media and so on and so forth… …why, there’s no evidence at all! **Sam** has picked up a rock from a mountainside and is loudly declaring “THIS ROCK DIDN’T COME FROM HERE, THEREFORE THE WHOLE MOUNTAIN IS FAKE!” Admittedly it is certainly possible that there was no collusion and that Russia just worked to put Trump into office knowing that he’d weaken America and help Russia just by being Trump…which is hardly a stirring exoneration. ---
**Author:** ![E-DUB](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/e-dub/32/403_2.png) [@E-DUB](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/E-DUB)\ **Post date:** [September 23, 2021, 11:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-durham-indictments-prosecuting-fake-trump-collusion/951215/15 "2021-09-23T23:12:39Z")
Well, it isn’t necessarily collusion between trump himself and Russia, but collusion between elements of the campaign and Russia. I said, even at the time, that this was the kind of knowledge that would normally be kept from a candidate. Probably, ditto with any wrong doings, actual or alleged on the part of the Clinton campaign. ---
**Author:** ![Ann\_Hedonia](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ann_hedonia/32/319_2.png) [@Ann\_Hedonia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ann_Hedonia)\ **Post date:** [September 23, 2021, 11:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-durham-indictments-prosecuting-fake-trump-collusion/951215/16 "2021-09-23T23:18:35Z")
Seriously. I’m willing to bet the judge throws it out before it gets to trial. They were just desperate to show _something_ for years of digging through a perfectly legitimate investigation looking for wrongdoing -apparently they issued the indictment on the last possible day before the statute of limitations expired. The Alfa Bank thread of the Russia scandal was really minor, and there’s plenty of wrongdoing exposed in the Mueller report ( which was intended as an impeachment referral) and the even more comphrensive and damning Senate report. But here’s a news flash. There’s nothing wrong with the FBI or any LEO agency getting tips or information from someone that has an adversarial relationship with the target of the investigation, be it political, business or personal. They can be a good source of information. And there’s nothing wrong or illegal about knowing or working with Hillary Clinton and I don’t know why you think her “people” would be doing anything wrong by bringing potential crimes to the attention of law enforcement. It’s not their job to investigate before they pass information on to law enforcement. The passed the information on, the FBI investigated and found there was nothing credible. That’s how the system is supposed to work, whether it’s a political operative with information that might indicate that their opponent is cheating, or a losing Presidential candidate passing on allegations of voter fraud. The people informing to the FBI often have substantial conflicts of interest. As long as the FBI agents don’t, they system is working properly. I don’t know where the idea that investigations can only be conducted by people that like the target came from but it’s ridiculous. Of course law enforcement officers want to “get” the person they’re investigating. That’s how the system works. ---
**Author:** ![Hamlet](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/hamlet/32/2818_2.png) [@Hamlet](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hamlet)\ **Post date:** [September 23, 2021, 11:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-durham-indictments-prosecuting-fake-trump-collusion/951215/17 "2021-09-23T23:26:46Z")
> [@Ann\_Hedonia](#): > > But here’s a news flash for you. There’s nothing wrong with the FBI or any LEO agency getting tips or information from someone that has an adversarial relationship with the target of the investigation, be it political, business or personal. They can be a good source of information. And there’s nothing wrong or illegal about knowing or working with Hillary Clinton and I don’t know why you think her “people” would be doing anything wrong by bringing potential crimes to the attention of law enforcement. It’s not their job to investigate before they pass information on to law enforcement. The passed the information on, the FBI investigated and found there was nothing credible. > > That’s how the system is supposed to work, whether it’s a political operative with information that might indicate that their opponent is cheating, or a losing Presidential candidate passing on allegations of voter fraud. The people informing to the FBI often have substantial conflicts of interest. As long as the FBI agents don’t, they system is working properly. Nope. The problem isn’t getting information from someone in “an adversarial relationship”. The problem here is said person lied (or. at best, failed to disclose) about it to the FBI. That’s distinctly NOT how the system is supposed to work. Any potential conflicts of interest should be given to the investigating body beforehand, not lied about or covered up, as it is alleged Sussman did. ---
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [September 23, 2021, 11:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-durham-indictments-prosecuting-fake-trump-collusion/951215/18 "2021-09-23T23:27:46Z")
From what I can glean from the Lawfare blog, the evidence of this supposed lie is awfully weak. ---
**Author:** ![Gyrate](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gyrate/32/3588_2.png) [@Gyrate](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gyrate)\ **Post date:** [September 23, 2021, 11:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-durham-indictments-prosecuting-fake-trump-collusion/951215/19 "2021-09-23T23:29:29Z")
Well, to some people a weak lie they want to believe carries more weight than strong evidence they don’t. ---
**Author:** ![Kimstu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ecd19e/32.png) [@Kimstu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kimstu)\ **Post date:** [September 23, 2021, 11:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-durham-indictments-prosecuting-fake-trump-collusion/951215/20 "2021-09-23T23:29:45Z")
Some details from your Lawfare link, though IANAL and am not qualified to determine how accurate they are: > [@Sam\_Stone](#): > > This is the second indictment Durham has brought down, and the first has already resulted in a conviction. > [@Lawfare blog](#): > > And until this week, Durham’s investigation had added exactly zero new facts to the public’s understanding of the FBI’s handling of the Russia matters. The only case he had brought—against a [low-level](https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/kevin-clinesmith-fbi-john-durham/2021/01/28/b06e061c-618e-11eb-afbe-9a11a127d146_story.html) FBI lawyer for altering a document in connection with a surveillance application—was entirely [derivative](https://int.nyt.com/data/documenttools/kevin-clinesmith-court-documents-filed-by-john-durham/73f2632106afc317/full.pdf) of facts developed by the inspector general. Durham had, beyond that one case, issued no findings or reports and had charged nobody with anything. > [@Justice Dept. cited press release](#): > > As alleged in the indictment, on Sept. 19, 2016, Sussman, a lawyer at a large international law firm, met with the FBI General Counsel at FBI Headquarters in Washington, D.C. Sussmann had requested the meeting to provide the General Counsel with certain data files and “white papers” that allegedly demonstrated a covert communications channel between the Trump Organization and a Russia-based bank. Sussmann, who had previously represented the Democratic National Committee in connection with a cyber hack, falsely stated to the General Counsel that he was not bringing these allegations to the FBI on behalf of any client. In fact, Sussmann assembled and conveyed the allegations to the FBI on behalf of at least two clients, including a U.S. technology executive and the Clinton Presidential Campaign. > [@Lawfare blog](#): > > But now Durham has spoken on his own. He has [indicted a cybersecurity lawyer named Michael Sussmann](https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/21063457/united-states-v-michael-sussman-indictment.pdf) for allegedly making a single false statement in a conversation in 2016 with then-FBI General Counsel Jim Baker. The allegedly false statement concerned not Trump or Russia, but whom Sussmann represented when he brought Baker some information about an alleged electronic connection between the Trump Organization and a Russian bank. […] > > The indictment is, in other words, far removed from the grave FBI misconduct Durham was supposed to reveal. […] The misconduct it portrays is an alleged lie by Sussmann that is, at best, wholly peripheral to the substance of the allegations Durham was supposedly peddling. > [@Sam\_Stone](#): > > I have also heard that the Durham investigation is now focused on conspiracy charges. > [@Lawfare blog](#): > > The indictment itself, as I’ll explain, also contains a number of facts that tend to undercut its central allegation. > > So what is going on here? I believe that the indictment of Michael Sussmann is an effort by Durham to change the subject. Over at National Review, [Andrew McCarthy speculates](https://www.nationalreview.com/2021/09/the-real-story-in-durhams-indictment-of-democratic-lawyer-michael-sussmann/)—very likely correctly, in my view—that: > > > Here is where the prosecutor appears to be going: The Trump-Russia collusion narrative was essentially a fabrication of the Clinton campaign that was peddled to the FBI […] > > There are a lot of reasons to be skeptical of this effort […] the indictment Durham issued this week against Sussmann suggests not a whiff of improper spying on Trump or his coterie by the FBI. Indeed, it suggests not a whiff of misconduct on the FBI’s part in any respect—though Durham still appears to have his eyes on certain matters within the bureau separately. The FBI, rather, is the supposed victim of Sussman’s alleged crime. > [@Sam\_Stone](#): > > From your cite: > > > [@](#): > > > > This story is, indeed, a sleazy one, in which a group of private investigators, computer security researchers, tech executives and Clinton campaign lawyers access nonpublic data to try to make a colorable case that the Alfa Bank connection represented something nefarious. They put together some white papers on the subject, displaying a pretty casual relationship with the truth along the way, and they dangled those documents in front of the press and law enforcement. Sam, you failed to notice the very next sentence in the portion you quoted that considerably undermines how you’re trying to portray this behavior: > [@Lawfare blog](#): > > It’s not a pretty picture, but it’s pretty typical of opposition research efforts in high-stakes campaigns. The sleaziness and lack of regard for truth is a good reason to be skeptical and careful about such efforts when they inevitably emerge in public during a campaign, but it’s not especially surprising either. Emphasis added. The analysis continues: > [@Lawfare blog](#): > > As best as I can tell, little if anything actually turns on the lie Sussmann allegedly told. […] > > Indeed, Durham’s very next sentence, the one that opens paragraph 7, undermines the notion that Sussmann’s alleged lie mattered. It reads: “The FBI’s investigation of these allegations nevertheless concluded that there was insufficient evidence to support the allegations of a secret communications channel with [Alfa Bank].” […] The FBI, rather, received a lead; it ran it down; it dismissed it—just as it would have had the Alfa Bank material shown up wearing Hillary Clinton’s trademark pants suit. […] > > But there are deeper problems with the Sussmann indictment. The most important is that the evidence that Sussmann lied at all is weak. […] > > I think the Sussmann case—particularly given the lengthy and irrelevant verbiage about the efforts of the Clinton campaign, its lawyers, cybersecurity experts and private investigators—is an effort to pressure Sussmann to cooperate with a broader effort to prosecute Clinton-world operatives for an attempt to defraud the FBI on Trump-Russia matters. This effort brings together the so-called Steele dossier material with the Alfa Bank story and various other stories that were, at different times, peddled to the press and the bureau. The bet, I suspect, is that Sussmann will cave and make some kind of deal. At a minimum, I agree with McCarthy that taking the investigation in this direction will give Durham a fair bit to write about in a final report. After all, the Clinton campaign was surely engaged in an extensive opposition research effort, the details of which we can expect to be unflattering given everything that is now publicly known. > > But there are two big problems with this approach. The first is that digging dirt on political opponents and trying to interest law enforcement in that dirt is not presumptively a crime. It’s presumptively the ugly normal of political campaigns. In the particular case of Donald Trump, who in fact had extensive connections with Russia about which he was actively lying, it was also a perfectly valid line of opposition research. […] > > More fundamental, however, is the fact that the Russia investigation in the main did not turn on these efforts or flow from them. The Alfa Bank investigation in the bureau went nowhere. The Steele dossier affected only the Carter Page matter, which was only one relatively unimportant thread of the larger Russia investigation. […] > > Indeed, none of what we think of as the fruits of the Russia investigation had anything to do with Clinton-world opposition research efforts. […] The extensive findings of the [Mueller report](https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/5955249-Report.html) depend not a whiff on Perkins Coie or Fusion GPS. > > Not even if Michael Sussmann lied to Jim Baker about his clients. [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-durham-indictments-prosecuting-fake-trump-collusion/951215.md?page=2)