Former President Donald Trump's special counsel John Durham has spent three years trying to sink members of Hillary Clinton's 2016 campaign for supposedly trying to frame Trump over his connections to Russia.
On Tuesday, after under seven hours of deliberation, the jury concluded that the Clinton campaign lawyer, Michael Sussmann was not guilty of lying to the FBI when he turned over information that they discovered.
\u201c6 hours\u201d— Peter Strzok (@Peter Strzok) 1654014244
The verdict drew commentary from legal analysts who mocked Republicans who swore that Durham would reestablish Trump's credibility when it came to any accusation involving Russia. That effort, however, failed.
Meanwhile, Durham spent $2.36 million in tax-payer dollars over the course of three years, doing nothing other than making wild accusations in court filing documents, according to Sussmann's lawyer.
In a Feb. 2022 rebuttal filing, Sussmann's lawyers attacked Durham's court claims, saying that he was wrong about critical facts. According to their information, Durham's claim that Trump's White House was being spied on in the Oval Office was a lie. Evidence showed that all of the data was legally and properly obtained prior to Trump taking office. The claim also went on to say that Durham was making wild accusations in his court documents to give fodder to right-wing media.
As former federal prosecutor Elie Honig explained, he predicted this case wouldn't go the way Trump hoped.
"That sound you heard — that muffled thud, off in the distance of southern New England — that was the sound of the much-ballyhooed John Durham investigation as it reached its pathetic anticlimax. That was the sound of a dud," wrote Honig in a Sept. 2021 editorial. He concluded that the comments hold true eight months later.
"So the crux of the indictment is that Sussmann didn’t disclose to the FBI that he represented Clinton — but the FBI knew he represented Clinton anyway. That, folks, is what we prosecutors call a problem," he said last year.
"We have always known that Michael Sussmann is innocent and we are grateful that the members of the jury have now come to the same conclusion," said a statement from lawyer statement from Sean Berkowitz. "But Michael Sussmann should hever have been charged in the first place. This is a case of extraordinary prosecutorial overreach. And we believe that today's verdict sends an unmistakable message to anyone who cares to listen: politics is no substitute for evidence, and politics has no place in our system of justice."
See some of the additional commentaries by legal experts below:
\u201cFederal prosecutors are not supposed to charge cases that they aren\u2019t confident that they\u2019ll win.\u201d— Renato Mariotti (@Renato Mariotti) 1654015626
\u201cMost prosecutors would have never brought the Sussmann case, which was a coin flip at best. An unforced error by Durham.\n\nBut the not guilty verdict is a reminder that it is much more difficult to convict defendants for lying to the FBI than you might think.\u201d— Renato Mariotti (@Renato Mariotti) 1654014313
\u201cAlthough Sussmann was acquitted, he likely spent a small fortune on lawyers and his name was dragged through the mud by Trump\u2019s allies. He lost even though he won.\n\nWhen a prosecutor brings a questionable case, we all lose even when the system results in the correct verdict.\u201d— Renato Mariotti (@Renato Mariotti) 1654015344
\u201cI hope that Michael Sussman sues Durham, Barr, DeFilippis, & others who were responsible for this completely political/frivolous prosecution. I recommend @lauferlaw.\u201d— Richard Signorelli (@Richard Signorelli) 1654015256
\u201cI never delved heavily into the Sussman case, but have been wondering for a while: Is this case as stupid as it looks?\n\nApparently it was, and a jury thought so as well.\u201d— George Conway\ud83c\uddfa\ud83c\udde6 (@George Conway\ud83c\uddfa\ud83c\udde6) 1654013712
\u201cAfter 3 years of investigating, a Trump era special counsel acquits a defendant accused of lying to an FBI lawyer in what looks like a case that was indicted despite the absence of sufficient evidence of a crime & smacks of prosecutorial overreach. #SussmannTrial\u201d— Joyce Alene (@Joyce Alene) 1654015195
\u201cThe irony of the Sussman trial is that Durham charged him with the same "process crime" that Trump and his sycophants claimed was not a "real" crime and only used when you can't find anything else -- and based on much less evidence and materiality than Papa D. or Flynn \ud83d\ude44\u201d— Asha Rangappa (@Asha Rangappa) 1654016908
\u201cYou ok, little boy? You need your pacifier?\u201d— Bradley P. Moss (@Bradley P. Moss) 1654016454
\u201cRegarding Sussman\u2019s acquittal: choose your cliche. You can beat the rap but you can\u2019t beat the ride/The process is the punishment. God knows how much has been spent to defend this, a case that has always looked extremely questionable and well below the normal charging thresshold.\u201d— PeachtreeDishHat (@PeachtreeDishHat) 1654013539
\u201cI\u2019m just saying it would have been a LOT cheaper just to get John Durham a podcast like any other agitated middle-aged white guy\u201d— PeachtreeDishHat (@PeachtreeDishHat) 1654013539
\u201cJohn Durham, appointed by then-Trump Attorney General WIlliam Barr, is 0-for-1 in DC court ====>\u201d— Scott MacFarlane (@Scott MacFarlane) 1654012841
\u201cIt's a big fat loss.\u201d— Bradley P. Moss (@Bradley P. Moss) 1654013566
\u201cQuestion for #TeamJustice: when Trump was on Twitter, he \u201ctweeted out\u201d his nonsense. Now that he\u2019s on the ironically-named \u201cTruth Social\u201d platform, how should we refer to his posts? I kinda like, he \u201clied it out.\u201d Other suggestions?\u201d— Glenn Kirschner (@Glenn Kirschner) 1654013543
\u201cRemember when Sussman was indicted, all the MAGA pundits were laughing about how the beginning of a conspiracy charge against Hillary was clearly in the works? \n\nDon't you all look like idiots now.\u201d— Bradley P. Moss (@Bradley P. Moss) 1654013300
\u201cThere were proof problems, but the Sussmann case actually went in better than people expected. The problem with it was the charges themselves, and a pettiness to them bordering on triviality.\u201d— Harry Litman (@Harry Litman) 1654013262
\u201cYes, this too. What a roaring waste of money and time.\u201d— bmaz (@bmaz) 1654015032
\u201cMAGA pundits doing their best to put a brave face on a big fat loss in court.\u201d— Bradley P. Moss (@Bradley P. Moss) 1654015764
\u201cReupping: Last Friday, the jury asked for what happened to be the taxi receipts showing Sussmann did not bill for transit to the FBI. Durham had not submitted it as evidence.\n\nThey got the exhibit today.\n\nThen they acquitted. \n\nDurham sat on that same exhibit last year as Brady.\u201d— emptywheel (@emptywheel) 1654015440
\u201cOf course he was. Sussmann charges were doomed from the start. There was never any materially false statement. In fact, no false statement. Actually, no statement at all. This case was a three-way loser. https://t.co/2sKNuxYUC1\u201d— Barb McQuade (@Barb McQuade) 1654015074
\u201cSussmann breathes a huge sigh of relief of course but can\u2019t help then but be bitter at the prosecutorial abuse of getting charged in the first place for reasons that have little to do with him see; and the huge reputational, financial, and emotional hit as a consequence.\u201d— Harry Litman (@Harry Litman) 1654015418
