Looks like Hillary skates again

Crossville TN

Description

In a predictable but nevertheless damaging blow to the prosecution, the judge in the Michael Sussmann trial ruled Thursday that the government may not argue that Sussmann’s text message to the FBI’s then-general counsel constitutes the false statement charged against him. Rather, prosecutors must rely on their evidence that Sussmann made the false statement the following day, when he met with the general counsel, James Baker, at the latter’s FBI office. Sussmann, a top Democratic Party lawyer, allegedly lied by telling Baker that he was not representing any client when, on September 19, 2016, he brought Baker what he purported was evidence showing that Donald Trump, the GOP’s then-candidate for president, had established a communications back channel with the Kremlin, via servers at Russia’s Alfa Bank. In reality, Sussmann was representing the Clinton campaign, as well as a tech executive, Rodney Joffe, who had compiled the data Sussmann delivered to Baker. Both sides have now rested in the trial, which began two weeks ago. Summations are imminent. The smoking gun establishing that Sussmann made a false statement appears to be the text message Sussmann sent Baker the night before their meeting. Sussmann reached out to Baker because the two are friends, both having worked for many years in the government as Justice Department national security lawyers. The September 18 text from Sussmann stated: "Jim — it’s Michael Sussmann. I have something time-sensitive (and sensitive) I need to discuss. Do you have availability for a short meeting tomorrow? I’m coming on my own — not on behalf of a client or company — want to help the Bureau. Thanks." [Emphasis added.] But the problem for Russiagate Special Counsel John Durham is two-fold. First, his prosecutors did not have the text, or even know about it, when they indicted Sussmann in September 2021. Consequently, the text is not pled as a false statement in the charging document. The indictment, instead, charges that Sussmann made the false statement while meeting in person with Baker on September 19. That makes the case much more challenging for prosecutors. The 20-minute meeting between Baker and Sussmann was not a standard FBI interview. It was more like a short, one-on-one meeting between a pair of old friends. The session was not recorded, and there was no second FBI official on hand to take notes and clarify any ambiguities. Baker was an FBI lawyer, not a trained investigator. In a standard federal criminal investigation, witnesses are interviewed by two FBI agents, with one leading the questioning and the other taking notes. The agents then write a summary report (Form 302), based on their collective memory. If there is ever any dispute about what the witness said, there are then two trained agents available to testify. In a false statements case, the prosecution must prove the statement that was allegedly made, beyond a reasonable doubt. On that score, Baker did indeed testify about Sussmann’s insistence that he was not bringing anti-Trump information to the FBI on behalf of any client. Nevertheless, the defense effectively showed that Baker has made inconsistent statements over the years when asked about his meeting with Sussmann, in both the congressional hearings and internal Justice Department inquiries. That is, prosecutors must now rely mainly not on the text but on Baker’s recollection, and his recollection has been sketchy. The judge is a Bill Clinton appointee and several jurors admitted donating to Hillary's campaign. Fack look it up! Never equal justice.