The Sussman single, low level charge was and is an interesting opening gambit. Yes, we will have to endure fake news on how this blows the Durham investigation up. But they will never admit this trial was used to introduce the reality of the conspiracy into an official record. And, the distinct possibility this charge and trial was more about that, than wanting/needing a conviction.
Had he been convicted the FBI would be having a party. It would have given them plausible deniability. The conspiracy would be resting squarely on Hillary’s and the DNC’s shoulders. His acquittal implies the opposite, they knew who he represented and chose to engage in the conspiracy.
Interestingly, even if Sussman did not lie to the FBI, he still participated in a conspiracy to influence the 2016 Presidential election. Will he be charged with that in the future? Or, has he possibly already cut a deal on the more serious charges?
Thanks to u/MeanOMan for opening my mind to this perspective!
As always, only time will tell.
For sure it was a calculated risk, but the swamp almost reflexively protects their own. The prosecution played on that reflex and hedged their bet by presenting evidence that implicated the FBI.
If you think about the Prosecution case, it demonstrated the CIA immediately knew what Sussman was peddling didn’t add up. And, then called FBI witnesses who said within days they knew the Alfa Bank story was false.
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/justice/fbi-agent-at-sussmann-trial-bureau-rejected-alfa-bank-claims-within-days
The jury was really left with two choices. Sussman told a lie that duped the FBI into investigating the false allegations. Or, that the FBI knew they were false and chose to investigate anyway, which means Sussman’s lie was not material.
I tried to look at the jury instructions to see what was needed to convict. Haven't found yet but someone here suggested that Durham tried the case in such a way as to ensure an acquittal. In short, it sounds like the instructions to the jury included them finding that the lie was "material" and that the FBI reasonably relied on it and acted on it. The suggestion was that the evidence developed by Durham at trial showed that the "not from a client" lie was not relevant to their decision to launch the investigation.
Jury's out for me - pun intended LOL. If a conviction required a finding that he "lied" to the FBI AND that the FBI only acted on the lie because they believed it, the FBI is essentially exonerated. The scenario presented by a Sussman conviction on the lying to FBI charge was a mutually exclusive scenario. If he's guilty, they aren't. I was uncomfortable with the charge for that reason even before the verdict because I thought this is just another case of the three letter agency finding a scapegoat.
There are other "non-mutually exclusive" scenarios. Like "collusion" or conspiracy.
Durham didn't have to because this was the DEFENSE strategy.
Remember this... The BAD here was the FBI investigation being used to validate the Trump smear campaign by the MSM.
Durham goes to the FBI and the FBI creates "Plausible Deniability" by blaming Sussman for the investigation. This wasn't convincing enough for Baker to keep his job by the way, but criminally, it creates enough doubt.
So what do you do? They are lawyers, and they gamed the system.
Durham knows the complexity with getting a guilty verdict on Sussman, so you have to ask why he did it anyway?
I don't think public perception was 100% the reason. I don't think that getting testimony on record plays the big role either.
Could there be multi-factors? probably....
I'm personally leaning towards the following.... White hats obviously need some awakening before they can come forward as a shadow government.
Military Tribunals... Would the American people accept the use of Tribunals over our Justice system? I promise you, this will be how the swamp attack back... Calling Trump a tyrant and using unjust prosecution accusations to smear him in their attempt to maintain power.
I do see other paths, I'm not discounting them either. Maybe Durham has some other indictments in waiting, and he's just keeping the evidence that he will use with those close to chest.
at the moment though... I think it's all about AWAKENING on the path to DISCLOSURE...
The big DISCLOSURE of electronic cheating is coming up.... Does the evidence tie the FBI to it? Is the Sussman trial just part of a lead up to FBI corruption and disclosure of the stolen election and military tribunals to prosecute the criminals?