Post by addisona on Jun 4, 2022 7:02:34 GMT
Durham Investigation Verdict Revives Trump-Era Claims of Politicization at DOJ
The acquittal this week of former Perkins Coie partner Michael Sussmann on a false statements charge has revived criticism of Special Counsel John Durham’s investigation and resurfaced claims of improper political influence that dogged the Trump-era Justice Department.
Sussmann, a cybersecurity attorney who represented Hillary Clinton’s 2016 campaign, was accused of lying about his client representations in a 2016 meeting with the FBI, during which he shared allegations about purported ties between then-candidate Donald Trump and Russia. Durham’s prosecutors alleged that Sussmann’s false statement was part of an effort by people connected to Clinton to elicit an FBI investigation into Trump to wound his candidacy in the waning weeks of the campaign.
But from the beginning, legal experts said Durham faced a daunting task in proving an alleged six-year-old false statement to the FBI’s general counsel, James Baker, during a meeting that was not recorded and in which no other person was present. The allegations, which related to a purported secret communications channel between the Trump Organization and a Russian bank, were quickly discounted by the FBI and were not a substantial part of the overall investigation into possible collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia.
Durham’s decision to target a prominent attorney with deep ties to the Democratic Party has echoes of Trump-era decisions that mired the Justice Department in politics, some legal experts said. Former Attorney General William Barr, who appointed Durham, previously moved to blunt the impact of Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s report on the Russia investigation and intervened in Mueller-connected cases involving close Trump associates.
“It’s hard to avoid thinking it was mostly about politics and about fueling the Trump narrative about the deep state conspiracy that was out to get him in the 2016 election,” said Randall Eliason, a law professor at George Washington University and former federal prosecutor in Washington, D.C. “It’s a holdover of the Trump administration’s willingness to use the Department of Justice to try to further political goals.”
Sussmann’s Latham & Watkins defense attorneys have also alleged improper political motivations behind Sussmann’s prosecution. In a slashing statement issued after the verdict, Latham partners Sean Berkowitz and Michael Bosworth accused Durham’s team of an “extraordinary prosecutorial overreach.”
“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,” Berkowitz and Bosworth said in a statement.
Durham was tapped by Barr in 2019 to investigate potential misconduct in the FBI’s handling of the Russia investigation, which Trump for years railed against as a “deep state” plot to tarnish his campaign and presidency. Barr himself has said the Russia investigation was an effort to “sabotage” Trump.
But after three years of investigation, Durham has not brought allegations of any such plot within the government. Other than Sussmann, Durham has charged a former FBI lawyer who pleaded guilty to altering a key email used to continue surveillance on a Trump campaign aide and a Russia analyst involved in the infamous Steele dossier on Trump’s ties to Russia, who is accused of lying to the FBI. The analyst, Igor Danchenko is set to go to trial in October.
www.law.com/nationallawjournal/2022/06/02/durham-investigation-verdict-revives-trump-era-claims-of-politicization-at-doj/?slreturn=20220504030009
The acquittal this week of former Perkins Coie partner Michael Sussmann on a false statements charge has revived criticism of Special Counsel John Durham’s investigation and resurfaced claims of improper political influence that dogged the Trump-era Justice Department.
Sussmann, a cybersecurity attorney who represented Hillary Clinton’s 2016 campaign, was accused of lying about his client representations in a 2016 meeting with the FBI, during which he shared allegations about purported ties between then-candidate Donald Trump and Russia. Durham’s prosecutors alleged that Sussmann’s false statement was part of an effort by people connected to Clinton to elicit an FBI investigation into Trump to wound his candidacy in the waning weeks of the campaign.
But from the beginning, legal experts said Durham faced a daunting task in proving an alleged six-year-old false statement to the FBI’s general counsel, James Baker, during a meeting that was not recorded and in which no other person was present. The allegations, which related to a purported secret communications channel between the Trump Organization and a Russian bank, were quickly discounted by the FBI and were not a substantial part of the overall investigation into possible collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia.
Durham’s decision to target a prominent attorney with deep ties to the Democratic Party has echoes of Trump-era decisions that mired the Justice Department in politics, some legal experts said. Former Attorney General William Barr, who appointed Durham, previously moved to blunt the impact of Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s report on the Russia investigation and intervened in Mueller-connected cases involving close Trump associates.
“It’s hard to avoid thinking it was mostly about politics and about fueling the Trump narrative about the deep state conspiracy that was out to get him in the 2016 election,” said Randall Eliason, a law professor at George Washington University and former federal prosecutor in Washington, D.C. “It’s a holdover of the Trump administration’s willingness to use the Department of Justice to try to further political goals.”
Sussmann’s Latham & Watkins defense attorneys have also alleged improper political motivations behind Sussmann’s prosecution. In a slashing statement issued after the verdict, Latham partners Sean Berkowitz and Michael Bosworth accused Durham’s team of an “extraordinary prosecutorial overreach.”
“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,” Berkowitz and Bosworth said in a statement.
Durham was tapped by Barr in 2019 to investigate potential misconduct in the FBI’s handling of the Russia investigation, which Trump for years railed against as a “deep state” plot to tarnish his campaign and presidency. Barr himself has said the Russia investigation was an effort to “sabotage” Trump.
But after three years of investigation, Durham has not brought allegations of any such plot within the government. Other than Sussmann, Durham has charged a former FBI lawyer who pleaded guilty to altering a key email used to continue surveillance on a Trump campaign aide and a Russia analyst involved in the infamous Steele dossier on Trump’s ties to Russia, who is accused of lying to the FBI. The analyst, Igor Danchenko is set to go to trial in October.
www.law.com/nationallawjournal/2022/06/02/durham-investigation-verdict-revives-trump-era-claims-of-politicization-at-doj/?slreturn=20220504030009