Now That It’s Over, CNN Praises Sussmann Verdict: He Won ‘Fairly and Squarely’

CNN is excited to air the NFL now that Michael Sussmann has been found innocent in the Hillary Clinton trial. On Tuesday night, Don Lemon and guests cheered the verdict as won “fairly and squarely.” They also derided “partisan folks” who watch such trials in bad faith.

Preet Bhaara, a CNN legal analyst, was present to speak on behalf of Sussmann. The lawyer was first taken to trial during the prior Trump administration on the basis of lying to the FBI in 2016 on behalf of Hillary Clinton; according to John Durham, Sussmann lied in a meeting in which “he passed a tip to the FBI about Donald Trump and Russia.”

Lemon stated that the past three years have been filled with Durham “looking for wrongdoing in the Trump-Russia probe,” as if lying to the FBI is not wrongdoing.

Instead of covering the trial, how Sussmann was discharged, and the general reaction of the American public, Lemon and Bharara spoke of regular people, “partisan people,” and the idea that when they “follow trials, they don’t really follow them in good faith.”

“Look, I think my perspective as a lawyer and someone who used to be a prosecutor, is when partisan folks follow trials, they don’t really follow them in good faith. They don’t always follow them. They expect a positive outcome at the conclusion of the case. If the outcome isn’t what they wanted, they will scream at the courthouse. It’s very ironic.”

What’s ironic is someone on CNN crying foul about “partisan folks.”

Bharara continued by referencing a conversation he had previously with Lemon about a recent speech where Justice Clarence Thomas talked about people accepting outcomes that they don’t like. Stating that this is exactly one of those times, even though the trial was done “fairly and squarely” with a jury made up of Washington D.C. constituents.

“I think, not too long ago you and I were talking about Clarence Thomas giving a speech talking about how people should accept outcomes that they don’t like. Well, this is another example of an outcome and it was done fairly and squarely, a jury in Washington, D.C. And a lot of people who are in the party on the side of the ideological spectrum that Justice Thomas is on, don’t abide the outcome.”

Fox News host and former Trump spokesperson Kayleigh McEnany explained that “the D.C. jury pool, this is an area of the country where 76 percent of people in the District of Columbia are registered Democrats. Believing that the jury did not “buy what Durham was selling,” she feeds right into what the left thinks.

On the other hand defense attorneys Sean Berkowitz and Michael Bosworth seemed to view this more as a political scheme, stating that the verdict of today, what Sussmann was charged with sends an “unmistakable message” to everyone who cares, “politics has no place in our system of justice.”

Lemon stated that this was just one of the trials that “turned out to be nothing,” possibly a conspiracy theory, one that “the right-wing media makes such a big deal out of them and it turns out to be nothing.”

What if Michael Sussmann was convicted by the jury? Or would CNN “cry foul” about the verdict?

Macy’s 6 & Motel 6 sponsor this segment. The link will take you to their contact info.

For a complete transcript click on “expand”. 

CNN’s Don Lemon Tonight

05/31/22

10.43.42

 

DON LEMON: Today’s empty investigation by the investigators is the result of an investigation that began after Special Counsel John Durham was convicted. Three years later, he had been looking for any wrongdoing during the Trump-Russia investigation. But today Hillary Clinton campaign lawyer Michael Sussmann has been acquitted from lying to the FBI. Preet Bharara, a senior legal analyst for CNN is now joining me.

Preet, it’s great to meet you. Thank you for your participation.

PREET BHARARA – Good to see you.

LEMON: This is the Durham Investigation’s first trial. It has been ongoing for 3 years, and it cost millions. How do they prove their innocence?

BHARARA : I don’t think so. It’s not the first time I saw trials in which I wasn’t happy with the outcome. It looks thin in this instance. After a long trial, it seems like the jury took only six or seven hours to decide that an acquittal was the best result.

The government had to go through a difficult road to prove that there was an erroneous statement. This was even more important in the case where the facts are what I see. It proved difficult to establish beyond a reasonable doubt the materiality of the misstatement. It was difficult to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the misstatement or false statement, which derails an investigation, caused investigators to do something different from what they would normally have done.

What I would like to note about this, by the way, is the Durham investigation was begun by and sanctioned by prior administration, Donald Trump and his attorney general, Bill Barr, and what I think it notable, is that I haven’t heard a lot of talk about in the last couple days and certainly today with the conviction, I mean the acquittal, is that he was allowed to go forward, continue his investigation even though there were a lot of critics, on the Democratic side, on the pro-Biden side, saying this was a witch hunt, language that we’ve  heard used by the other side.

And he was allowed to continue his investigation and see it to its conclusion with respect to Michael Sussmann and a jury spoke, and I think John Durham said the right things, and I think we may sometimes disagree with the results of juries but we respect what the jury’s verdict was and we move on.

LEMON: Yeah. But it’s interesting because we’ve had so many of these, right,  that turned out to be nothing, right, even a lot of conspiracy theories, right-wing media makes such a big deal out of them and then it turns out to be nothing and then they don’t talk about it again, as if it didn’t happen.

BHARARA: Yes, that’s right. They have been reporting on this breathlessly because it was an important bombshell. This was the first step towards further investigation and possibly an investigation into Hillary Clinton.

As a former prosecutor and lawyer, my view is that when people are following trials in bad faith, it’s not because they believe the trial will succeed. Many of them don’t bother to follow their lead. They want a result to be had at the end of the case, lock him up, lock her up, whoever the case may be and then they cry foul at the end of the case if it’s not the outcome that they want, it’s very ironic.

It was not that long ago, Clarence Thomas gave a speech about people accepting consequences they don’t like. Here’s another example. The outcome was fairly and directly decided by a Washington, D.C. court. However, many party members, who happen to be on the same ideological spectrum as Justice Thomas, didn’t accept the results.

It should work for both sides if it is good for one.

LEMON: Let’s begin with the Supreme Court.  That’s where the investigation – the search – They’re investigating that search of the source of that leaked draft opinion that would overturn Roe V. Wade, asking folks to turn over their phone records. Is that something you would find rare? What does this tell us about the investigation. Anything?

BHARARA : I think this is similar to other topics we’ve discussed in the last couple years. This is a response that we call unprecedented and extremely unusual. It’s not known of any other time in history, including since the invention of cell phones. I don’t know of any instances where individuals were asked to reveal private information by the court personnel.

It’s true, however, that it is in response to an unprecedented event, which was the leaked draft of an opinion. The response is understandable. However, it’s not clear how efficient they will be. They can only request those of court personnel, but they cannot legally make the requests to the authors of the report.

The easiest thing to do would be to ask the political reporters who had the bylines, “who gave you this information?” case closed. You can’t do that because they wouldn’t comply because there is a reporter’s privilege recognized in many jurisdictions.

This is true even if the clerk of court or an employee engaged in the conduct. Everyone who works at court, including staff, are smart and very intelligent lawyers. To be able to serve as a clerk to a Supreme Court justice is one of the most difficult legal jobs in America. So, they’re not dumb. They could also choose to do something completely new, which would make it seem like they are quite smart and willful. It would have been inappropriate to send it by email or text to reporters.

I believe that about 75 people had access to the draft opinion. Some of these individuals also owned hardcopies. The opinion is much more accessible to reporters or readers. There is no electronic record. It’s a worrying thing, I believe. It is not clear if this will yield any results.

LEMON: We’ll see. Preet, we heard that some clerks were so worried they hired lawyers. I appreciate it, thank you.

BHARARA: Yeah. Yes.