If Special Counsel John Durham didn’t get the verdict he wanted in the Michael Sussman case, it’s because he did a better job of convicting the victim than the perpetrator—the victim’s FBI, the agency for which the Democratic attorney alleged. Lies for the 2016 election by allegedly slathering on Donald Trump, claiming he was not working for the Clinton campaign.
In the indictment filed eight months earlier, Mr. Durham went to out of his way To show why the FBI may not have been fooled by Mr. Sussman, who was acquitted by a jury on Tuesday. The trial itself piled on evidence that the FBI leadership was embarrassed to be willing to carry and carry water for the Clinton campaign. By the end, Mr. Sussman’s alleged lies seemed more aimed at deceiving the agency rather than binding it.
opinion | Durham jury indicts FBI
If Special Counsel John Durham didn’t get the verdict he wanted in the Michael Sussman case, it’s because he did a better job of convicting the victim than the perpetrator—the victim’s FBI, the agency for which the Democratic attorney alleged. Lies for the 2016 election by allegedly slathering on Donald Trump, claiming he was not working for the Clinton campaign.
In the indictment filed eight months earlier, Mr. Durham went to out of his way To show why the FBI may not have been fooled by Mr. Sussman, who was acquitted by a jury on Tuesday. The trial itself piled on evidence that the FBI leadership was embarrassed to be willing to carry and carry water for the Clinton campaign. By the end, Mr. Sussman’s alleged lies seemed more aimed at deceiving the agency rather than binding it.