Talk:Michael Sussmann

Who authored this article?
It's so filled with right-wing talking points, I question whether it deserves the imprimatur of appearing in Wikipedia whatsoever-- at least in its present form.

"Trump-Russia Collusion Hoax"?? And the footnote citation for this is conservative tree house?

I'm blowing the whistle on this piece. Hell, the author doesn't even make clear why Durham considered Sussmann's lie material enough to charge.

Sloppy, biased and questionably sourced. Get outta here troll. 98.206.87.210 (talk) 08:45, September 30, 2021‎ (UTC)
 * The article is a brazen smearjob. I knew it was coming, and it will shut down. soibangla (talk) 20:11, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

Article has now been re-written. Good job, somebody. Appears thorough and balanced (the article, not the pursuit of Sussmann, which is a travesty and ought to be Presidentially pardoned into oblivion). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.206.87.210 (talk) 09:04, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

Analysis
Benjamin Wittes, editor of Lawfare, wrote an extensive analysis of the Sussmann indictment, concluding, "the document is one of the very weakest federal criminal indictments I have ever seen in more than 25 years covering federal investigations and prosecutions." He and other legal analysts characterized the 27-page document as a speaking indictment in which Durham, as CNN reported, laid out "a broader case detailing the suspected political motivations and conduct by several people outside of Sussmann's legal practice who aren't actually charged." Andrew McCarthy, a former federal prosecutor and current National Review columnist, agreed the document could have laid out an indictment of this nature within one page, but wrote that the speaking indictment presentation allowed Durham to present a broader narrative of Clinton supporters collaborating against Trump. Wittes agreed with that assessment, but also observed that it did not support a narrative of FBI misconduct against Trump:

soibangla (talk) 23:45, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
 * IIRC, McCarthy is prone to push conspiracy theories, and anyone who defends a pathological liar is suspect as a source. Therefore we should be cautious. -- Valjean (talk) 01:05, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

Some basic things missing
Fundamental things like where he went to law school, previous and current employment, and background are not in the piece. If this is public information, it can be here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 196.12.203.8 (talk) 22:49, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

Sussman Trial Must Be Delayed, John Durham Says, Because He’s Really Bad At Discovery
I'm not sure how this fits in, but it might be of interest: Valjean (talk) 05:52, 10 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Sussman Trial Must Be Delayed, John Durham Says, Because He’s Really Bad At Discovery

More doubts about Durham's treatment of the Danchenko and Sussmann matters
"The conduct of Durham’s team provides further reason to maintain some skepticism toward any claims it makes that have yet to be tested in an adversarial proceeding. That is one reason why it has been surprising to see so much of the media treat the Igor Danchenko indictment and all of its claims about the Steele dossier as if they are unquestionably true in all their minute details."

"... a healthy amount of skepticism is always a good idea, particularly when a prosecutor has been less than completely trustworthy."

Valjean (talk) 18:35, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

The reason Sussmann was afraid Trump posed a security threat
"The reason Sussmann was afraid Trump posed a security threat to the United States is that Trump posed a security threat to the United States."

That is a good article that can be used. If there is anywhere in the article that discusses Sussmann's motives, this quote might be good there. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 15:29, 2 June 2022 (UTC)