Good morning from the E. Barrett Prettyman federal courthouse in downtown DC. Hope you all had a good Memorial Day weekend. Reporters are reconvening to watch for a verdict in the Sussmann-Durham trial after closing arguments on Friday. /1 nytimes.com/2022/05/27/us/…
I had thought judge might convene court at 9 a.m. to check in on how the first few hours of deliberations went on Friday afternoon, but the courtroom is empty. Not clear when we'll learn the status of anything but I'll update when something is happening. May be a boring day. /2
A flurry as court convened and lawyers start talking to judge, but no audio in media room so swarm of reporters dash up to the courtroom to catch tail end. The jury had asked to see exhibits 406 and 207, I think. Court adjourns again./3
In media room, we think GX 207 is the white paper Fusion GPS prepared about Alfa Bank's links to the Kremlin. We are not able to locate 406 so maybe misheard the number. /4
Correction, the jury asked for GX 306, which doesn't seem to be in evidence so possibly garbled on their end, and for GX 403/DX 436, which is the taxi cab receipt. (more)/4
Also told the jury also asked whether they had to have consensus on each element or just the overall result; the judge said it had to be consensus of each element to find the defendant guilty, but just consensus on overall result to acquit. /5
Judge Cooper came back into his courtroom to take a guilty plea via zoom against a Jan.6 Capitol rioter. Appears to be Richard Michetti. Media room was confused at firest r why this zoom call was being piped in. His defense atty appears to be on a boat. /6 justice.gov/usao-dc/defend…
On the monitors, we can see that prosecutors and the defense team+Sussmann have returned to the courtroom. Hopefully the audio problem is fixed and we will be able to clearly hear whatever is about to be discussed without having to sprint upstairs again./8
The jury has reached a verdict./9
The judge says the note came at 11:05 a.m. They were supposed to deliberate until 5 p.m. on Friday. So they had about four hours on Friday, and about two this morning - six hours in all.
Jury is filtering in./10
Michael Sussmann is acquitted. /11
Sussmann sits back down. His face is impassive. Judge thanks jury and dismisses them. /12
Judge excuses Sussmann from all pretrial conditions and adjourns the court. /13
Sussmann will make a statement in person soon, we are told.
Team Durham will issue a statement but not give a presser, I was told earlier by DOJ. /14
John Durham:
“While we are disappointed in the outcome, we respect the jury’s decision and thank them for their service. I also want to recognize and thank the investigators and the prosecution team for their dedicated efforts in seeking truth and justice in this case.” /16
Sussmann reads brief statement and does not take questions. Says he told the truth to FBI as 12 jurors recognized and despite being falsely accused is relieved justice prevailed. past year has been ordeal for family, looks forward to getting back to work. Thanks legal team./17
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Next in our reported-out 2025 Trump policy stakes series went up this a.m. and will be Sunday NYT front: the prospect of withdrawing the USA from or gutting NATO, abandoning Ukraine and a retreat from Europe. w/ @jonathanvswan & @maggieNYT
Gift link: nyti.ms/3uSNafa
We've been working on this series for 6 months & have been gratified lately to see others start to join in the conversation. We have been determined to stay grounded in what Trump & his truly close advisers have said & to add substantive reporting. Gift links to other chapters:/2
June 15: Trump plans to use the Justice Department as an instrument of vengeance against his adversaries, ending of the post-Watergate norm of DOJ investigative independence from the White House political control./3 nyti.ms/47RfJrQ
Seeing folks portraying it as a problem or gotcha that Garland appointed Weiss – a sitting US attorney – special counsel even though a 1999 regulation for special counsels has a provision that envisions them being appointed from outside government. Here's an explanation. /1
Takeaway up front: that part of the reg hasn't been understood to impose a controlling limit. It’s a tell that a commentator is not a credible & good-faith source of info if he doesn’t mention that Durham was *also* a sitting US attorney when Barr made him special counsel. /2
An attorney general’s legal authority to appoint someone to run a special investigation doesn’t come from the regulation. It comes from statutes enacted by Congress. Those laws don’t say that appointee has to come from outside government. /3
It occurred to me that one of the dishonest things about @marcthiessen’s column that I pointed out yesterday was actually even more egregious and is another affirmative factual error (a charitable word choice) that the WP should correct./15
When he backed his criticism of the FBI's decision to open a full investigation by misleadingly citing a passage about warrant renewal applications, Thiessen inserted "[the Trump campaign]” into a quote from the report. In context, "the target" instead meant Carter Page./16
Ironically, this comes in the same graph that falsely says the FBI presented a doctored email to the FISA court as evidence. That's wrong–it was not shown to the court–but Thiessen himself demonstrably presented a falsely doctored Durham report quote to WP readers as evidence./17
.@marcthiessen wrote a shoddy Washington Post column using as a foil the headline of my piece yesterday assessing how the Durham inquiry fell flat after years of political hype. (He didn’t engage with its substance, of course.) A dissection follows. /1 washingtonpost.com/opinions/2023/…
As an initial matter, Thiessen got his start at a lobbying firm that included two named partners – Paul Manafort and Roger Stone – who were convicted of felonies in the Russia investigation & pardoned by Trump. He does not disclose that conflict to the WP’s readers. /2
Thiessen opens by insinuating that I am downplaying Durham bc I'm implicated in (his tendentious portrayal of) the media’s Trump-Russia coverage. Aside from whether he is accurately describing Mueller's complex findings, I wasn't part of the NYT’s Trump-Russia coverage team./3
In 1999, when I went to work for The Miami Herald as a cub reporter just out of college and he was its publisher, he took a mentor-like interest in me. We got to know each other over occasional dinners/drinks, a Miami Heat game, etc. /2
In late 2001 or early 2002, when I was thinking about applying for a Knight Foundation journalism fellowship at Yale Law School, he encouraged it (he has a law degree from Penn) and wrote a strong letter of recommendation that really helped me stand out from the pack. /3