Two Michaels, Flynn and Sussmann Both Accused of Lying to the FBI

Both men were accused of lying to the FBI. However, the fascinating cases of Michael Flynn and Michael Sussmann stand apart.

Former FBI General Counsel James Baker is currently being prosecuted in Washington, D.C. for lying about his research on Donald Trump. He claimed that he had brought “research about Donald Trump” in order to tie him with the Russians and that he did it for his own personal benefit and not for his clients.

Sussmann’s office referred to the “research as whitepaper #1”. It contained internet DNS data that purportedly showed a connection between Trump, Alfa-Bank Russia, and Spectrum Health servers.

Court documents show that Sussmann brought papers with him to Baker’s meeting. The report states that the server configuration showed the Trump Organization (and Alfa-Bank), using multiple layers to hide their email traffic.

It was all over.

Friday’s revelation that Robby Mook, Hillary Clinton’s former campaign manager, testified that Clinton had supported Trump’s disinformation attack.

While Sussmann wasn’t charged with conspiracy, it seems clear that one was. John Durham is the Special Counsel. He alleges that Sussmann gave the information to the FBI in order to poison Trump’s political swamp.

It sounds horrible, but Sussmann may be able to get through this case despite the political climate inside the Beltway. He was also charged with lying to the FBI.

Flynn is accused of materially lying to an FBI agent. Flynn’s FBI agents did not believe Flynn lied and closed the case. Peter Strzok, an FBI investigator, took over to keep the case open.

James Comey, the fired FBI Director took a victory lap and smiled at his decision to invite Flynn agents for an informal conversation without notifying him. This happened in the chaos created by the Trump Administration’s first attempts to set up a perjury trap.

The Obama Administration was showing its ire against Trump.

Jonathan Turley, George Washington University Professor of Law, claims that both trials were held in the same Washington, D.C. courthouse. The cases were however not identical.

Flynn was hated in Washington, the official Leftist. Sussmann, however, was not. He believed that Hillary Clinton would become his president.

He’s a cybersecurity specialist and privacy lawyer. This may explain why he was able to use these areas to harm his political enemies.

John Brennan, Director of the CIA was a part of the conspiracy.

Flynn was an ardent Bible-believing Christian. Flynn endorsed Donald Trump’s conservative views while on the campaign trail.

Washington, D.C. jurors have a reputation for being Left-leaning. Conservatives such as Roger Stone or Michael Flynn are almost guaranteed a fair trial because D.C. jurors consider them to be fascists.

Michael Sussmann is their cousin, and he is just like them.

Flynn was convicted despite lying about his participation on the jury.

Sussmann allowed several Hillary donors, an Alexandria Ocasio Cortez donor, and fan, and a few Trump haters to remain as his trial judge.

Sussmann denied Durham’s team permission for them to refer to the fake-news campaign in a disinformation program. This campaign became an FBI investigation and CIA matter of concern. But, it is important to note that Mook’s testimony about Hillary Clinton greenlighting this plot could change that. His testimony gave the jury access to the Clinton tweet which displayed their theory.

Turley points to the fact that Flynn’s Judge was eager to remove all obstacles in Flynn’s prosecution’s path, but Sussmann’s Judge seems to have created a virtual obstacle course for Durham.

Barack Obama appointed Sussmann’s Judge to the Bench. It’s data. You can easily see the obvious differences if you compare it to Flynn’s experience in D.C. Courtroom.

Leftist Washington insiders have a home-field advantage that is similar to the home team who knows how to hit a shot above their centerfield walls. This is too subtle and obvious not to be included on the Durham scoresheet