The Sussmann and Danchenko acquittals proved the Russia investigation was clean
| The Sussmann and Danchenko acquittals proved the Russia investigation was clean | |
|---|---|
| MISLEADING | |
| "Because Durham lost both of his trials, the FBI's Russia investigation was legitimate and free of serious problems." | |
| Domain | Politics & Elections |
| Tactic | False Context Statistical & Evidentiary Distortion |
| Era | Current |
| First seen | 2022 |
| Origin | Reaction to the May 2022 acquittal of Michael Sussmann and the October 2023 acquittal of Igor Danchenko |
| Last reviewed | 2026-11-03 |
| Further reading: books on Politics & Elections | |
The claim that the Sussmann and Danchenko acquittals proved the Russia investigation was clean is a mirror image of claims that Durham's work proved a conspiracy. Both misread what a jury verdict decides.
What the evidence shows
- The verdicts were narrow. A jury acquitted Clinton campaign lawyer Michael Sussmann in May 2022 of lying to the FBI about whom he was representing when he brought Alfa Bank data to the bureau in 2016. A jury acquitted Igor Danchenko, the Steele dossier's primary sub-source, of lying to the FBI about his sources in October 2023.
- Acquittal is not a finding of truth. It means prosecutors did not prove the charged false statement beyond a reasonable doubt. It does not establish that the Alfa Bank allegation or the dossier claims were accurate.
- Other findings stand independently. The Justice Department Inspector General's December 2019 report documented 17 significant errors and omissions in the Carter Page surveillance applications, and Kevin Clinesmith pleaded guilty to altering an email. Neither depends on Durham's trials.
- Weak cases are also a finding. The trial losses raised questions about whether Durham had overreached, a criticism made by legal observers across the spectrum.
Why it persists
Defenders of the original investigation needed a clean line after years of attacks, and the acquittals provided one. That line leaves out the Inspector General's findings.
Lessons for readers
- A verdict answers the specific question the jury was asked.
- "Not proven criminal" and "done properly" are different standards.
See also
- The Durham report proved a treasonous conspiracy by Obama and Clinton
- A secret server channel linked the Trump Organization to Russia's Alfa Bank
- Carter Page was a Russian agent
Sources
- Reporting on the Sussmann verdict, May 31, 2022.
- Reporting on the Danchenko verdict, October 2023.
- Office of the Inspector General, U.S. Department of Justice, December 2019 report.