Talk:Michael Sussmann
 | Before requesting any edits to this protected article, please familiarise yourself with reliable sourcing requirements. Before posting an edit request on this talk page, please read the reliable sourcing and original research policies. These policies require that information in Wikipedia articles be supported by citations from reliable independent sources, and disallow your personal views, observations, interpretations, analyses, or anecdotes from being used. Only content verified by subject experts and other reliable sources may be included, and uncited material may be removed without notice. If your complaint is about an assertion made in the article, check first to see if your proposed change is supported by reliable sources. If it is not, it is highly unlikely that your request will be granted. Checking the archives for previous discussions may provide more information. Requests which do not provide citations from reliable sources, or rely on unreliable sources, may be subject to closure without any other response. |
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Michael Sussmann article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
| This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
.jpg){kind=small}
Who authored this article? edit
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 edit
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:
Yet the indictment Durham issued this week against Sussmann suggests not a whiff of improper spying on Trump or his coterie by the FBI. Indeed, it suggests not a whiff of misconduct on the FBI’s part in any respect — though Durham still appears to have his eyes on certain matters within the bureau separately. The FBI, rather, is the supposed victim of Sussman’s alleged crime.
Some basic things missing edit
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 edit
I'm not sure how this fits in, but it might be of interest:
More doubts about Durham's treatment of the Danchenko and Sussmann matters edit
"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."[1]
Valjean (talk) 18:35, 12 December 2021 (UTC)
References
- ^ Khardori, Ankush (December 9, 2021). "The Trials of John Durham". New York. Retrieved December 12, 2021.
The reason Sussmann was afraid Trump posed a security threat edit
"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."[4]
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)