A witch hunt probe refers to an investigation or inquiry that is conducted with the intention of uncovering supposed wrongdoing or malicious activities, often carried out in an indiscriminate or unfair manner. The term "witch hunt" is historically associated with the witch trials of the 16th and 17th centuries, during which many innocent individuals were accused of practicing witchcraft and subsequently persecuted or even executed. In a modern context, a witch hunt probe typically involves allegations of wrongdoing against a particular individual or group, often driven by political or personal motives rather than clear evidence or facts. The aim of such a probe is often to discredit or undermine the target, rather than to seek justice or find the truth. This type of investigation is often characterized by a lack of due process, fair treatment, and legitimate evidence. Accusations are frequently based on circumstantial evidence, hearsay, or personal bias.
In 2018, before Mueller had released his famous report, then-Manhattan District Attorney Cyrus Vance started his own investigation into Trump’s potential criminal activity in New York City. These investigations contained a few threads, including the hush money payments made to adult film actress Stormy Daniels in advance of the 2016 election. (Why Vance never brought charges at the time was a widely asked question that he’s tried to address in recent interviews.) This is the case that District Attorney Alvin Bragg picked back up and for which he brought a 34-count state indictment against Trump in April—the indictment focusing on Trump’s alleged role in falsifying business records as he was trying to pay Daniels for her silence. So far, commentators have been split on the strength of the case and whether it should have been brought at the state or federal level (or even at all).
Because of the more overtly political nature of the process, and because the impeachment came after Mueller s non-prosecution, Republicans found it easy to brand the impeachment investigation as just another attempt to get Trump. To prove that Sussmann and Joffe worked together to assemble the Trump-Alfa Bank information as part of opposition research for the Clinton campaign, the Justice Department tried to focus jurors attention on billing records that dating back to March 2016.
Accusations are frequently based on circumstantial evidence, hearsay, or personal bias. The probe may be fueled by a frenzy of public opinion or political pressure, leading to a rush to judgment without proper investigation or consideration of the facts. A witch hunt probe can have severe consequences for the individuals involved, both personally and professionally.
Lawyer acquitted in case from Trump ‘witch hunt’ probe
Michael Sussmann was acquitted of lying to the FBI as it looked for evidence of collusion between Russia and the Trump campaign ahead of the 2016 presidential election.
Emily Zantow / May 31, 2022Michael Sussmann, a cybersecurity lawyer who represented the Hillary Clinton presidential campaign in 2016, speaks to the media outside the federal courthouse in Washington, Tuesday, May 31, 2022. Sussmann was acquitted Tuesday of lying to the FBI when he pushed information meant to cast suspicions on Donald Trump and Russia in the run-up to the 2016 election. (AP Photo/Manuel Balce Ceneta)
WASHINGTON (CN) — A federal jury took less than a day to find a former Hillary Clinton campaign lawyer not guilty of making a false statement to the FBI’s general counsel in 2016.
The trial of 58-year-old Michael Sussmann began over two weeks ago and included nearly two dozen witnesses. A cybersecurity lawyer, Sussmann was indicted in September on a single count that said he was dishonest when he met with then-FBI general counsel James Baker in 2016 and provided data files containing purported evidence of secret communications between Russia’s Alfa Bank and Donald Trump who was running for president of the United States at the time.
After Trump won that election, his Justice Department would appoint John Durham as a special prosecutor to find wrongdoing in Crossfire Hurricane, the code name for the FBI’s two-year investigation of Trump-Russia collusion in the 2016 election.
The former president and his Republican allies have for years decried the Crossfire Hurricane investigation as a “witch hunt” and a political ploy to make him look bad. Durham said Sussmann went into the FBI meeting while representing Trump's Democratic political opponent, Hillary Clinton, as well as a technology expert now known to be Rodney Joffe, and that his statement in the meeting that he was not representing any clients was false.
While speaking with reporters outside the federal courthouse on Tuesday, Sussmann expressed relief about the jury's decision to acquit him.
“I told the truth to the FBI — and the jury clearly recognized that with their unanimous verdict today,” said Sussmann, who was wearing glasses and dressed in a dark suit with a blue tie.
“Despite being falsely accused, I am relieved that justice ultimately prevailed in my case," he continued, adding that it “has been a difficult year for my family and me.”
Sussmann had resigned from his position at Seattle law firm Perkins Coie after his indictment and faced up to five years in prison if convicted. His was the first case from Durham's probe to go to trial, and Tuesday's acquittal deals a heavy blow to it.
“While we are disappointed in the outcome, we respect the jury’s decision and thank them for their service,” Durham said in a statement on Tuesday.
Sussmann noted meanwhile that he is “looking forward to getting back to the work that I love.” After speaking for less than a minute, reading a statement from a piece of paper while glancing up occasionally at reporters, he left without answering any questions.
John Durham, the special prosecutor appointed to investigate potential government wrongdoing in the early days of the Trump-Russia probe, arrives to the E. Barrett Prettyman Federal Courthouse in Washington on May 16, 2022. (AP Photo/Evan Vucci)
During closing arguments on Friday, Durham’s prosecutorial team described Sussmann as a “powerful” Washington attorney who used his privilege to “bypass normal channels” and expedite a meeting with Baker, his former colleague who was the FBI’s top lawyer at the time.
To prove that Sussmann and Joffe worked together to assemble the Trump-Alfa Bank information as part of opposition research for the Clinton campaign, the Justice Department tried to focus jurors’ attention on billing records that dating back to March 2016.
Prosecutors also focused heavily on notes taken by FBI agents and other government officials in meetings about the bureau’s probe into the Trump-Alfa Bank information. The government said that any references to the word “client” in those notes amounted to proof that Sussmann was meeting with Baker on behalf of a client.
It was Durham's position Sussmann and Joffe first gave the information to New York Times reporter Eric Lichtblau, hoping he would publish a story on it. They say Sussmann only went to the FBI after the Pulitzer Prize-winning national security reporter held off on publishing, hoping that the bureau would launch an investigation that would prompt an “October surprise” story against Trump in the nation’s paper of record just weeks before the Nov. 8, 2016, election.
But Sussmann's defense team kept pointing jurors toward the witness stand, where a handful of he meeting attendees testified that, despite meeting notes, they recall being told that Sussmann was not representing a client when he provided the Trump-Alfa Bank information to Baker.
As Sussmann tells it, Joffe alerted him about the Trump-Alfa Bank information, and the campaign leaked it to Lichtblau. And since the information involved a potential national-security threat, Sussmann insists he wanted to let the FBI know that the Times had a pending story because it could affect the bureau’s investigation if it chose to open one. He also claimed that everything he did, he did out of respect for the bureau, noting his close work with that office during his past career serving as a federal prosecutor.
The Trump-Alfa Bank allegations were never substantiated, a point that Sussmann’s defense team did not shy away from, highlighting testimony from an FBI agent who told jurors the investigation was “incomplete.”
During opening and closing arguments, the defense told jurors to judge the bureau by “what they did — not by what they’re saying now.”
Over the 11 days of trial, jurors heard from 23 witnesses: 17 witnesses of whom were called by Durham’s team, including several current and former high-level government officials, as well as seven called by the defense. Sussmann opted not to testify.
After closing arguments on Friday, the jury deliberated for about three hours in the afternoon before being sent home for the holiday weekend. They came back on Tuesday and deliberated for about three more hours before returning with a unanimous not guilty verdict.
Defense attorneys asked U.S. District Judge Christopher Cooper to dismiss the case in March, but the Obama appointee instead let it it to proceed to trial. Sussmann's acquittal came just after noon Tuesday.
Durham’s probe led to two other cases along with Sussmann's. The special prosecutor secured a guilty plea from former FBI lawyer Kevin Clinesmith in 2020, and he to court this fall for a trial in his case against Russian analyst Igor Danchenko.
Categories / Criminal, Government, PoliticsRead the Top 8
Sign up for the Top 8, a roundup of the day's top stories delivered directly to your inbox Monday through Friday.
The target of the investigation often faces damage to their reputation, loss of livelihood, and even legal consequences, regardless of their actual guilt or innocence. In recent times, the term "witch hunt probe" has been used frequently in political contexts to describe investigations that are perceived as biased or politically motivated. These probes are often subject to intense debate and controversy, with supporters and critics arguing over the validity, fairness, and legitimacy of the investigation. Overall, a witch hunt probe refers to an investigation or inquiry that is conducted with the intention of targeting and discrediting a particular individual or group, often without proper evidence or due process. It represents a deviation from fair and impartial investigations, potentially leading to unjust outcomes and significant harm to those involved..
Reviews for "The Societal Implications of Witch Hunts: Examining the Ripple Effects"
1. John Smith - 1 star: This "witch hunt" probe is nothing but a politically motivated attack on our government. It is a complete waste of taxpayer money and resources. The whole investigation is based on baseless claims and hearsay, and it is clear that the investigators are just trying to undermine the legitimacy of our elected officials. This probe should be shut down immediately and the focus should be on real issues that matter to the American people.
2. Jane Doe - 2 stars: I have no trust in this so-called "witch hunt" probe. It is obvious to me that it is being used as a tool to settle political scores rather than uncover the truth. The investigators seem biased and are more interested in making headlines than finding actual evidence. This is not how justice should be served, and it is disappointing to see our justice system being used for political gain.
3. Robert Johnson - 1 star: This whole "witch hunt" probe is a disgrace to our democracy. It is nothing but a partisan witch hunt, aimed at targeting one party while turning a blind eye to any wrongdoing within the other. The investigators are biased and selective in their approach, and it is clear that their intention is to damage the reputation of those they disagree with politically. This probe is a waste of time and resources, and it only serves to further divide our country.
4. Emily Thompson - 2 stars: The "witch hunt" probe has become a never-ending saga that has lost its purpose. Instead of focusing on important issues that affect the lives of the American people, we are constantly bombarded with news about this probe. It is clear that it is being used as a distraction from more pressing matters, and it is frustrating to see politicians wasting time and resources on investigations that seem to have no end in sight. We deserve better from our elected officials, and it is time for them to move on and address the real problems facing our nation.
5. Michael Davis - 1 star: I am tired of hearing about this "witch hunt" probe. It has been going on for far too long and has produced no substantial results. It is clear to me that it is a politically motivated attack on certain individuals, and it is time for it to come to an end. Our taxpayer money could be better spent on issues that actually affect our daily lives, and the endless investigation only serves to divide our country further. Enough is enough.