Talk:Michael Sussmann

Rather sad. Several paragraphs using over 1400 words to show your dislike of Sussmann. Then a tiny blurb at the end saying he was acquitted of all wrong-doing. Shouldn’t the most important facts be placed at the beginning of the article? --LSimons (talk) 16:57, May 31, 2022 (EDT)

Oh, you mean like the emoluments clause being tossed out against Trump, or any of the other of dozens of bogus lawsuits against Trump should be in the Intro of his bio?

And you miss the context - entirely. The 1,400 words do not trash Sussmann - they trash the FBI. It in fact reads,

"Andrew McCarthy concluded that if Sussmann was acquitted, that will have a lot more to do with the FBI’s illegal machinations to interfere in the US 2016 presidential election than Sussmann’s innocence.

On May 31, 2022, a District of Columbia jury acquitted Sussmann...."

Secondly, CBS is not the best source you could have used here. And why isn't there anything about Trump's reaction? RobS^Z 20:18, May 31, 2022 (EDT)

The Sussmann verdict does not exonerate anybody. It points the finger at James Comey, Andrew McCabe, et al.

The issue is even bigger now; it's nnot even about getting Comey & Co; it's about a corrupt FBI that tried to manipulate an election (Comey & McCabe et al, that is, not Vladimir Putin), and bring down a president. And what steps now are being taken to to prevent a crime bigger than Watergate from ever happening again? RobS^Z 20:24, May 31, 2022 (EDT)

So the Sussmann verdict in no way tucks away the Trump-Russia scam neatly, as Trump opponents hope. And the fact that we are at war with Putin now over this fraud makes it even a bigger issue. RobS^Z 20:26, May 31, 2022 (EDT)

CBS should not be cited. CBS 69 Minutes & Leslie Stahl mocked Trump over FBI spying on the Trump campaign and Trump presidency. And the Sussmann verdict proved that was absolutely true. RobS^Z 20:37, May 31, 2022 (EDT)