Topic: CNSNews.com
Even though the Media Research Center obsessed over John Durham's prosecution of Michael Sussmann, its "news" division CNSNews.com largely ignored Sussmann's trial. Prior to the trial, an April 5 article by Craig Bannister hyped how "In a court filing Monday night, Special Counsel John Durham presents an alleged text message from Hillary Clinton campaign lawyer Michael Sussmann falsely telling the FBI that he was not working on behalf of any client when he delivered anti-Trump research in 2016," citing biased website Just The News, and a May 6 article by Bannister touted how Republican Rep. Jim Jordan proclaimed that Durham "wants jurors to know the truth about the origin and handling of the FBI’s so-called 'Trump-Russia Collusion' investigation."
CNS devoted no "news" coverage to Sussmann's trial while it was going on; the only mention came in a May 26 column by R. Emmett Tyrrell promoting campaign operative Robby Mook's testimony at the trial. then unironically complaining that "I looked through The New York Times and The Washington Postwith my legendary thoroughness and could find no hint of Mook's testimony. Not even in the Help Wanted sections, not even in the much-vaunted Style section." He wouldn't have found it at CNS either, but he didn't mention that part. In an apparent bit of pre-verdict spin, Tyrrell then declared, "Once again, Hillary has been caught in a lie, perhaps the most shocking lie of her career. She tried to throw an election."
After the verdict -- in which Sussmann was acquitted -- a "news" article finally discussed the trial, in a June 2 stenography piece by Melanie Arter quoting former Trump attorney general Bill Barr spouting the approved talking points, that the jury was biased Durham advanced right-wing talking points:
A federal jury in Washington, D.C. -- a jury that included Hillary Clinton donors and supporters -- on Tuesday acquitted Washington attorney Michael Sussmann on a charge of lying to the FBI in 2016 about his actions on behalf of the Hillary Clinton campaign.
The case was prosecuted by Special Counsel John Durham, who was asked three years ago by then-Attorney General Bill Barr to investigate the origins of the Trump-Russia "hoax," as President Donald Trump called it.
Barr on Wednesday praised Durham for doing "an exceptionally able job, both digging out very important facts and presenting a compelling case to the jury."
Barr told Fox News's Jesse Waters [sic] on Wednesday that although Durham did not persuade a D.C. jury to convict Sussmann, "I think he accomplished something far more important, which is he brought out the truth in two important areas.
[...]
“And in government cases, that means a D.C. jury, which is a very favorable jury for anyone named Clinton and the Clinton campaign. Those are the facts of life, and to get mad at law enforcement people because proving these cases beyond a reasonable doubt is difficult work --it's childish.”
[...]
"There are two standards of the law. And we've had to struggle with that," Barr said. "And people have done, I think, a very good job trying to develop this case in the face of very strong headwinds.
“And part of this operation is to try to get the real story out. And I've said from the beginning, if we can get convictions, if they're achievable, then John Durham will achieve them," Barr said.
Since this was only a stenography piece, Arter made no effort to balance her article with someone who supported the verdict and the rule of law, let alone mention that it was Durham's responsibility to keep potential jurors he thought were biased off the jury or to try and move the trial to a jurisdiction he believed might be more favorable to his case.
No other articles have since discussed the trial or its verdict, leaving Arter's biased piece as the only one, despite CNS' own pledge in the money beg at end of her article that it "covers the news as it should be, without fear or favor."
