Sussmann Juror Is Talking, and It’s an Eye-Opener – Opinion

We reported that Michael Sussmann, who was working as a Clinton campaign worker, was found not guilty by lying to the FBI. He also told James Baker, FBI General Counsel, that he wasn’t working for any clients.

This raised the question of how you can get a not guilty verdict given all the evidence in this case. Now, part of the issue may have been judicial rulings that hindered Special Counsel John Durham’s case to some degree, as I noted. The other part may have been you likely started out with an unfavorable jury, to begin with, in D.C., but then, in this case, you also seemed to have a problem with the jury — with donors to Hillary Clinton and even one who had a child who played on a sports team with Sussmann’s daughter.

Now, the jury forewoman is talking and it’s a window into the problem here.

Following the verdict, the jury forewoman (who declined to be identified) spoke with media. Her opinion was that Mr. Sussmann should not have been charged in the first instance.
“I don’t think it should have been prosecuted,” she said of the case. “There are bigger things that affect the nation than a possible lie to the FBI.”

“It was the government’s job to prove it and they succeeded in some ways and not in others,” she continued. “We broke it down and it did not pan out in the government’s favor.”

She declined to say in which ways she thought the government succeeded and that those who would complain about the result weren’t in the jury room.

“Politics was not a factor,” she insisted.

That’s a problem — that means that she/they may have been replacing her/their own judgment about whether it should have been prosecuted at all, instead of weighing what she should have been weighing — whether or not they could find that he lied to the FBI beyond a reasonable doubt.

Jonathan Turley (George Washington University Law Professor) observed in a Twitter thread, “Telling a lie to the FBI was the entire basis for the prosecution. It was the jury’s job to determine the fact of such a lie and its materiality.” Turley allowed, “[T]He can simply criticize the charge but not admit bias. Yet, it would have prompted a challenge in the courtroom if expressed during jury selection.”

Turley previously raised the issue with the jury.

TURLEY: “I mean, he is facing a jury that has three Clinton donors, an AOC donor, and a woman whose daughter is on the same sports team with Sussmann’s daughter. With the exception of randomly selecting people out of the DNC headquarters, you could not come up with a worse jury” pic.twitter.com/RHqen6AMAc

— Benny Johnson (@bennyjohnson) May 26, 2022

It was branded jury nullification by some.

Unsurprising.

Sussman was found guilty of all charges.

A biased DC jury could nullify jury validity.

A biased DC judge conducted the trial.

Shameful.

There are two levels of American justice. https://t.co/v5GrRz1ZB1

— 🇺🇸 Mike Davis 🇺🇸 (@mrddmia) May 31, 2022

That’s ultimately a big question here. Nobody can ignore that the big takeaway is that the Clinton team was behind promoting Russia collusion that damaged so much in the country–and a lot more is coming. There was plenty of evidence. You could present any evidence that you like. Are we ever going to be able hold them responsible in D.C. if they make comments like these?