Clinton Mafia associate Michael Sussmann’s acquittal on a charge of lying to the FBI appears to be a straight-up case of jury nullification.
The jury delivered its verdict yesterday after a 10-day trial in federal court. Special Counsel John Durham adduced irrefutable evidence that Sussmann lied to FBI General James Baker in 2016 in pushing the FBI to probe presidential candidate Donald Trump’s “collusion” with Russia to help win that year’s election. Sussmann had said he was not working for Hillary Clinton’s campaign when he peddled the hoax to Baker.
As The New American reported yesterday, the jury was biased and riddled with hard leftists, and the judge is a Democratic operative whose wife is an attorney for a collusion hoaxer. But now we know just how biased the jury was.
The forewoman said that lying to the FBI isn’t that big a deal.
AOC Donor on Jury
The jury forewoman nearly confessed to jury nullification in speaking to the media after Sussmann went free as a bird, the Washington Times reported.
“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.”
So retailing a hoax to the FBI and lying about your role in it is no big thing.
“It was the government’s job to prove it, and they succeeded in some ways and not in others,” the foreman said:
“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. She said those who would complain about the result weren’t in the jury room.
“Politics was not a factor,” she said.
As for the jury’s bias, well, nothing to see there, either.
“The jury was drawn among residents of the District of Columbia, where Democrats received 92.5% of the vote in the last presidential election,” the Times reported:
At least three Clinton donors were among the prospective jurors. One of them also donated to the campaign of Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, New York Democrat. A prospective juror who didn’t make the final cut told attorneys that she would “always” side with Mrs. Clinton.
Apparently, so did the rest who nullified an obvious guilty verdict.
Leaving aside the question of why Clinton donors and hard leftists were permitted on the jury, Judge Christopher Cooper, as The New American reported, is a Democrat Machine operative.
A member of President Barack Hussein Obama’s transition team, Cooper knew Sussmann when the two worked in the Justice Department. He is married to Amy Jeffress, an attorney who is representing Russia Collusion hoaxer Lisa Page in her lawsuit against the bureau. Page was in cahoots with disgraced FBI man Peter Strzok to smear Trump and push the collusion hoax.
The Case Against Sussmann
As for Durham’s effort, the evidence was clear. Sussmann lied to Baker — text messages and Sussmann’s billing records proved it.
“I have something time-sensitive (and sensitive) I need to discuss,” Sussmann wrote to Baker on September 18, 2016:
Do you have availibilty [sic] for a short meeting tomorrow? I’m coming on my own — not on behalf of a client or company — want to help the Bureau. Thanks. [Emphasis added.]
Responded Baker, “Ok. I will find a time. What might work for you?”
That “time-sensitive” material was the claim that Trump was connected to a Russian bank, itself a lie that became, with other ridiculous tales, a centerpiece of the collusion hoax.
The problem for Sussmann? “Billing records reflect that the defendant repeatedly billed the Clinton Campaign for his work,” as prosecutors wrote.
At trial, Clinton’s campaign chief confessed that Hillary Clinton OK’d the nefarious disinformation plot to destroy Trump, and Baker admitted the FBI hadn’t a shred of evidence that showed any “collusion.”
Yet the buck didn’t stop at Clinton. Obama and his communist CIA chief, John Brennan, also knew about the plot, which Clinton conceived to divert attention from her own crimes. When she was secretary of state, she used a private email server to send and receive classified information.
