Did anyone really expect a deeply connected D.C. jury to find Michael Sussmann innocent?
Hillary Clinton’s former campaign lawyer Michael Sussman was found not guilty on Tuesday by a jury of his ‘peers’ on the charge of lying to the FBI. Sussman pushed the now-debunked Trump-Russia Collusion Hoax, urging Clinton to leak it to the press.
Sussmann was investigated by special counsel John Durham after it was revealed that the Democrat lawyer knowingly fabricated the Hoax.
This marks the first loss for John Durham in his investigation into the origins of the Trump-Russia Collusion Hoax.
“While we are disappointed in the outcome, we respect the jury’s decision and thank them for their service,” Durham said in a statement.
Sussmann gave a very brief statement to the media before getting in a black van without taking questions.
“I told the truth to the FBI, and the jury clearly recognized that with their unanimous verdict today,” Sussmann said outside the courthouse. “I’m grateful to the members of the jury for their careful, thoughtful service. Despite being falsely accused, I believe that justice ultimately prevailed in my case.”
Sussmann lied directly to the FBI about his client, Hillary Clinton, who in 2016 was campaigning for President against Donald J.Trump. The two-week trial was to determine whether Sussmann should be held accountable for fabricating and disseminating false claims regarding an inconspicuous link between Trump’s company, the Trump Organization, and Russia’s Alfa Bank.
While Sussmann did not take the stand in his own defense, he denied ever lying to the FBI on numerous occasions, and, apparently, a jury agreed.
Sussmann denied lying to the FBI and pleaded not guilty. The jury agreed. He did not take the stand in his own defense.
Meanwhile, Sussmann’s involvement with Hillary Clinton and the Trump-Russia Collusion Hoax is undeniable.
On numerous occasions, Sussmann billed the Clinton campaign for multiple thumb drives containing “evidence” used to push the since-debunked Hoax to the FBI. The Democrat lawyer also had strong ties to British spy Christopher Steele, the man credited with the phone ‘Steele Dossier’.
Steele was hired by the opposition research firm Fusion GPS, which was itself hired by Perkins and Marc Elias, who also served as general counsel for the Hillary Clinton campaign. Sussman worked closely and was employed by Perkins and Marc Elias, thus creating a chain of command that was ultimately responsible for pushing the Trump-Russia Collusion Hoax.
Despite the overwhelming evidence, it comes as no surprise that Michael Sussmann was found innocent if you consider the backgrounds of the men and women on the jury.
For example, after the verdict was announced, the jury forewomen spoke to reporters, saying, “There are bigger things that affect the nation than a possible lie to the FBI.”
That’s certainly not the job of a jury forewoman to assess the importance of a crime relative to current events, which highlights an anti-Trump bias right off the bat.
“I don’t think it should have been prosecuted,” she added.
Additionally, the judge presiding over the Sussman case has deep ties to the Justice Department and Sussmann himself.
U.S. district court judge Christopher Cooper has said he was “professional acquaintances” at the Justice Department with Sussmann in the 1990s. Additionally, Cooper’s wife, also an attorney, represented former FBI lawyer and massive Trump-hater Lisa Page since 2018.
Lest we forget, Page was cheating on her husband with since-fired FBI agent Peter Strzok throughout the entirety of the 2016 presidential election. The lovebirds shared numerous anti-Trump texts and were open about their willingness to take him down.
Despite these ties, Durham did not push for the judge’s recusal.
Cooper was appointed by President Barack Obama following unanimous Senate confirmation. He and his wife were married in 1999, and Merrick Garland, now the attorney general, officiated their wedding.
Are you finally paying attention yet?
The men and women on the jury who decided Sussmann’s fate weren’t shy about their anti-Trump, pro-Clinton bias, either.
Among the 12 jurors and four alternates, one said, “I remembered that the 2016 election was kind of a mess and that there were a lot of shenanigans.”
She said she “strongly” disliked Trump and that she didn’t think she could be impartial if the case was about someone on his team but noted that “if it’s not directly about Trump,” then she could be impartial.
Another man among the selected jurors and alternates, a Treasury Department employee, said he had donated money to the Democratic side during the 2016 primaries but said he believed he could be fair.
An additional selected juror or alternate, this one an attorney, said she had heard of Perkins Cole, the law firm that represented the Clinton campaign in 2016, but had no interactions with it and has heard of Sussmann and Durham but didn’t recall any details. She claimed she couldn’t recall if she had donated money in 2016 but said if she had, it would’ve been to Clinton. She did donate money in 2020. The juror said she “certainly had a strong preference for one candidate over the other” but that she believed she could be impartial.
She also revealed during the trial that her high school daughter was on the same crew team as Sussmann’s daughter, although they were in different grades, she said this would not affect her ability to be impartial. The prosecution fought to remove her from the jury panel, but the judge kept her on it.
The nation’s capital, and thus many of its jury pools, is overwhelmingly liberal and exceedingly pro-establishment Democrat.
Clinton received 90.9% of the vote in 2016, while Trump received 4.1%. In 2020, President Joe Biden got 92.1%, while Trump received 5.4%.
The interconnectedness of the D.C. liberal establishment cannot go unnoticed.
Author: Asa McCue