Did you think otherwise?
3 Hillary donors. 1 AOC donor. 1 juror’s daughter plays on the same sports team as Sussman’ s daughter.
And the judge, Christopher Cooper, is married to Amy Jeffries, Lisa Page’s lawyer and was a friend of Sussman who worked with him at the DOJ. Cooper also blocked evidence of Clinton ties to plot linking Trump and Russia.
This is how things happen in Dem-dominated DC. The evidence was overwhelming that Michael Sussman was guilty of lying to the FBI, but the jury was rigged to protect this conspirator.
Former Hillary Clinton campaign lawyer Michael Sussmann was acquitted Tuesday of lying to the FBI when he fed it false information about supposed “collusion” between then-candidate Donald Trump and Russia during the 2016 campaign.
Sussmann gave the FBI data that had been produced by researchers working with the campaign and that purported to link Trump to Russia via Alfa Bank. The accusation was soon found to be groundless, but was part of the overall “Russia collusion” conspiracy theory that the Clinton campaign used to smear Trump during the campaign and after his victory.
Sussmann was accused of presenting himself to the FBI as a concerned citizen, when he was working for Clinton. The jury included up to three donors to Hillary Clinton, and the Obama-appointed judge narrowly limited prosecutors’ evidence.
The defense argued that even if Sussmann was found to have given the FBI inaccurate information about his motivations, the lie was immaterial to the investigation that followed. Durham argued that the FBI protected Sussman’s sources as a result of the alleged lie, and that investigators would not have pursued the Alfa Bank tip had they known the source of the data.
Observers agreed that the evidence against Sussmann was convincing, but that he might prevail based on “jury nullification” — an effort by the jury to reject the charges, regardless of guilt, because of their political sympathies with the defendant.
Columnist Byron York of the Washington Examiner observed in the hours before the verdict was delivered on Tuesday:
“There is no doubt Sussmann lied to the FBI. There is no doubt he is guilty. But the trial is taking place in Washington, perhaps the deepest-blue jury pool in the United States. Durham’s prosecutors are “facing a jury that has three Clinton donors, an AOC donor, and a woman whose daughter is on the same sports team as Sussmann’s daughter,” George Washington University law professor Jonathan Turley said recently on Fox News. “With the exception of randomly selecting people out of DNC headquarters, you could not come up with a worse jury.”
…So those are two major revelations from the Sussmann trial: Elements in and around the Clinton campaign sought to weaponize the FBI, and the FBI welcomed the effort — all in the name of defeating the Republican nominee for president.
…So the Clinton strategy worked. No, it did not make Clinton president of the U.S. The voters just did not want that. But it did enormous damage to the Trump presidency and the Trump administration.”
……Still, Durham succeeded in revealing that Clinton herself personally approved the leak of the Alfa Bank hoax to the media. The Alfa Bank hoax was intended as an “October surprise” to damage Trump in the days before voters headed to the polls.
Durham’s investigation will continue, and in October he will prosecute Igor Danchenko, a researcher who allegedly was the source for former British spy Christopher Steele, who worked for Fusion GPS to produce the fraudulent “Russia dossier” on Trump. The Sussmann trial confirmed that the Clinton campaign and the Democratic National Committee paid Fusion GPS, through Democrat election lawyer Marc Elias. However, Durham’s ability to obtain further indictments may be limited.
DNC law firm Perkins Coie has an “FBI workspace” in its DC offices. And Attorney Michael Sussmann is in charge of this FBI workspace.
Working along side the very FBI he lied to. This entire trial was a fucking charade. It was already decided before Sussman stepped into the court room.
Special Counsel John Durham has built a compelling case, supported by evidence, that the entire Russia collusion narrative that gripped the country during Donald Trump’s presidency was built on falsehoods.
An FBI lawyer, after all, has admitted he misled the FISA court by falsifying a document. Hillary Clinton’s campaign and the Democratic Party has paid a fine to federal election regulators for falsely disguising payments for Christopher Steele’s dossier as legal work rather than opposition research.
Steele’s primary source, Igor Danchenko, is charged with lying to the FBI. And before he was indicted, Danchenko told the FBI that Steele misrepresented some of his contributions to the dossier as intelligence when in fact they were based on “just talk” and “hearsay” and “conversation … with friends over beers.”
Clinton campaign manager Robby Mook testified Hillary Clinton personally approved releasing Russia dirt on Trump in 2016 even though they weren’t sure it was true.
And FBI supervisors who handled Clinton campaign lawyer Michael Sussmann’s allegation of a secret Trump communications channel with the Kremlin misled their own agents, falsely claiming the evidence came from the Justice Department when instead it came from a private lawyer.
So when Durham asked a Washington, D.C. jury to convict Sussmann for an alleged lie, he again offered strong evidence.
Documents presented to jurors showed Sussmann texted the FBI’s top lawyer he was bringing the allegations of the secret Alfa Bank communication channel to the bureau as a private citizen. But in fact he charged the work to the Clinton campaign.
And in later testimony to Congress, Sussmann gave a different story, claiming he did in fact approach the FBI on behalf of a client. One of the two statements could not be true, prosecutors argued.
In the end, it didn’t matter. The case was made against a backdrop of so many prior falsehoods and a growing belief in America that lying has become a norm in politics in Washington.
The forewoman for the jury that acquitted Sussmann said as much in a brief statement to the news media Tuesday afternoon, suggesting it wasn’t worth the jurors’ time to convict someone for lying to the FBI.
“I don’t think it should have been prosecuted,” the jury forewomen said, according to an account in The Washington Times. “There are bigger things that affect the nation than a possible lie to the FBI.”
Wanna bet that forewoman is a good buddy of Sussmann?
Further proof that there’s a two-tiered system of justice; one set of rules for Dems, another set of rules for everyone else. Just ask General Michael Flynn.