Eileen Sussmann, a lawyer representing Hillary Clinton’s 2016 campaign, has been found not guilty of the single count of lying to the FBI when he said he was not focusing on behalf of any customer when he alleged the covert communications channel between Trump Organization and Russia’s Alfa Bank.
Sussmann sits back down. His face will be impassive. Judge thanks court and dismisses them. /12
— Charlie Savage (@charlie_savage) May 31, 2022
Sussmann was billed under 18 U. Ersus. C. 1001 with resting to the FBI during a meeting with then-FBI general counsel Wayne Baker when he came forward with what he claimed was evidence of possible covert communications between the Trump business and Alfa, a Russian bank. Sussmann allegedly concealed that he was representing the Clinton campaign, which he billed for his efforts.
The verdict comes after a two week trial led to more than a day of deliberations… by this jury:
TURLEY: “ I am talking about, he is facing a jury that has three Clinton donors, an AOC donor, and a woman whose daughter will be on the same sports team with Sussmann’s daughter. With the exception of randomly selecting people out of the DNC headquarters, you could not think of a worse jury” pic. twitter. com/RHqen6AMAc
— Benny Johnson (@bennyjohnson) May 26, 2022
Baker, who now works for Twitter, said that he most likely would not have have met with Michael Sussmann in case he knew Sussmann was acting on behalf of the Clinton campaign .
I don’t think I would have got, ” Baker said for the stand in federal court in Washington, as noted by the Epoch Times .
Knowing Trump’s opponent was behind the allegations “ would have elevated very serious questions, certainly, about the credibility of the source” as well as the “ veracity of the details, ” Baker said. It would also have heightened “ a substantial concern in my mind about whether we were going to end up being played. ”
The testimony bolsters a vital piece of special counsel Sara Durham’s case against Sussmann— that knowing the sources propelling Sussmann to meet with Baker would have altered how the F analyzed the information, which the bureau ultimately found did not substantiate the claims of a secret backchannel between the Trump Business and Alfa Bank.
“ Lacking Sussmann’s false statement, the particular FBI might have taken additional or more incremental steps before opening and/or closing a study , ” prosecutors mentioned in Sussmann’s indictment, which usually charged him with laying to the FBI.
Here’s the reason why many believed Sussmann would be found accountable:
Precisely why Sussman is guilty since charged.
The popular leftist narrative goes “ who cares what Sussman told Baker? Everyone knew he was working for the particular Clinton campaign. ” It’s flawed because it’s requesting the wrong question.
The right question is “ would Baker have passed on Sussman’s data to researchers had Sussman informed your pet he was there symbolizing the Clinton campaign? ” The answer is no. In fact Baker said he wouldn’t possess even taken the meeting.
Baker testifies that knowing whether Sussmann had client had been important to him to assess its reliability of information. He admits that he would not have taken the particular meeting if Sussmann stated he was working on behalf of Clinton camp
— Andrew Goudsward (@AGoudsward) Might 19, 2022
“ Baker insisted he previously a clear memory that, on the 2016 meeting, Sussmann claimed this individual was not bringing the allegations to the FBI on behalf of any client.
“ I’m 100 percent confident that he said that in the meeting, ” he stated.
The key point overlooked by many: Sussman didn’t lie in order to give himself cover. He or she lied so BAKER might have cover to hand the data over to Cyber Division. In fact the lie has been necessary BECAUSE “ everyone knew” Sussman was working for the Clinton campaign. Including Sussman.
* * 2.
Sussmann was found not liable. Many of us viewed the evidence had been overwhelming. Yet, the court either believed he did not lie or that the then lie was not material. https://t.co/A20o2GPhQi
— Jonathan Turley (@JonathanTurley) May 31, 2022
And then let the arguments begin:
We literally found out that Hillary Clinton OKed dissemination of disinformation designed to undermine trust in our usa president elections — which was spread widely by leftist mass media outlets (CNN being among the worst offenders. ) Yet sure, do your issue! https://t.co/MG3MZx8TaZ
— Brian Harsanyi (@davidharsanyi) May 31, 2022