Update (1600ET) : Adopting the Sussmann acquittal, Former President Donald Trump was quick to respond, raging that the legal system isn’t working properly…
“ Our Legal System is CORRUPT, ” Trump mentioned in a post on Reality Social, adding that “ our Idol judges (and Justices! ) are usually highly partisan, compromised, or simply plain scared” before lamenting that will Michael Sussmann, the attorney, was found not guilty.
Jason Miller, an ex Trump campaign aide, also reacted to the verdict, creating on Gettr that Sussmann admitted to giving opposition research to the FBI and never telling the bureau which the research was conducted to get Clinton.
“ Just how did Sussmann get off??? RIGGED SYSTEM!!! ” Miller wrote.
The court unanimously found Sussmann not guilty.
“ I do not think it should have been prosecuted, ” one juror told reporters .
“ There are bigger things that affect the nation than the usual possible lie to the F. ”
We are unsure what that has regarding the legal principles involved in judging Sussmann’s guilt?
As Constitutional lawyer Jonathan Turley responded to this juror’s comments:
“ Telling a lie to the FBI was the entire basis for the prosecution. It was the jury’s job to determine the fact on this lie and its materiality.
… Of course , this particular statement can be a simple critique of the underlying charge without having admitting to bias in weighing the elements. Yet, it would have prompted a challenge within the courtroom if expressed throughout jury selection. ”
But then again…
* * *
As we detailed earlier, Erina Sussmann, a lawyer representing Hillary Clinton’s 2016 campaign, continues to be found not guilty of a single count number of lying to the F when he said he was not working on behalf associated with any client when he alleged a covert marketing communications channel between the Trump Firm and Russia’s Alfa Bank.
Sussmann was charged under 18 U. S. Chemical. 1001 with lying towards the FBI during a meeting with then-FBI general counsel James Baker when he came forward with what he claimed had been evidence of possible covert communications between the Trump organization plus Alfa, a Russian bank. Sussmann allegedly hidden that he was representing the Clinton campaign, which this individual billed for his initiatives.
The particular verdict comes after a two week trial led to more than a day time of deliberations… by this jury:
Baker, that now works for Twitter, said that this individual likely would not have have met with Michael Sussmann if he knew Sussmann was acting on behalf from the Clinton campaign .
I don’t think I would have, ” Baker mentioned on the stand in federal court in Washington, since noted by the Epoch Times .
Knowing Trump’s opponent was behind the allegations “ could have raised very serious questions, certainly, about the credibility of the source” and the “ veracity of the information, ” Baker stated. It would also have heightened “ a substantial concern in my mind about whether we were going to be played. ”
The testimony improves a key piece of special counsel John Durham’s case towards Sussmann— that knowing the resources propelling Sussmann to meet with Baker would have altered how the FBI analyzed the information, which the bureau ultimately found did not substantiate the claims of a secret backchannel between the Trump Organization and Alfa Financial institution.
“ Absent Sussmann’s false declaration, the FBI might have taken additional or more incremental guidelines before opening and/or shutting an investigation , ” prosecutors said in Sussmann’s indictment, which charged him with lying to the FBI.
As Techno Fog notes:
The acquittal is no shock. This is a DC jury, in fact. In the Roger Stone case, for example , all of us documented how a juror humiliated to get on the panel . (That judge didn’t treatment. ) Making matters even worse, the Sussmann judge wrongly allowed for a woman to remain on the jury, despite the fact that her daughter and Sussmann’s are usually on the same high school crew team. One can’t help but think that juror had her own daughter’s interests in mind – the cohesion of the team team – when the lady reached a decision.
On the facts, there was a lot more than sufficient evidence to show Sussmann’s guilt. Sussmann lied to then-FBI general counsel James Baker in order to get a meeting to pass the Alfa Financial institution hoax materials to the F. Sussmann lied again throughout the meeting – stating he or she was not there on behalf of a client – in order to get the F to open an investigation into the Trump Organization’s purported ties with Alfa Bank. Later, during testimony to Congress, Sussmann admitted he met with Baker on behalf of a client. Invoicing records proved he had been working on the Alfa Financial institution project on behalf of the Clinton Campaign.
I won’t say the verdict won’t matter. Of course it matters. It would have proven that the DC jury can convict one of their own. It would have resulted in accountability for laying to the FBI. Not the gravest of crimes, however it is still a crime.
In large part, the criminal prosecution of Sussmann was hamstrung by the FBI’s investigation in to the Alfa Bank allegations. That will goes to materiality . How can the is situated be material if the FBI’s investigation was so sloppy? (Answer: they were material because the lies helped open the investigation in the first place. )
On the issue of materiality, look to the testimony associated with FBI Special Agent Curtis Heide, whose repeated requests to interview the source of the Alfa Bank information were denied by headquarters. FBI Headquarters didn’t want this particular thing thoroughly vetted – even though they demanded the investigation be opened. As we stated throughout the trial :
Relatively early on within the investigation – on Sept 26, 2016 – Broker Heide sent a message in order to Pientka, requesting an interview of the source of the Alfa Financial institution white papers. By that period, Heide knew the white paper was bunk. He received no response from Pientka. He repeated this particular request on October 3, 2016. Realtor Heide’s requests were rebuffed by his liaison at FBI headquarters:
That’s not the particular say the public hasn’t benefited from the trial. The information revealed during the trial was important to understand the broader Clinton/Fusion GPS/Perkins Coie effort to poison the public, the press, and the FBI with their Trump/Russia lies.
Read the rest from Techno Fog here .
Meanwhile, here’s more on why many thought Sussmann would be found guilty:
Why Sussmann is guilty as billed.
The popular leftist narrative goes “ exactly who cares what Sussmann informed Baker? Everyone knew he or she was working for the Clinton campaign. ” It’s mistaken because it’s asking the wrong question.
The appropriate question is “ would certainly Baker have passed on Sussmann’s data to investigators acquired Sussmann informed him he was there representing the particular Clinton campaign? ” The solution is no. In fact Baker stated he wouldn’t have even taken the meeting.
“ Baker insisted he had a clear memory that, at the 2016 meeting, Sussmann claimed he 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 said.
The key point overlooked by most: Sussmann didn’t lie just to give himself cover. He lied so BAKER would have cover handy the data over to Cyber Division. In fact the particular lie was necessary MAINLY BECAUSE “ everyone knew” Sussmann was working for the Clinton campaign. Including Sussmann.
* * *
Sussmann had been found not guilty. Many of us seen the evidence was overwhelming. Yet, the jury either thought he did not lie or that the lie was not material. https://t.co/A20o2GPhQi — Jonathan Turley (@JonathanTurley) May 31, 2022
And let the arguments begin: