The Sussman jury
I already wrote a post today on the Sussman acquittal, but I thought I’d give one subtopic its own post as well. It concerns the following, which I read in this piece (hat tip commenter “Barry Meislin”):
The jury unanimously found Sussmann not guilty.
“I don’t think it should have been prosecuted,” one juror told reporters.
“There are bigger things that affect the nation than a possible lie to the FBI.”
There are probably “bigger things that affect the nation” than the content of any one trial. But that should never be a consideration for any juror.
Jonathan Turley responds:
“Telling a lie to the FBI was the entire basis for the prosecution. It was the jury’s job to determine the fact of such a lie and its materiality.
…Of course, this statement can be a simple criticism of the underlying charge without admitting to bias in weighing the elements. Yet, it would have prompted a challenge in the courtroom if expressed during jury selection.”
Of course it was not expressed during jury selection.
There’s also this:
TURLEY: “I mean, he is facing a jury that has three Clinton donors, an AOC donor, and a woman whose daughter is on the same sports team with Sussmann’s daughter. With the exception of randomly selecting people out of the DNC headquarters, you could not come up with a worse jury” pic.twitter.com/RHqen6AMAc
— Benny Johnson (@bennyjohnson) May 26, 2022
Just to review the facts of the case:
On the facts, there was more than sufficient evidence to prove Sussmann’s guilt. Sussmann lied to then-FBI general counsel James Baker in order to get a meeting to pass the Alfa Bank hoax materials to the FBI. Sussmann lied again during the meeting – stating he was not there on behalf of a client – in order to get the FBI 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. Billing records proved he had been working on the Alfa Bank project on behalf of the Clinton Campaign…
The popular leftist narrative goes “who cares what Sussman told Baker? Everyone knew he was working for the Clinton campaign.” It’s flawed because it’s asking the wrong question.
The right question is “would Baker have passed on Sussman’s data to investigators had Sussman informed him he was there representing the Clinton campaign?” The answer is no. In fact Baker said he wouldn’t have even taken the meeting…
Sussman didn’t lie just to give himself cover. He lied so BAKER would have cover to hand the data over to Cyber Division. In fact the lie was necessary BECAUSE “everyone knew” Sussman was working for the Clinton campaign. Including Sussman.
As I said before, this verdict was expected. A guilty verdict would have been an utter shock.
ADDENDUM:
Please read Ace’s take on the matter. Some particularly succinct observations:
The FBI’s corruption has the side-effect of rendering its co-conspirators immune from prosecution…
In other words: Sure, there was a lie here. And that lie was told by the senior leadership of the FBI. Blame them, not Sussman.
Can’t say that argument is without merit.
At some point, the system becomes so corrupt it becomes incapable of producing outcomes that are anything other than corruption. That’s where we are now.
Indeed. And we’ve been there for many years – at least since 2008 and probably earlier.
There are bigger things that affect the nation than a possible lie to the FBI.
As silly (and infuriating) as this statement is I don’t think it would surprise anyone who’s ever served on a jury in a criminal trial. I did once and came away thinking, “How the hell does anyone get convicted of anything?” We did ultimately convict the guy on the clearest cut case of heroin possession that you could imagine, while acquitting him of other charges he was certainly guilty of, but at least a third of the jurors reminded me of the one quoted here. Keeping them focused on the matter at hand, and following the judge’s clear instructions was nearly impossible.
Greg Price
From 20 Tweets from Bad Blue
@greg_price11
Michael Flynn was dragged through legal hell for years on charges he lied to the FBI even though it was clear they entrapped him. Hillary’s former campaign manager literally testified she gave the green light to spread the fake Alfa Bank story. Sussman was acquitted anyway.
There is so much more than 1 lie to the FBI, but small potatoes or not the Deep State coup d’etat will be covered up.
Ah yes, lets continue to trust the FBI. But you and I had better not ever tell a lie to them.
Various conservative commentators have said that people should avoid talking to the FBI at all unless with a lawyer and a recording device.
“At some point, the system becomes so corrupt it becomes incapable of producing outcomes that are anything other than corruption. That’s where we are now.”
The Left is diligently working toward the day of its abolishment.
And we’ve been there for many years – at least since 2008 and probably earlier.
Probably so, but in 2008 we had our noses rubbed in it – more so since then.
Here’s some interesting info by way of Conservative Treehouse and Tucker Carlson:
“In response to a letter sent by Rep. Matt Gaetz and Jim Jordan, Perkins Coie, the legal arm of the DNC and Hillary Clinton, admitted they have been operating an FBI workspace in their Washington D.C. office since 2012.”
“ Essentially, what is being admitted in this claim is that a portal existed into FBI databases within the law firm that represents democrats. This means access to FBI database searches exists inside the office of the DNC and Clinton legal group.”
https://theconservativetreehouse.com/blog/2022/05/31/breaking-the-fbi-maintains-a-workspace-including-computer-portal-inside-the-law-firm-of-perkins-coie-the-ramifications-are-significant/
Apparently there were not “bigger things that affect the nation” when Michael Flynn was charged and convicted of the same crime.
Doug Purdie:
Actually, Flynn was pressured by the FBI and threatened in various ways (as were family members) to “convince” him to plead guilty, which he initially did. Go here for a refresher course on the complex ins and outs of what later happened, but after judge number one recused himself then judge number two, Sullivan, got the case. Ultimately Flynn tried to withdraw his plea and Sullivan wouldn’t let him – and then took on the role of near-prosecutor as well. Ultimately Trump pardoned Flynn, but the ordeal was enormous for Flynn and his family.
they knew he had not lied, the judge contreras, promptly recused himself, flynn spent millions on an attorney who gave him the run around for 3 years, then sidney powell, yes that one, contacted justice who found the documents, even after that, an unscrupulous judge whose firm has ties to hsbc and chinese superbank hounded him even after the evidence was proven,
Democrats are evil. Thoroughly, proudly, and totally evil.
They know that this level of corruption and dishonesty is destructive. They know if they were on the receiving end of this garbage, they’d scream and rant about the horrors of it all. And yet, they happily continue to embrace the evil and celebrate it. There is nothing good or worthwhile in any of them. Or their voters.
}}} Indeed. And we’ve been there for many years – at least since 2008 and probably earlier.
Not so sure it was true even in 2008, but certainly it quickly rolled downhill that way.
Remember, during the Clinton Admin, Hillary was pissed off that she could NOT use the FBI to go after her husband’s critics.
It takes at least a decade to corrupt an organization away from that.
I don’t think the FBI has always been as squeaky-clean as their image, but the majority of them were certainly upright in intent, if not incorruptible. The Clinton Admin no doubt planted a few seeds with appointments during their time in power.