by Jonathan Turley
The acquittal of Clinton campaign lawyer Michael Sussmann has been the subject of furious debate among politicians and pundits. Some have argued that the case collapsed from lack of evidence while others have alleged that prosecutors faced as biased judge and jury. For his part, Sussmann claimed that the jury found that “I told the truth.” The truth is more complex and few would assume that the verdict was based on Sussmann’s veracity. However, a statement from a juror immediately after the verdict fueled speculation of the impact of juror bias. According to the Washington Times’ Jeff Mordock, the juror reportedly said “I don’t think it should have been prosecuted. There are bigger things that affect the nation than a possible lie to the FBI.” If that statement had been made during voir dire, it is likely that the juror would have been challenged.
Before the verdict, some of us noted the adverse elements for the prosecution. Few would honestly question that trying a Clinton campaign lawyer in a city that voted over 90 percent for Clinton was not an advantage for the defense. The same is true for some cases tried in conservative areas. In this case, prosecutors challenged some jurors but were overruled by Judge Christopher Cooper. I believe that the court was wrong on a couple of those rulings. In the end, the prosecution was faced with a jury that contained three Clinton donors, an AOC donor, and a woman whose daughter played on the same team as Sussmann’s daughter. As I previously said, that does not mean that the jurors could not be impartial.
The prosecutors were also hit with a series of adverse rulings by the judge that limited the scope of evidence and examinations. That denied the prosecution the ability to show how the campaign knowingly pushed unsupported claims.
Nevertheless, I noted at the outset that “this is not an easy case to prove.” There was overwhelming evidence, in my view, that Sussmann lied to conceal his work with the Clinton campaign. Yet, the defense did a good job in attacking elements like materiality in how the allegedly false statement impacted the FBI.
The juror statement is not something that is likely to be raised with the court. The juror could have still rendered an unbiased decision despite viewing the prosecution as much to do about nothing. If such a statement were made during voir dire, it would have been viewed as more serious as a preexisting view that could impact the impartiality of the juror.
In the end, there is no proof of actual juror nullification. While the evidence of lying seems overwhelming to some of us, there were interstitial questions on how the lying impacted the investigation. Yet, I believe that the court undermined the prosecution in a number of its rulings. Moreover, there is a legitimate concern over how this trial was handled as opposed to the trial of figures like Michael Flynn in the same courthouse.
Dear Ms Clinton donor juror,
You had one job, not to make a judgement on if the case should or should not be tried, but if the evidence was that the defendant lied to the FBI or did not lie to the FBI. The evidence clearly showed he lied, you failed in your ONE duty.
Testimony and facts discovered will assist Trump in his civil suit. I hope he takes them all to the cleaners.
That statement, Constitutionally, makes this a mis-trial.
The statement is also how tyrants speak, applying the law unequally. So many have died for this country to maintain our Laws and equality for all.
The coup is complete. Welcome to the Democrat States of the America.
Hmmm… like Schiff’s impeachment “investigation”; if something hurts the verdict HE wants reached, he just blocks it.
So, when you lie to the FBI, make sure it’s an insignificant lie, like General Flynn not being about to precisely remember a phone conversation the FBI has a transcript to. Oh, wait… that’s probably not a good example. Just make sure you’re a Democrat. Lie all you want then.
Nowadays, liberals cannot be impartial. They cannot be liberal and objective. If they could, they wouldn’t be liberal. We’ve seen it; they think freedom of speech is inviolable… unless someone says something they don’t like. Then, censor the living shit out of it. To protect the leftist agenda, liberals will trample any mainstay of liberty that gets in the way.
But, indeed, there are bigger things, now. Like Democrat’s election fraud in 2020. Or idiot Biden’s corruption. But, none of that is being looked at, either.