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.
The more important issue following this verdict is whether Special Counsel John Durham will be allowed to release a public report on his overall findings. Democrats previously demanded such a report from Special Counsel Robert Mueller. Some even demanded the release without redactions, including grand jury material. In the end, a report was released with a comparably small number of redactions. The same should be true with Durham. This trial resulted in the release of new information, but it is clear that Durham was strictly limited in what he could reveal at trial. The public has a legitimate interest in a full account of these findings, as it did after the Mueller investigation.
“ Nevertheless, I noted that 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.”
Here Turley tacitly admits the case was weak from the very beginning. It was made much worse by a series of stupid mistakes and incompetence in the process of pursuing this charge. The bottom line is this; Sussman didn’t lie to the FBI. His alleged false statement is/was not material to the case. The evidence did not support the charge.
Those seeking to blame the jury are just looking for an excuse to support their denial that Durham’s investigation is a colossal waste of time.
“ 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.”
In other words Durham was not able to push unsubstantiated claims that the DNS data was a hoax. The judge didn’t allow that “evidence” because it was not material to the charge Durham was pressing.
It’s that simple. Turley disingenuously makes it seem like “important” evidence was being neglected when in fact it was not.
The juror Turley mentions made it quite clear that the charge itself was not a serious issue compared to the larger issue Durham was supposed to be investigating. Durham is under pressure to produce results for a conspiracy theory that he has so far found no evidence of substantiating. That is Durham’s biggest problem. Turley is just being as sloppy as Durham is and he’s relying on a conspiracy theory that has no evidence to support it.
I understand that the fired-up 7th floor always wants the “goods on” all those who could be their boss, probably since Hoover, but these guys are really sloppy.
I have a question about why Durham can’t seek to appeal the case based on his objections to obvious juror bias which the prosecution objected to during voire dire but the judge allowed in anyway??? Did Durham really care about the conviction…or was this part of his toolset for the “greater” plan to expose the entire Clinton campaign conspiracy?
Juries have plenary power. Their decisions are not reviewable. Think about the President’s power to grant pardons, etc.
“ I have a question about why Durham can’t seek to appeal the case based on his objections to obvious juror bias which the prosecution objected to during voire dire but the judge allowed in anyway??? ”
Because Durham ACCEPTED the jury verdict. When he stated he respected the jury’s decision, he was conceding.
Svelaz,
Durham accepts the jury’s verdict, but the lying Trumpists won’t accept his acceptance!
This same government want the People to surrender their guns….imagine that!
Now why would we ever want to do so?
At some point…there must be a tipping point at which there is but one option left to correct the abusive behavior of the Left.
Judges like this one that effectively participates in the Defense as he did…with all of the reasons he should have Recused himself….or taken actions to ensure he was seen as being completely free of bias and prejudice….which of course he did not and in fact went way overboard in his catering to the Defense and effectively spiking the Prosecutions Case.
Durham must finally do what must be done….Indict Clinton and everyone down the food chain that played a role in all of this….including DOJ and FBI senior management and every Intelligence Head that called it Russian Disinformation…..as they lied under Oath as well.
Contrary to the Juror…lying to the FBI or DOJ is a serious matter….ask a. half dozen Republicans who were indicted and convicted or pleaded guilty.
If we cannot trust our Courts and Judges….we are. doomed as a Nation.
Are you prepared for what is coming when finally….the People have had enough?
It shall be ugly.
November better see the beginning of the return to legitimate elections and the undoing of the radical Leftist Agenda or we shall be one step closer to that train wreck.
Durham must finally do what must be done….Indict Clinton and everyone down the food chain that played a role in all of this
Durham is only allowed to work with a very short leash. Garland has instructed Durham that he will not expose anyone in the govt, at high levels, NONE that require Senate approval, or their deputies. And for sure, not Clinton’s wife. I am sure he has been shut down any attempt at interviewing certain persons.
Muller is proof the cover up is in full active mode. Look for Durham to finish up by labor day, or go dark until January.
Garland has instructed Durham that he will not expose anyone in the govt, at high levels, NONE that require Senate approval, or their deputies. And for sure, not Clinton’s wife. I am sure he has been shut down any attempt at interviewing certain persons.
LOL.
You have an active imagination.
Just looking at what has happened to this point. Has Durham interviewed anyone needing Senate approval? Comey? Wray? Rosenstien? Brennen? Clapper?
The dog that doesn’t bark
Durham was appointed SC long before Garland was appointed AG.
Next you’ll be telling us that Barr also “instructed Durham that he will not expose anyone in the govt.”
Yes, the covid year when 80% of court activity was curtailed and grand juries were few a far between. But Barr may have had the same limitations. Saving the reputation of the DoJ was more important to Barr than justice, For President Trump. Barr is naive enough to think the DoJ will be able to right itself.
Ralph warns:
“It shall be ugly.”
Care to elaborate?
Sounds like the OJ trial. I wonder if Mr Sussman is going to go on a search to find the real liar like OJ Tried to find the real killer of his ex-wife on golf courses all over the southwest after he was acquitted of her murder.
I think it was a foregone conclusion that Sussmann would be acquitted knowing the venue of the trial, the make up of the jury.
What I found more interesting is not the verdict, but the evidence presented exposes the level of corruption within the FBI, DOJ and the DNC.
Never under estimate the willingness of progressives to usurp the law, eviscerate the constitution, and deploy Orwellian logic to obtain and maintain power. Can one imagine a jury trial loaded with Trump donors and friends of family permitted to adjudicate a trial involving a Trump campaign lawyer? Or a jury foreman aggressively announcing that the trial was a waste of time HRC and Hunter Biden must be the most protected criminals in the history of the US
Do we have Turley going for verdict nullification here?
He ambiguously is doing so. Despite trying to seem objective.
He pointed oiut times the judge ruled against the prosecution. Did he never rule against the defense? Turley would have you draw that conclusion. Isn’t ruling against both sides. . . normal?
The judge did overrule several objections from the defense.
Transcripts showing that are on Marcy Wheeler’s web page. Empty wheel.
And “there are bigger things” than taking a few selfies at the Capitol — but that only works for Democrats.
How many law enforcement officers were injured as a result of those “selfies?” How many people ultimately died (feel free to include the one attempting to force her way through a broken window). Were they or were they not attempting to stop a Constitutionally-required act of Congress? One man’s minor thing is another man’s insurrection.
None..but 2 women were murdered by the Capitol police that day.
“None” It’s people like you that give whatever you consider yourself a bad name. You don’t believe the news, pictures, videos, or your lying eyes. Will anyone else here back up Wen BArs and say that no law enforcement people were injured? Even the previous worst of you tried to blame Antifa or BLM, you just throw out all the evidence.
To your second fake point, when you get killed during the commission of a crime, is it murder? What happened to stand your ground?
https://www.policemag.com/592586/140-officers-were-injured-in-capitol-riot-officials-say
When an article starts off with bad hyperbole and deception one knows Enigma has reached the bottom of the barrel.
“Capitol Police Officer Brian D. Sicknick died after trying to defend the Capitol from rioters.”
SM
Here’s a list of people charged for Jan 6: https://www.justice.gov/usao-dc/capitol-breach-cases
There is not a single person was charged for ” taking a few selfies at the Capitol.”
They aren’t being charged with “INSURRECTION” either…..
I didn’t say they were. Several have been charged with seditious conspiracy, though, and some have already been convicted of it.
Charges were made up and you keep repeating the same lies. We have video evidence proving many should never have been charged. There is more video evidence but Democrats refuse to release those videos because they wish people to be intimidated and suffer potential jail terms when release of the videos could prove them innocent.
You are a liar and deceitful.
So what can be done about injustices in our judicial system?
“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.”
Imagine that: the Judge ruled that the prosecution couldn’t introduce things that were unrelated to the alleged crime.
The sole issue that the jury was to assess was whether Sussmann knowingly made a materially false statement about whether all elements of the following were met: “the Indictment alleges that in a meeting on September 19, 2016, Mr. Sussmann did willfully and knowingly make a materially false, fictitious, and fraudulent statement or representation in a matter before the FBI in violation of 18 USC 1001(a)(2); namely, that Mr. Sussmann stated to the General Counsel of the FBI that he was not acting on behalf of any client in conveying particular allegations concerning Alfa-Bank and Donald Trump, when, in fact, he was acting on behalf of specific clients, namely Rodney Joffe or the Clinton Campaign” (quoting the jury instructions). The judge had told the jury that “In order to reach a guilty verdict, each of you must find that the government has proven all five elements of the offense beyond a reasonable doubt. In order to reach a not guilty verdict, each of you must find that the government has not proven one or more of the five elements beyond a reasonable doubt. You need not agree on which element the government has failed to prove.”
Turley claims to be a defense lawyer, but he only acts like one when Republicans are charged.
Andy McCarthy made a great suggestion for Durham this morning, indite Hillary.
It’s indict. Also- for what? Don’t you think if they had the goods on Hillary they would’ve pulled that trigger when the GOP were in charge of DOJ under Trump? To hear the GOP tell it the Clintons have been a short hair away from being tossed in jail for the last 25 years now. Why hasn’t it happened? Because they dangle that carrot in front of credulous people like you to encourage them to empty their wallets into the GOPs coffers.
“Just another 50 bucks and we’ll finally be able to nail Hillary for Benghazi/emails/jaywalking/satanic ritual sacrifice/etc etc! And THIS time, we mean it!” It’s the same hustle the end times preachers use. Come on you’re smarter than to fall for this! Think for yourself don’t be a sheep.
Durham was successful in exposing Muller as nothing but a 2 year long, and $millions exercise in covering up the involvement of all the DC denizens of corruption. CIA, FBI, State Dept, DoJ, and our favorite wind sock, Justice Roberts. Roberts is the person overseeing the corrupt FISA court.
Muller was never looking Russia, or Trump, His only purpose was to take over Main Justice, and shut down any investigation by any govt entity.
Muller never “found” any of the stuff Durham has exposed. Muller never looked.
Who IS, watching the watchers?
Do you recall that when Robert Mueller testified before Congress, he was unfamiliar with Fusion GPS?
So much was ‘not in his purview.’
Massive cover-up operations can be like that, eh?
Catherine, it was clear Mueller was there to lend his name and reputation to the scam Russia investigation. Mueller is obviously suffering from Dementia just like Biden and Feinstien. I doubt he remembers sitting before congress and taking questions. Such is the Swamp. Weisman ran the investigation, and Rosenstien differed to ALL of Wiesman’s demands and orders.
Iowan2 asks:
“Who IS, watching the watchers?”
Turley’s on it.
I have to question whether this jury foreperson should have even been on the jury.
To me, the statement shows absolutely zero interest in the facts of the case, and that the juror was pre-disposed to ignoring any evidence that was presented in the courtroom.
It’s a sad day when we can’t even find a group of twelve individuals interested in hearing the facts presented so as to make an honest decision based upon the application of the law.
>> It’s a sad day when we can’t even find a group of twelve individuals interested in hearing the facts presented so as to make an honest decision based upon the application of the law. <<
This is flawed. Twelve jurors who at least appeared to be impartial could have been seated. The judge allowed those jurors.
Had he wanted to create the impression of impartiality, he never would have allowed Clinton and AOC donors to sit on a high profile case of a Clinton attorney.
It's one thing to be a partisan voter. But for many partisan donors/activists, their political ideology is a defining element of their identity. It's often almost religious in nature. So, sure, Turley is right that they COULD be impartial. The question is why a judge committed to creating the perception of impartiality allow these partisan Democrat donors to sit as jurors in a case against a partisan Democrat lawyer?
It strikes me as extreme indifference to public perception. Or extreme arrogance. Something like 'I'll seat hyper-partisans to sit as jurors on this politics tinged case and if you don't like it, pound sand. Or try impeaching me.'
The insinuation that the jurors were partisan and not credibly impartial is only being used as an excuse to deny the facts of the evidence presented and the reality of the truth.
The whole reason for blaming the jurors is because many republicans and Trump supporters WANTED a guilty verdict based on their flawed beliefs rooted in conspiracy theories devoid of evidence. Anything that won’t conform to that belief, even in the face of contradictory evidence is deemed suspect.
Sussman was proven to be innocent of the charge in court. One can disagree with the outcome of course, but if that involves ignoring the facts of the case and the details of case. Then that disagreement is not based on reason, but emotional political bias.
The jurors had obvious POTENTIAL biases. Clinton donors hearing a case against a Clinton lawyer is a real potential bias. Any fair minded person – which obviously excludes you – can acknowledge them.
Now, you can repeat, ad nauseum, that the obvious potential biases are imaginary. Just as you falsely repeat, ad nauseum, that it was a weak case – despite the fact Sussman’s lie is in writing.
If you repeat them often enough you may even trick yourself into believing your own nonsense.
Anonymous, even Turley admits the case was going to be difficult. That’s implying Durham had a weak case. That’s in addition to Durham’s incompetence when he made a series of mistakes a real lawyer wouldn’t make
His investigation has produced nothing of value in 3 years. He was already under pressure from republicans to produce something. That rush to charge Sussman with a single false statement is in itself a good indication that Durham s investigation yielded nothing of value. All the conspiracy theories he is using as a basis for his investigation have no evidence to support them. This is why this case failed to produce what republicans wanted. A talking point for the midterm elections.
So if John Eastman (one of Trump’s attorneys) is eventually tried for a crime, all Trump donors should be rejected as jurors?
The fact that three donors were accepted makes any claim you make, stupid.
My question to the Anon. who posted the 9:55 AM comment was not a claim.
Yes, but what Crime ?
Advising Trump of what the constitution actually says ?
Of what has actually occured in past elections ?
Conspiracy to obstruct the ECA.
You do not get to make up crimes,
Further the construction you have demonstrates on its face your problems.
All conspiracy is not a crime.
All obstruction is not a crime.
IF you are actually correct and Eastman’s actions constituted Conspiracy to obstruct the ECA – then the ECA would be clearly unconstitutional – for MULTIPLE reasons.
It would violate the first amendment.
It would have to littlerally violate the constitution – because Eastmans advice was FULLY compliant with the constitution.
The Constitution allows congress some very specific powers as well as some general power with limits regarding the election of representative and senators.
But the role of congress in the election of the president has NO general powers. With respect to representatives and senators – the general power over elections is shared by state legislators and congress.
But the general power over presidential elections rests only with the legislature. Congresses powers in a presidential election are only those enumerated in the constitution.
Therefore any Federal law that imposes conditions not in the constitution on presidential elections is unconstitutional.
It is self evident that nothing Eastman advised was outside the constraints of the constitution.
There is no crime of conspiracy to attempt to follow rarely used provisions of the constitution.
This is a common problem with leftists.
We have a constitution and laws. They are what they say they are.
If you are seeking to change the meaning of the constitution or law by changing its plain meaning – you are violating “the rule of law”.
If you do not like the law or constitution – change them.
Pretty clear that justice is not balanced in DC.
Nor at the DOJ.
What is clear is that lefties are raging and don’t care what institutions they destroy in their anger and hatred.
Obvious finding is the FBI and DOJ work for the DNC. Mueller Probe knew on day ONE Trump didn’t work with the Russians….and that probe was just a DNC way to hobble Trump!
DC is lost. GOP needs to rip 90% of government out of DC and move it to the Heartland!
Meanwhile more import the RICHEST Democrats states are being showered in trillions as the next generation are become Debt Slaves…on unpayable Federal Debt!
Really any of these cases should automatically have a change of venue.
well we now all KNOW the DOJ and FBI are 100% Corrupt! That is obvious for all to see!
DC is one big ORGY. They are all in bed together.
Wen’s just jealous nobody wants to orgy with her.
Ho hum, Professor. It was a weak case about a trivial subject. Just as with “stop the steal” and “insurrection,” we all want to move on
Except the left actually did perpetrate an insurrection with the help of the FBI and the DOJ…and people like YOU don’t give a damn.
To quote you: “They aren’t being charged with “INSURRECTION” either”