A member of Sussman’s obviously biased jury told the media after the verdict was released that the cause should not have been brought to court, according to Washington Times White House correspondent Jeff Mordock.
“I don’t think it should have been prosecuted,” the juror said. “There are bigger things that affect the nation than a possible lie to the FBI.”
Lying to the FBI is okay if you’re a Democrat operative. https://t.co/rkFZcHrFRy
— Sean Davis (@seanmdav) May 31, 2022
Despite ample evidence — testimony from FBI James Baker, contemporaneous notes, and a “damning” text message — that Sussman had indeed lied to the FBI, the juror claimed that the government had not proved its case.
“It was the government’s job to prove it and they succeeded in some ways and not in others,” the juror continued. “We broke it down and it did not pan out in the government’s favor.”
Sussman was acquitted not by a jury of his peers, but by a jury of “Hillary’s Clinton’s peers,” wrote Fox News’ Gregg Jarrett in response.
According to legal scholar Jonathan Turley, special counsel John Durham‘s team didn’t stand a chance.
“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 Sussman’s daughter,” Turley wrote.
Some observers have claimed, however, that Sussman was acquitted because his lie was not “material” — in other words, his claim that he approached the FBI “not on behalf of a client or company” was immaterial because the FBI knew he was working for the Clinton campaign.
“Despite both the judge and jury being corruptly conflicted, the verdict was correct because the lie was not material: the FBI knew full well who Sussmann was and who and what he represented,” lawyer John David Soriano wrote on Twitter. “Durham was hoodwinked.”