Posted on 06/01/2022 5:50:44 AM PDT by MarvinStinson
A juror in the trial of former Hillary Clinton campaign lawyer Michael Sussmann told the media after he was unanimously acquitted Tuesday that she did not think the case should have been prosecuted because lying to the FBI was not a big deal.
“I don’t think it should have been prosecuted,” she reportedly said, according to Jeff Mordock, White House reporter for the Washington Times. “There are bigger things that affect the nation than a possible lie to the FBI.”
The case was the most high-profile prosecution undertaken by Special Counsel John H. Durham, who is investigating the origins of the “Russia collusion” conspiracy theory. The trial saw testimony that tied Hillary Clinton directly to the hoax.
Sussmann was widely considered by legal observers to have been proven guilty, given the testimony of FBI agents and a text message that suggested he claimed to be acting as a concerned citizen rather than a Clinton campaign lawyer when he tipped off the agency about supposed collusion between then-candidate Donald Trump and the Russian government via Alfa Bank — a claim that was later debunked.
However, as former White House national security official Kash Patel warned on Breitbart News Daily on SiriusXM Patriot 125 last week, there could be “jury nullification,” in which the jury simply decided not to convict, regardless of the evidence.
The juror’s attitude hinted at nullification, and contrasted sharply with the approach taken by a federal judge in the same D.C. jurisdiction when it came to former Trump aide Michael Flynn, who was charged with the same crime. Judge Emmet G. Sullivan would not let the case go, even after new evidence emerged that convinced prosecutors to withdraw the charge.
Ultimately, President Trump had to pardon Flynn to extricate him from what observers considered a wrongful prosecution.
(Excerpt) Read more at breitbart.com ...
They would put them in front of a firing squad.
Especially seditious lies meant to effect the outcome of the election of the leader of the free world.
It’s a jury call, so not a precedent in the usual sense. No jury is bound by the decision of another, no court is bound by the decisions of a jury - other than in any single criminal case a jury acquittal is final.
The same exact facts can be used to convict a republican, and the fact that a juiry didn’t convict Sussman for the exact same thing is irrelevant.
Justice is naturally uneven. The rules are not applied equally. “Equal justice” is a self-serving myth, touted by the people who run the courts. They say it often, as though repetition makes it true.
The FBI has rendered itself entirely contemptible. If the FBI doesn’t like being lied to, it should stop behaving so contemptibly. This jury just told the FBI to clean up its act or expect more of the same. Can you really blame them?
If you are a Democrat with a Democrat activist jury, then yes.
Kangaroo jury.
Durham threw this case intentionally.
L
I remember the outrage when Oliver North’s secretary, Fawn Hall, said “sometimes you have to go beyond the law.”
My thought exactly. You can now lie with impunity to every level of criminal investigator. Everybody was granted a “Get out of jail free card.”
Yes, it’s true that lying to the FBI isn’t the biggest of big deals, but upholding the law IS. And obeying jury instructions IS. But your opinion, that carries more weight than either or both.
Incredible.
It’s her job to decide whether or not he did it, not how important (or not) it is in her opinion.
This should be challenged on the basis of her statement alone.
Is it ok to lie to the FBI now?
—
if you’re the right kind of person. Which is to say a leftist.
The problem was that she wasn’t deciding on the basis of the facts at all...but simply that she didn’t think his committing the crime was worth bothering with in the first place.
That’s definitely jury nullification.
Translation: Nope, I got no problem with lying to help my cause.
Not what a person with a conscience would say. But Democrats seem to feel everyone does it and they have no problem with it.
Obviously, we have 12 jurors that don’t accept federal law, and are willing to ignore the law for their cause.
Is their eternal life with God in jeopardy?
Id assume any settled case law one can point to in defense of a client must have some beneficial value. Basically a lawyer can rise and say even though the evidence shows guilty , sometimes there are mitigating circumstances when the lies dont matter...or are even necessary to protect the world.
But then again Im not a lawyer...
Another ditzy broad gets on a dumbass jury to “send a message”.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.