In the wake of former Clinton campaign attorney Michael Sussmann being acquitted of lying to the FBI, comments from the jury foreperson in the trial are catching people's attention on social media.
“Personally, I don’t think it should have been prosecuted because I think we have better time or resources to use or spend to other things that affect the nation as a whole than a possible lie to the FBI. We could spend that time more wisely,” said the foreperson of the jury in Sussmann’s case, according to Politico.
“The government had the job of proving beyond a reasonable doubt,” added the foreperson, who declined to give her name. “We broke it down...as a jury. It didn’t pan out in the government’s favor.”
Sussmann, who worked for the Clinton campaign, allegedly told the FBI he was only approaching them with dirt on the Trump campaign in 2016 as a concerned citizen and not as a paid political operative. Special prosecutors claimed that in doing so, Sussmann lied.
The trial against Sussmann lasted a little over two weeks. It was the first trial to come from investigations by Special Counsel John Durham into how the FBI and other agencies investigated the Trump campaign amid now-debunked claims it was colluding with Russia during the 2016 election.
Political finger-pointing unfolded following the not guilty verdict Tuesday. Republicans argued if the tables had been turned, and Sussmann was a Trump campaign attorney, the outcome would have been much different.
Others complained of the partisan makeup of the jury and the DC federal court system at large.
But Democrats and other critics of Special Counsel Durham’s investigations contested the verdict was a humiliating defeat for Durham and his efforts to uncover wrongdoing by those who probed the Trump campaign for Russia collusion during the 2016 presidential election.
It is not clear how the verdict will impact Durham’s ongoing case into the Democrat’s Trump-Russia claims, according to Politico, which noted Justice Department policy generally prohibits attorneys from using a criminal case to lay out a broader narrative without a bulletproof argument the evidence is needed for a conviction.
Following the verdict, Kevin Brock, a former FBI assistant director of intelligence, argued “Durham is telling a larger story here,” and “the trial afforded him to paint a picture about an effort by the Clinton campaign to spread disinformation on two tracks.”
“This narrative that [Durham] wants to paint is important to his responsibility to tell that entire story to the American people,” Brock concluded.View This Story on Our Site