The jury comprised of Clinton and AOC donors and associates of Sussmann lets him off the hook.

Posted BY: Zero Hedge

Michael Sussmann, a lawyer representing Hillary Clinton’s 2016 campaign, has been found not guilty of a single count of lying to the FBI when he said he was not working on behalf of any client when he alleged a covert communications channel between the Trump Organization and Russia’s Alfa Bank.

Trending: Rolling blackouts to affect over a billion people as energy crisis worsens

Sussmann was charged under 18 U.S.C. 1001 with lying to the FBI during a meeting with then-FBI general counsel James Baker when he came forward with what he claimed was evidence of possible covert communications between the Trump organization and Alfa, a Russian bank. Sussmann allegedly concealed that he was representing the Clinton campaign, which he billed for his efforts.

The verdict comes after a two-week trial that led to more than a day of deliberations… by this jury:

Baker, who now works for Twitter, said that he likely would not have met with Michael Sussmann if he knew Sussmann was acting on behalf of the Clinton campaign.

I don’t think I would have,” Baker said on the stand in federal court in Washington, as noted by the Epoch Times.

Knowing Trump’s opponent was behind the allegations “would have raised very serious questions, certainly, about the credibility of the source” and the “veracity of the information,” Baker said. It would also have heightened “a substantial concern in my mind about whether we were going to be played.”

The testimony bolsters a key piece of special counsel John Durham’s case against Sussmann—that knowing the sources propelling Sussmann to meet with Baker would have altered how the FBI analyzed the information, which the bureau ultimately found did not substantiate the claims of a secret backchannel between the Trump Organization and Alfa Bank.

Absent Sussmann’s false statement, the FBI might have taken additional or more incremental steps before opening and/or closing an investigation,” prosecutors said in Sussmann’s indictment, which charged him with lying to the FBI.

Here’s why many thought Sussmann would be found guilty:

Why Sussman is guilty as charged.

The popular leftist narrative goes “who cares what Sussman told Baker? Everyone knew he was working for the Clinton campaign.” It’s flawed because it’s asking the wrong question.

The right question is “would Baker has passed on Sussman’s data to investigators had Sussman informed him he was there representing the Clinton campaign?” The answer is no. In fact, Baker said he wouldn’t have even taken the meeting.

“Baker insisted he had a clear memory that, at the 2016 meeting, Sussmann claimed he was not bringing the allegations to the FBI on behalf of any client.
“I’m 100 percent confident that he said that in the meeting,” he said.  

The key point overlooked by most: Sussman didn’t lie just to give himself cover. He lied so BAKER would have cover to hand the data over to Cyber Division. In fact the lie was necessary BECAUSE “everyone knew” Sussman was working for the Clinton campaign. Including Sussman.

Sussmann was found not guilty. Many of us viewed the evidence was overwhelming. Yet, the jury either believed he did not lie or that the lie was not material.— Jonathan Turley (@JonathanTurley) May 31, 2022