(FreedomWire.org) – Michael Sussmann was found not guilty of lying to the FBI, despite the evidence that he was working for the Clinton campaign and that he told FBI General Counsel James Baker that he was not working for any client.
One of the jurors revealed how they came to the decision to acquit.
After the verdict, the jury forewoman, who declined to give her name, spoke to the media. She said charges should never have been filed against Mr. Sussmann in the first place.
“I don’t think it should have been prosecuted,” she said of the case. “There are bigger things that affect the nation than a possible lie to the FBI.”
“It was the government’s job to prove it and they succeeded in some ways and not in others,” she continued. “We broke it down and it did not pan out in the government’s favor.”
“Politics was not a factor,” she insisted.
That means that the jury may have been replacing their own judgment about whether it should have been prosecuted at all, instead of weighing what they should have been weighing. Which was whether or not they could find that he lied to the FBI beyond a reasonable doubt.
As George Washington University law professor Jonathan Turley observed in a Twitter thread, “Telling a lie to the FBI was the entire basis for the prosecution. It was the jury’s job to determine the fact of such a lie and its materiality.” Turley allowed, “This statement can be a simple criticism of the underlying charge without admitting to bias in weighing the elements. Yet, it would have prompted a challenge in the courtroom if expressed during jury selection.”
Turley had previously noted the problem with the jury.
Some took to twitter to show outrage in the juries decision.