(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.

(FreedomWire.org) – Judge Christopher Cooper (an Obama appointee) just made a finding that is likely to hurt the case, former federal prosecutor Andrew McCarthy notes.

The judge just ruled on Thursday that the prosecution can’t argue in its summation that the text is the false statement with which he is charged. In the text, Sussmann said, “Jim — it’s Michael Sussmann. I have something time-sensitive (and sensitive) I need to discuss. Do you have availability for a short meeting tomorrow? I’m coming on my own — not on behalf of a client or company — want to help the Bureau. Thanks.”

The problem is that they didn’t have the text when they filed the indictment, it wasn’t part of the alleged evidence so they weren’t alleging that was the false statement. Baker claims he didn’t find the message until six months after the indictment was filed, so he didn’t turn it over to them before then. But because it was past the statute of limitations by the time that was found, the Durham team who might ordinarily add it as a separate charge in a superseding indictment couldn’t do that.

That means that their main evidence is James Baker’s somewhat sketchy memory. Because he felt he was talking to a “friend,” he didn’t follow the normal protocol that one might if he was an FBI agent doing an interview–that would be one agent conducting the interview, while a second agent would be taking notes.

Even though the text isn’t official evidence, it doesn’t mean that the text can’t be considered by the jury.

Prosecutors will still be permitted by Judge Christopher Cooper to argue that the text is strong evidence that Baker is correct that, at the September 19 meeting, Cooper insisted that he was not representing a client. Prosecutors will point to the text right before the meeting, as well as Baker’s telling other FBI officials right after the meeting that Sussmann had said he was not representing a client. Based on that, Durham’s team will argue that the proof of Sussmann’s false statement is convincing.

Nevertheless, prosecutors will not be permitted to argue that Sussmann is guilty of making a false statement solely based on the text. To convict him, the jury must be convinced that Sussmann made the false statement at the meeting with Baker.

While that makes things tougher, the jurors aren’t blind, and while they’re being told they can’t consider it as the false statement, saying that it can be considered as “strong evidence” that Baker is correct about what Sussmann said allows them to consider it and know the truth. So, the question is: will they be looking at it with clear, unadulterated eyes?

Unfortunately,  as George Washington University law professor Jonathan Turley said on Fox on Thursday, the jury for Michael Sussmann is a question, too.

He’s facing a jury that has three Clinton donors, an AOC donor and a woman whose daughter is on the same sports team as Sussmann’s daughter. With the exception of randomly selecting people out of the DNC headquarters, you could not come up with a worse jury.

This leaves many wondering if there will be a fair verdict, even given the evidence. You never know with juries; if they are viewing the evidence honestly.

(FreedomWire.org) – Former FBI official James Baker’s testimony on Thursday destroyed former Clinton campaign lawyer Michael Sussmann. The charge against Sussmann is that he lied to the FBI, specifically Baker, telling him that he wasn’t acting on behalf of any client. He asked for a meeting with Baker and that is when Sussman told Baker about the false Alfa Bank allegations, supposedly showing a back channel between the Trump organization and Russia.

Baker testified that he was “100 percent confident” that Sussmann denied working “on behalf of any particular client” to him.

“I think it was pretty close to the beginning of the meeting. Part of his introduction to the meeting,” former FBI general counsel James Baker told jurors in Washington, DC, federal court.

According to his indictment, the cybersecurity lawyer was allegedly acting on behalf of the Clinton campaign and Rodney Joffe, a tech executive and client who told him about computer data that purportedly revealed a secret back channel between a Trump Organization server and Russia’s Alfa Bank.

“He said that he was not appearing before me on behalf of any particular client,” Baker recalled.

The prosecution also entered a text from Sussmann himself, which backed up Baker’s testimony, because in it, Sussmann explicitly claimed he was coming to talk to Baker not on behalf of any client.

Baker treated Sussmann as a confidential source and didn’t even tell FBI agent Scott Hellman where he got the thumb drives of information from that he got from Sussmann. “I do remember I was frustrated at not being able to ID who had provided these thumb drives to Mr. Baker. He was not willing to tell me,” Hellman said.

Hellman said it was obvious to him that the the information wasn’t valid.

“I felt that whoever had written that paper had jumped to some conclusions that were not supported by the technical data,” he said.

“I did not feel they were objective in the conclusions they came to. The assumption is so far-reaching it just didn’t make any sense.”

Hellman speculated that whoever authored the report simply searched for “Trump” on a dataset of email servers to make the since-debunked connection.

Baker said Sussmann told him a reporter was working on a story about the information, which Baker said made it more urgent to investigate the information because if a story came out, the information might then be buried or done away with before he could determine whether or not it was valid.

Baker told Bill Preistap, the assistant director of the FBI’s Counterintelligence Division, immediately about the information, and that Sussmann said he was not working on behalf of any client, something Priestap also recorded in his notes, “Said not doing this for any client.”

Baker also told Director James Comey, Deputy Director Andrew McCabe and then-FBI later Trisha Anderson. Anderson also noted in her notes that were entered into evidence, “No specific client.”

However, during Marc Elias’ testimony, a variety of records showed that Sussmann was working for and billing time spent, including the conversation with Baker, to the Clinton campaign.

It was pretty obvious from the testimony from Baker, that Sussmann did indeed lie.