Michael Sussmann acquitted by a jury of Hillary Clinton's peers

The evidence of the defendant’s guilt was obvious and overwhelming. Special counsel John Durham’s prosecutors presented incontrovertible evidence that Clinton’s campaign lawyer knowingly peddled phony Trump-Russia collusion information to the FBI and lied about whom he was representing.

After exploiting his friendship to wrangle a privileged meeting with James Baker, who was then-general counsel at the Bureau, Sussmann insisted he was representing “no client or company” as he forked over the bogus material. He foolishly memorialized his deception in a text message. Yet, his records show that he billed Hillary’s campaign for the nefarious meeting.

The false statement was clearly “material” or important, as the law requires. FBI agents testified that had they known that Sussmann was acting on behalf of Hillary, they would have recognized the fabricated evidence for what it was – a political smear engineered by Trump’s opponent. The investigation would have been shelved in short order. Baker also told the jury that if he had been told the truth, he probably would have rejected the meeting altogether. Sussmann knew this, which explains his canard.


The notion that Trump was a Russian asset was all a hoax invented by Hillary, secretly funded by her campaign, and disseminated on her orders by her sycophants to the Trump-hating media to destroy her adversary and boost her chances of winning the White House. Declassified CIA documents show that Clinton approved the scheme to frame Trump on July 26, 2016. The scam had the added benefit of distracting from Clinton’s own damning email scandal. This was her “October surprise,” said government lawyers.

One of the more stunning revelations from the trial came courtesy of Clinton’s own campaign manager, Robby Mook. His testimony proved the truth of Durham’s overall case – that Hillary personally approved the plot to leak key parts of the collusion story to the press. She then took to social media to promote the fiction that her confederates had fed covertly to journalists.

The contemptible mainstream media served as witting accessories to the fraudulent conspiracy. Blinded by their unabashed scorn for Trump, they were all too willing to push asinine stories of Kremlin collusion without bothering to verify or corroborate any of it. Evidence? Facts? Proof? Forget about it. That stuff is for chumps. When it comes to sliming Trump, there are no ethical rules of conduct.

Sussmann offered no real or credible defense to the charge against him. How could he? It’s impossible to explain the inexplicable or to defend the indefensible. That’s why he did not take the witness stand. He would have been eviscerated on cross-examination or might have otherwise exposed himself to another charge of perjury if he lied.

Instead, the defense was counting on a biased jury to do its work for them. In Washington, D.C. jurors are drawn from residents within the District who are decidedly liberal. They tend to treat conservatives as if they all belong in a leper colony. Registered Republicans there are an endangered species. You’d have a better chance of spotting a unicorn.

For Sussmann, picking a favorably predisposed panel was like a rigged carnival game. In the last presidential election, 92 percent voted for Joe Biden. A scant five percent cast ballots for Trump, although I doubt many of them would admit to it publicly. Jurors are statistically prone to despise the former president. Sure enough, Hillary supporters and donors dominated the selected panel. Every day during the trial, defense attorneys reminded them that their client was working against Trump.

Unfortunately for Durham, he had no choice but to try the accused in D.C. since that is where the alleged crime was committed. Hence, the special counsel was forced to play the hand he was dealt, even though the cards came from the bottom of the deck. In Washington, justice is dispensed according to your party bona fides. Advantage Sussmann.

If the defendant were tried in a neutral and fair venue, he’d be toast. Slap on the cuffs and send him off to the hoosegow already. That’s how strong the evidence was against him. But as I stated on air at the outset of the trial, Sussmann was relying on the concept of “jury nullification” where the triers of fact perversely ignore the evidence and repudiate the rule of law to acquit a plainly guilty man. Indeed, that’s what happened. No surprise.


Whenever justice is corrupted for a political purpose, it does enormous damage to our legal system. People lose faith. They begin to believe that the words “equal justice under law” chiseled on the pediment of the nation’s highest court are meaningless when the scales of justice are tipped with partisan weight.

Sadly, Lady Justice is not always blind. In Washington, the seat of our constitutional republic, she often peeks beneath the blindfold. If she spots a Democrat, all is forgiven. If she spies a Republican, she hurls the book at him.


Comments are closed.