Not necessarily.
The defense relied on the fact that no notes or video was taken from the two-person meeting. In essence, the defense was able to push the argument that this is a case of he said/she said. Without supporting evidence to confirm the lie, there is still “a reasonable doubt”.
I dont like the outcome but this is the correct verdict based on the evidence provided. It is a shame that additional evidence was not presented.
I’d buy that if Sussmann had bothered to even take the stand and repeat his b.s. under oath. In D.C. if it’s a Hillary or Obama flack, no jury is going to convict no matter the evidence. The so-called damning admission by Robbie Mook was heard by the jury as, hey jury, this is Hillary’s attorney she approved what he did, acquit him!
He said/she said? The He is the FBI’s Chief Counsel. And we do have the billing records for Sussmann to the Clinton campaign that billed the hours of the FBI meeting to the campaign along with the cost of the thumb drives that were handed over to the FBI.
Go away troll. It’s not a correct verdict. The MF lied to get an fbi investigation started...
You’re an idiot,can you’ve got to live with that for the rest of your life!
“Without supporting evidence to confirm the lie, there is still “a reasonable doubt”.”
They also had texts from Sussman himself confirming the government’s version of what he said in that meeting, so there was corroborating evidence.
In today’s world, where the judge is a leftist, the jurors are leftist, the entire FBI and DOJ are Leftist, and the weight of the Federal Government can be brought to bear to protect their own, there is no amount of evidence, none whatsoever, that will be sufficient for a conviction of any kind of law breaking.
Obversely, in a government where where the judge is a leftist, the jurors are leftist, the entire FBI and DOJ are Leftist, and the weight of the Federal Government can be brought to bear to attempt to bring down someone perceived as an enemy of the state, there is no amount of innocence, none whatsoever, that will be sufficient for frivolous charges of any kind to be rightfully dismissed or the target (”defendant” no longer applies) because these things are political affairs, not legal affairs.
Anyone paying attention to this from instant Sussman’s name appeared knew it was one of two things:
He was going to play the role of the sacrificial lamb, get convicted, get a short sentence if any, and then work the rest of his life in jobs as a patron of the left where he would be amply rewarded for his criminality. In this event, the entire fiasco will get dropped as “resolved”, and the media will never touch it again.
Or...he was going to get off scot-free. In this case, he is acquitted, declared a hero of the Left as unjustly tried, and the trial will be paraded as an example of government overreach that is perpetrated by conservatives, and...except in that context to in which it will serve as a capstone on anything related to this sedition and criminality, declaring that the events since 2015 are proven false by a court of law, and Trump is still a criminal in waiting to be justly and rightfully tried for crimes unpunished.
Well, now we know which way it has gone.
The text Sussmann sent to Baker in which he clearly stated he was not representing a client wasn’t evidence?