(TheRedAlertNews.com) – Yesterday, one of Hillary Clinton’s 2016 presidential campaign lawyers, Michael Sussmann, was found not guilty by a Washington, DC, federal jury in the first “Russiagate” case to go to trial.
Sussmann was charged with lying to the Federal Bureau of Investigation about his relationship with Clinton’s campaign when he went to U.S. intelligence agents and accused the 2016 presidential campaign of Donald Trump of colluding with Russia.
After the verdict was delivered yesterday and the jury was excused, one of the jurors “told the media after [Sussmann] was unanimously acquitted Tuesday that she did not think the case should have been prosecuted because lying to the FBI was not a big deal,” according to Breitbart News.
“‘I don’t think it should have been prosecuted,’ she reportedly said, according to Jeff Mordock, White House reporter for the Washington Times. ‘There are bigger things that affect the nation than a possible lie to the FBI.'”
As one seasoned criminal defense practitioner noted upon hearing the juror’s comments, “the juror just admitted to engaging in jury nullification — ignoring the evidence and the law and voting to acquit for non-legally recognized reasons.”
What is your opinion about a juror who told reporters that she found Clinton campaign lawyer Michael Sussmann not guilty in the first “Russiagate” case to go to trial because “there are bigger things” than lying to the FBI? Is that a valid reason to seemingly ignore the evidence and the law and set a potential criminal free? Please email your thoughts and views to [email protected]. Thank you.