Not guilty
They merely decide if you’re guilty or not guilty. A jury never actually says that you are innocent. In some ways, though, this is misleading.
These are seen as opposites and the jury’s goal is to decide which one applies. What else do you need? This jury was pretty dispositioned to have a not guilty verdict.People often think of a criminal court case as one that determines if you are innocent or guilty. Then he charges the Clinton campaign for that visit to his friend James Baker. A lie that he was going there as a concerned citizen. Very frustrating to see.”Ĭoncha concluded: “You have a man who peddled a lie. “I’m telling you, our faith in institutions just took another big hit. Especially when that jury had Clinton donors on it,” he exclaimed. “The fact that this jury was going to be sympathetic and friendly to Hillary Clinton’s campaign lawyer is not surprising. with a jury pool that does go in one direction.”įox News contributor Joe Concha went even further than his colleagues in railing against the jury. I think this does raise questions on how fair a shake you will be given in D.C. “A third of that jury pool had strong feelings about the election and prosecutors were frustrated that they would not get a fair shake here. jury pool, this is an area of the country where 76 percent of people in the District of Columbia are registered Democrat,” she declared. You can’t take that fact away,” Faulkner responded, adding: “If nothing else, we have learned how tight the connections were between the people leading the FBI investigation and the Hillary Clinton campaign.”įormer Trump spokesperson turned Fox News host Kayleigh McEnany, meanwhile, continued to blame the jury and its supposed bias for not buying what Durham’s team was selling. “If nothing else comes away from all of this, you can’t erase what we now know about that. “At the end, Special Counsel John Durham team is saying they can paint the picture the highest level of the Hillary Clinton campaign were involved in an effort to take down Donald Trump’s campaign with bogus information,” Spunt said. jury,” he declared, referencing a number of conservative legal analysts the network has hosted to discuss the trial.Īt the same time, Spunt and anchor Harris Faulkner attempted to find a silver lining for conservatives by asserting that Durham’s investigation shows that Democrats were indeed trying to “take down” Trump with false claims. “We spoke to several legal experts-Jonathan Turley, Andrew McCarthy, Jim Trusty-all on Fox News who said they would not be shocked if Michael Sussman was acquitted simply because you have a D.C.
#Not guilty license#
(And pushed misleading claims about Durham’s investigation in the process.) Throughout the two-week trial, prosecutors argued that Sussmann had “ a license to lie” in a last-minute effort by the Clinton campaign to tip the election with false claims about Trump-Russia collusion.Īt the top of the midday panel show Outnumbered, reporter David Spunt quickly tied Sussmann’s acquittal to the political makeup of the Washington, D.C., jury pool. Right-wing media and Trump allies had hoped that the Sussmann case would be the centerpiece of Durham’s investigation into Robert Mueller’s probe of Russia’s interference in the 2016 presidential election.
Sussmann, who also represented Hillary Clinton’s campaign at the time, was accused of not telling the feds of his Democratic Party connections during the conversation. The case centered on a 2016 meeting Sussmann had with the FBI over allegations that there was secret communication between a Russia-linked bank and the Trump Organization. Sussmann was indicted in September 2021 on a single count of “willfully and knowingly” lying to a federal agent.
Moments after Special Counsel John Durham was handed a major setback on Tuesday when a federal jury found Clinton-linked lawyer Michael Sussmann not guilty, multiple Fox News personalities accused the D.C.-based jurors of not giving prosecutors a “fair shake” due to political bias.