Ex-Clinton campaign lawyer Sussmann not guilty in Trump-Russia trial
WASHINGTON — Former Hillary Clinton campaign lawyer Michael Sussmann was acquitted Tuesday of lying to the FBI when he handed over since-debunked computer data that purportedly tied Donald Trump to Russia, with jurors drawn from a largely Democrat-leaning pool saying special counsel John Durham didn’t prove the case beyond a reasonable doubt.
The verdict came early on the second day of deliberations in the first trial to result from Durham’s probe of Trump-Russia investigations by the FBI and former special counsel Robert Mueller.
Durham left the courthouse without commenting but issued a prepared statement a short time later.
“While we are disappointed in the outcome, we respect the jury’s decision and thank them for their service,” he said.
“I also want to recognize and thank the investigators and the prosecution team for their dedicated efforts in seeking truth and justice in this case.”
The jury was kept anonymous but one member, a man, told The Post that the panel took its time considering the case during the total 5-1/2 hours of deliberations.
“I wouldn’t say it was that quick,” the juror told The Post.
“There were five elements to the charge. Everyone had disagreements. Everyone had agreements. We had to carefully consider all the evidence, all the elements, take all that into account.”
Another juror, also male, said simply, “The elements weren’t met.”
The jury was drawn from residents of the nation’s capital, where Democrats outnumber Republicans by a ratio of more than 14-1.
As many many as three Clinton donors — including one who also supported US Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-The Bronx, Queens) — were among the prospective jurors, with Cooper overruling a prosecution request to disqualify one who said he would “strive for impartiality as best I can.”
Durham’s prosecution team sought to prove that Sussmann intentionally misled then-FBI general counsel James Baker by claiming not to be acting on behalf of the Clinton campaign and a tech executive, Rodney Joffe, during a Sept. 19, 2016, meeting at FBI headquarters in Washington.
Sussmann gave Baker two thumb drives and three “white papers” that purported to reveal a secret, cyber back channel between a Trump Organization computer server and the Kremlin-linked Alfa Bank.
The move was allegedly part of a plan in which Sussmann hoped to create an “October surprise” to smear Trump by leaking the information to the media and sparking an FBI investigation.
“We are here because the FBI is our institution that shouldn’t be used as a political tool for anyone — not Republicans, not Democrats, not anyone,” prosecutor Deborah Brittain Shaw said during her opening statement.
Sussmann’s trial was overseen by federal Judge Christopher Cooper, who was nominated by former President Barack Obama.
In a pretrial ruling earlier this month, Cooper limited the amount of evidence that Durham’s team could introduce to support the notion that Sussmann’s efforts were part of a “joint venture” with the Clinton campaign, noting that the defendant “is not charged with a conspiracy.”
Because of the jurors’ anonymity, it’s unclear if any of the Clinton supporters made it onto the jury.
During the trial, Durham’s team called 16 witnesses, including Baker, who said he was “100% confident” that Sussmann told him “he was not appearing before me on behalf of any particular client.”
Prosecutors also introduced into evidence a text message that Sussmann sent to Baker the night prior to the Sept. 19, 2016, meeting, saying he only wanted to help the FBI.
“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 attorney wrote.
At another point in his testimony, Baker told jurors he might not have even held the meeting if he knew that Sussmann, a friend and former Justice Department colleague, was there on behalf of the Democratic presidential candidate.
But the trial’s biggest bombshell came from former Clinton campaign manager Robby Mook, who testified under cross-examination by the prosecution that Clinton personally approved the decision to give the unverified data to a reporter.
Mook described his end of the conversation with Clinton as telling her, “Hey, we have this and we want to share it with a reporter.”
“She agreed to that,” he said.
Mook said he believed the reporter in question was Frankin Foer, whose resulting article was published by the left-wing Slate website just nine eight days before the 2016 election.
It was quickly seized upon by Clinton, who tweeted a link along with the message: “It’s time for Trump to answer serious questions about his ties to Russia.”
The defense strategy included pointing out mistakes the FBI made while investigating the case, including not interviewing Sussmann and other witnesses critical to the investigation.
The defense also highlighted communications between FBI officials that showed they were well aware of Sussmann’s political clients.
“Mr. Sussmann had [the Democratic National Committee] and [Hillary for America] tattooed on his forehead,” defense lawyer Sean Berkowitz told jurors in his closing argument Friday.
Berkowitz also countered Jonathan Algor’s argument that the Sussmann-Baker meeting was especially nefarious because it involved opposition research solicited by a political campaign.
“Opposition research is not illegal,” Berkowitz said. “If it were, the jails of Washington, DC, would be teeming over.”
In a statement Tuesday afternoon, Sussmann said: “First, I told the truth to the FBI, and the jury clearly recognized that with their unanimous verdict today.”
“I am grateful to the members of the jury for their careful and thoughtful service,” he added.
“Despite being falsely accused, I am relieved that justice ultimately prevailed in this case.”
Berkowitz and fellow defense lawyer Michael Bosworth also said their client “should never have been charged in the first place” and called the case against him an example of “extraordinary prosecutorial overreach.”
“And we believe that today’s verdict sends an unmistakable message to anyone who cares to listen: politics is no substitute for evidence, and politics has no place in our system of justice,” they said.
Sussmann’s trial was the first to result from Durham’s probe into the Trump-Russia investigations conducted by the FBI and former special counsel Robert Mueller, which led to the first House impeachment of the 45th president, who was later acquitted by the Senate.
Durham previously secured a guilty plea from former FBI lawyer Kevin Clinesmith, who was sentenced to probation for falsifying an email to renew a wiretap against former Trump campaign adviser Carter Page.
A third defendant, Russia analyst Igor Danchenko, also faces trial in October on charges he lied to the FBI about his alleged role in providing information for the largely discredited “Steele dossier” of opposition research against Trump.
Trump’s second national security adviser, John Ratcliffe, has repeatedly said he expects additional indictments as a result of Durham’s investigation.
But experts have said that a Sussmann acquittal would likely prompt calls for an end to Durhan’s probe.
