Unethical Quote Of The Month: The Sussmann Jury Forewoman

“I don’t think it should have been prosecuted. There are bigger things that affect the nation than a possible lie to the FBI.”

—-The forewoman in the just completed Sussman trial, which acquitted Clinton Campaign lawyer Michael Sussman of lying to the FBI when he presented bogus evidence of Trump campaign “collusion” with Russia and said he was doing so as “a private citizen” when in fact he was carrying out the strategy of Hillary Clinton and her campaign.

The  breaking story yesterday, covered at Ethics Alarms here, had less than 24 hours hours of innocence in which the responsible response (and mine) was “we should give the jury the benefit of the doubt; they were in the courtroom for the whole trial, we were not.” Now we know, thanks to this woman, that the jury members were under the influence of progressive-programed  confusion and bias, and were either incapable of fulfilling the duties of a jury, or prompted by the leadership of this proudly unethical fool, chose not to.Her statement is not just a smoking gun but a flaming one, signature significance for a citizen who should never be allowed on a jury. What she was admitting to is jury nullification under her leadership, and what that means is that the message of the “not guilty” verdict is not that Michael Sussmann (and Clinton) were not guilty of using false evidence to try to discredit Donald Trump and provoke an FBI investigation that would cast suspicion and create distrust. The real message is “They did it, but we don’t care. It was for the greater good. Lying to the FBI to stop someone like Trump was a good thing, and the Justice Department should be concentrating on important matters—like punishing those Trump supporters who stormed the Capitol.”

The thorough poisoning of the minds and values of D.C. residents could hardly have a more revealing statement to illustrate its effects. This is a city in which the Mayor decreed that a giant “Black Lives Matter” be painted on a city street. Teeming with black crime, murder, poverty and fatherless children, failed schools and race-based government patronage of do-nothing jobs enabled by corrupt City Council members and city agency heads, the city is a Petri dish showing what grows from a convenient rejection of accountability, nourished by political leadership that encourages a victim mentality.

Of course it was impossible to choose a jury that wouldn’t be hopelessly biased. This was the Trump Justice Department’s investigation, right? And its special counsel was going after the lawyer of the wife of the “first black President,” right? And she was only trying to stop that evil, racist, white guy whose party, in the words of the current President when he was loyally serving Barack Obama, wants to “put you all back in chains,” right?

Of course the jury thought Sussman’s lie shouldn’t be prosecuted. This jury would be more inclined to give him a medal.

In a broader sense, the forewoman was articulating the current philosophy of the progressive mob. When following the law interferes with the woke agenda, don’t follow the law—don’t enforce it, don’t respect it, and, if possible, eliminate it. The proposed law here: It’s important to prosecute Republicans who lie to the FBI (See: Scooter Libby) but when Democrats and their henchmen lie, it’s trivial.

Democracy, pluralism, equal treatment under law, ethics and justice die in a culture like that of the District of Columbia.

By the evidence of the Sussmann trial, it already has.

7 thoughts on “Unethical Quote Of The Month: The Sussmann Jury Forewoman

  1. In defense of the other jury members: hard to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Sussman believes he was “representing someone” when he spoke to the FBI. That being said, of course he was “representing someone” — whether it was Secretary Clinton herself or the campaign committee.

    • Boy, I don’t think so. That’s a game legal ethics panels look down on. He was representing Clinton, and anything he does that further her interests is to be construed as part of the representation. He couldn’t do something that hurt her interests during the representation—there’s a rule about that (DC 1..3) So whatever he does that has any connection to his client at all has to be taken as part of the representation.

      Moreover, this was misrepresentation (forbidden in the rules) by omission. He couldn’t say he was representing Clinton, but he also couldn’t imply he wasn’t.

  2. She might as well have quoted Cedric the Entertainer with his patented “It ain’t so bad” tagline. And I’m sure she can get an “Amen!”

  3. “This jury would be more inclined to give him a medal.”

    Yup. Reminds me of when I heard about a classmate I hated being beaten by her now-ex and said I wished I knew his name so I could shake his hand. 😀

  4. As you saw in my previous comment on the original post, I suspected this (all your regular readers probably did). It’s odd to see it said so blatantly though. This jury didn’t do their jobs.

  5. If I were representing the January 7 defendants I would use her statement and this verdicts to demand a change of venue for this clients .

    But that would be a waste of time because when the judges are out to convict you (Sullivan) the jury is irrelevant. Just ask General Flynn.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.