Michael Sussmann, a senior lawyer for Hillary Clintons 2016 campaign, is currently on trial for lying to the FBI. The allegation is straightforward. As the election approached, Sussmann texted his old friend and fellow attorney, James Baker, requesting a brief, urgent meeting. Baker was the FBIs top lawyer and Sussmann was a partner at Clintons election-law firm. They were friends from their days together at the Department of Justice and continued to know each other socially. According to the indictment, Sussmann told Baker he was coming solely to help the Bureau and not on behalf of any client. To prove his case, Special Counsel John Durham and his team must show two things:
Sussmann lied when he said he wasnt representing a client in that meeting; and
Sussmanns lie had the potential to affect the FBIs investigation. (According to the law, the lie need not actually affect the investigation; it need only have the potential to do so.)
Sussmanns defense is to toss back the ol kitchen sink. I didnt lie. You cant prove I lied. I had no reason to lie. And even if I lied, it really didnt matter to the FBI. That defense has two aims: create confusion for the jury and drag in the name of Donald Trump, for jurors in a city that voted almost unanimously for Hillary and undoubtedly loathe the former president. What Sussmann hopes for, in other words, is jury nullification, where the jury believes the crime has been proven but disregards the evidence and votes not guilty. Thats really Sussmanns only chance...........