<mediadc-video-embed data-state="{"cms.site.owner":{"_ref":"00000161-3486-d333-a9e9-76c6fbf30000","_type":"00000161-3461-dd66-ab67-fd6b93390000"},"cms.content.publishDate":1656516752385,"cms.content.publishUser":{"_ref":"0000017b-3108-d928-a77f-73ccd2e60000","_type":"00000161-3461-dd66-ab67-fd6b933a0007"},"cms.content.updateDate":1656516752385,"cms.content.updateUser":{"_ref":"0000017b-3108-d928-a77f-73ccd2e60000","_type":"00000161-3461-dd66-ab67-fd6b933a0007"},"rawHtml":"
var _bp = _bp||[]; _bp.push({ "div": "Brid_56516595", "obj": {"id":"27789","width":"16","height":"9","video":"1042494"} }); ","_id":"00000181-b015-da7c-a7c7-f17533e40000","_type":"2f5a8339-a89a-3738-9cd2-3ddf0c8da574"}”>Video EmbedIn a longer piece for National Review explaining why Republicans should not dismiss the testimony of former White House aide Cassidy Hutchinson, Andy McCarthy writes, “These witnesses are testifying under oath. There is significant risk to them if they are found to have committed perjury.”
But after a Democratic jury let Clinton campaign lawyer Michael Sussmann off the hook for lying to the FBI, is this still true? Do Democrats, or witnesses friendly to Democratic goals, face “significant risk” if they lie?
The Sussmann verdict would seem to show that Democrats can now lie in D.C. with absolute impunity.
There is no doubt that Sussmann lied to the FBI. The government has a text from Sussmann, sent to FBI General Counsel James Baker, reading: “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.”
This text was knowingly false. The Clinton campaign was not only one of Sussmann’s clients at the time, but Sussmann even billed the campaign for the time and effort he spent spreading the false Alfa-Bank story to the FBI.
The Washington, D.C., jury assembled to hear Sussmann’s case did not care that he had clearly lied. Not only did the jury include three donors to Clinton’s campaign and a donor to Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY), but it even included a woman whose daughter was on the same sports team as Sussmann’s daughter. The trial might as well have been conducted at the Democratic National Committee headquarters.
The jury’s foreperson even told the media after the case, “Personally, I don’t think it should have been prosecuted because I think we have better time or resources to use or spend on other things that affect the nation as a whole than a possible lie to the FBI.”
In other words, “Who cares if Democrats lie to the government about Republicans? There are more important issues at stake.”
Given that a federal judge would even allow such a biased jury to hear a case about Democrats lying to the government, why should any Democrat ever worry about lying under oath, ever again?
