♪♪
the latest -- Judy: The latest
chapter in the ongoing
investigation into the origins
of the trump-pressure probe came
to an end today in what is
considered a defeat former
president trump's assertions
that the probe was biased
against him from the start.
>> That's right.
A jury here in Washington, D.C.,
today acquitted a lawyer named
Michael Sussman on the charge of
lying to the FBI.
This was the first case brought
to trial by special counsel John
Durham, who was appointed during
the trump.
Former president trump long
hoped Durham would uncover
behavior by officials who
investigated him, his campaign,
and alleged links to Russia.
For more on what today's
acquittal was all about and what
it means going forward, I'm
joined again by Carrie Johnson,
who covers the justice
department for NPR.
Great to see you again.
This trial and the case itself
was very complicated for those
who look into it.
You have been there all two
weeks during the actual
proceedings.
Can you give us a sissy and
recap of what the charges were
against him.
>> I will do my best.
This is a complicated case that
boiled down to a single count of
making false statements to the
FBI in a meeting that the
defendant had with then FBI
general counsel Jim baker in
September 2016, just six weeks
or so before the election.
What the special counsel team
were alleging is that Sussman
lied in order to get this
meeting and told baker he was
not appearing on behalf of a
company or client but rather he
wanted to bring allegations
about strange links between the
trump organization and a Russian
bank to the FBI out of the
goodness of his heart because he
was a good citizen.
Durham in fact argued to the
jury that Sussman was motivated
for partisan political interests
and wanted to use the FBI.
That was the heart of this case.
>> I see.
Sussman, his law firm, did
represent the Clinton campaign.
He also represented a software
executive, who that's how he
heard about some of these
alleged links, but this whole
case does not sound necessarily
at the core of what Durham was
principally charged with looking
into, right?
>> One John Durham was appointed
by then attorney general bill
Barr during the trump
administration, it was a time
when then president trump was
talking a lot about the people
who investigated him and making
a lot of sharp and shadowy
allegations about the origins of
the investigation, and Durham
was supposed to through all that
bring to justice any FBI
employees who engage in
wrongdoing and also investigate
members of the intelligence
community who might have engaged
in wrongdoing.
In this case against Michael
Sussman, the F VI was an alleged
victim of Sussman's life, not
the perpetrator of the crime --
the FBI was an alleged victim of
Sussman's life -- lie.
>> As I know you might remember,
when the original filings of
this case were posted,
conservative media seized on
those filings as evidence that
we now can see that the Clinton
campaign was spying on the
computer networks of the trump
campaign.
This was all somewhat debunked
in real time, but did any of
those allegations end up in this
case in court at all?
>> No, none of that ended up in
this case in court.
Judge cooper told prospective
jurors before the trial began
that we were not going to
relitigate the 2016 election.
Hillary Clinton was not on
trial.
Donald Trump was not on trial.
He cap a lot of that rhetoric
out of what the jury actually
heard.
The jurors a sickly set -- the
ones we talked to outside the
courtroom today -- that politics
played no role in their
deliberations, and that was not
something they considered over
the six hours they were behind
closed doors thinking about this
case.
>> President trump's took this
jury's decision, writing in part
our country is corrupt, -- our
legal system is corrupt, our
country is going to hell, and
Michael Sussman is not guilty --
that last part sarcastic.
>> Carrie Johnson of NPR, always
good to see you.
Thank you.