FOR AND WHO HE WAS WORKING FOR,
HILLARY CLINTON.
WE WANT TO GET TO OUR REPORTER.
DAVID, THIS TRIAL WAS AS TAKING
A LOOK AT NOT JUST THE FACT THAT
HE LIED BUT WHETHER OR NOT HE
CAN BRING INTO FOCUS ANYTHING
ELSE THAT’S GOING ON.
ONCE IT WAS FOUND OUT THAT HE
WAS WORKING FOR HILLARY CLINTON,
WHAT ELSE DIDN’T WE KNOW?
>> Reporter: HARRIS, EXACTLY
WHAT THIS LIE MATERIAL TO THE
FBI’S INVESTIGATION.
THAT’S SOMETHING THAT JURORS HAD
TO FIND OUT.
APPARENTLY, THEY THINK THAT HE
DID NOT LIE TO THE FBI OR MAY BE
IT WASN’T MATERIAL.
I’M GETTING TEXTS FROM OUR
JUSTICE RESOURCE WHO WAS INSIDE
THE BUILDING.
MICHAEL SUSSMANN INDICTED.
NOT GUILTY FOR A CHARGE OF LYING
TO THE FBI.
HARRIS, TO GIVE EVERYONE A BACK
STORY, WE’VE BEEN REPORTING THIS
FOR ABOUT TWO WEEKS.
MICHAEL SUSSMANN WAS A CLINTON
CAMPAIGN ATTORNEY IN
SEPTEMBER 2016.
HE TEXTED THE FBI GENERAL
COUNSEL, JAMES BAKER, WHO WAS A
FRIEND OF HIS, ON A SUNDAY NIGHT
ON HIS PERSONAL PHONE.
HE SAID HE HAD INFORMATION HE
WANTED TO MEET WITH BAKER AS
SOON AS POSSIBLE AT FBI
HEADQUARTERS.
THE NEXT DAY ON SEPTEMBER 19,
2016, MICHAEL SUSSMANN WALKED
DOWN THE STREET HERE IN
WASHINGTON, INTO THE FBI
HEADQUARTERS AND MET WITH JAMES
BAKER.
IN THAT MEETING, HE RELAID
INFORMATION ABOUT AN ALLEGED
SECRET BACK CHANNEL BETWEEN THE
TRUMP ORGANIZATION AND A RUSSIAN
BANK CALLED ALPHA BANK HAD TIES
TO THE KREMLIN.
THE QUESTIONS NONE OF THE
ALLEGATIONS WERE TRUE.
THE FBI INVESTIGATED EVERYONE.
THEY WERE DEBUNKED.
THE QUESTION, DID MICHAEL
SUSSMANN LIE.
IN THE TEXT MESSAGE HE TOLD
JAMES BAKER, HE WAS COMING IN ON
BEHALF OF HIMSELF AS A CONCERNED
CITIZEN, NOT ON BEHALF OF A
CLIENT, FOR EXAMPLE THE HILLARY
CLINTON CAMPAIGN.
THE QUESTION IS, WHAT DID HE SAY
TO JAMES BAKER WHEN THEY MET.
JAMES BAKER DIDN’T TAKE NOTES.
MICHAEL SUSSMANN DID NOT TAKE
NOTES.
HE HAS THREE HOURS BILLED TO THE
CLINTON CAMPAIGN FROM MICHAEL
SUSSMANN.
THAT SPECIFIC DAY HE MET THE
FBI.
JURORS THOUGHT THAT EVIDENCE WAS
NOT STRONG ENOUGH.
WE SPOKEN TO LEGAL EXPERTS, ALL
ON FOX NEWS WHO SAID THEY WOULD
NOT BE SHOCKED IF MICHAEL
SUSSMANN WAS ACQUITTED BECAUSE
HE HAS A D.C. JURY.
>> Harris: QUICKLY, WHAT IS THE
STATUS NOW?
YOU GOT JAMES BAKER WHO HAD NO
NOTES AND INCONSISTENT MEMORY?
I WONDER WHAT NEXT STEPS REALLY
LOOK LIKE AT THIS POINT?
>> Reporter: THE OVER ALL DURHAM
INVESTIGATION BEGAN IN 2019.
JOHN DURHAM, AT THE TIME, HE WAS
U.S. ATTORNEY IN CONNECTICUT.
HE RESIGNED A YEAR LATER. HE’S
BEEN INVESTIGATING THE ORIGINS
OF THIS ENTIRE TRUMP RUSSIAN
NARRATIVE, WHERE DID IT START
AND WHO STARTED IT.
WE KNOW IT TURNED OUT TO BE
FALSE THE NARRATIVE.
IN 2020, JOHN DURHAM CHARGED AN
FBI ATTORNEY BY THE NAME OF
KEVIN KLEINSMITH FOR ALTERING A
FISA WARRANT TO BE ABLE TO DO
SURVEILLANCE ON A TRUMP
CAMPAIGN.
A CARTER PAIGE.
KEVIN KLEINSMITH BLEEDED GUILTY
TO -- PLEADED GUILTY.
THIS WAS THE FIRST TRIAL,
HARRIS, IN THREE YEARS OF THE
JOHN DURHAM.
THIS WAS THE FIRST TRIAL,
MICHAEL SUSSMANN WILL WALK OUT
OF HERE A FREE MAN, NOT GUILTY.
NOW WE LOOK FORWARD TO THE CASE
IN OCTOBER.
A RUSSIAN NATIONAL THAT WAS
CHARGED WITH FIVE COUNTS OF
LYING TO THE FBI.
MICHAEL SUSSMANN CHARGED WITH
ONE COUNT OF LYING TO THE FBI.
IGOR IS CHARGED WITH TO LYING TO
THE FBI ON THE STEELE DOSSIER.
THE DOCUMENTS THAT WERE AIMED
TAKING DOWN DONALD TRUMP.
AGAIN, ALL TURNED OUT TO BE
BOGUS.
THIS IS CLEARLY A LOSS FOR
SPECIAL COUNSEL JOHN DURHAM.
NOT A GOOD DAY FOR HIS
INVESTIGATION.
AT THE END, SPECIAL COUNSEL JOHN
DURHAM TEAM SAYING THEY CAN
PAINT THE PICTURE THE HIGHEST
LEVEL OF THE HILLARY CLINTON
CAMPAIGN WERE INVOLVED IN AN
EFFORT TO TAKE DOWN DONALD
TRUMP’S CAMPAIGN WITH BOGUS
INFORMATION.
>> Harris: IF NOTHING ELSE COMES
AWAY FROM ALL OF THIS, YOU CAN’T
ERASE WHAT WE NOW KNOW ABOUT
THAT.
YOU CAN’T TAKE THAT FACT AWAY.
SO OCTOBER IS PART OF THE NEXT STEP.
I WANT TO BRING IN NOW MY COHOST
EMILY COMPAGNO.
YOU WERE ASKED QUESTIONS ABOUT
THE PRESIDENT AND WORDS LIKE
COLLUSION AND CONSPIRACY AND ALL
SORTS OF THINGS.
IFS NO ELSE, WE HAVE LEARNED HOW
TIGHT THE CONNECTIONS WERE
BETWEEN THE PEOPLE LEADING THE
FBI INVESTIGATION AND THE
HILLARY CLINTON CAMPAIGN.
>> RIGHT, ON NOVEMBER 8, 2016
THE AMERICAN PEOPLE MADE A
DECISION.
THEY DECIDED TO MAKE PRESIDENT
DONALD J. TRUMP PRESIDENT OF THE
UNITED STATES.
FOR THREE YEARS, HARRIS, WE
WOULD VENT ABOUT THIS AT THE
CAMPAIGN AND VENT ABOUT THIS IN
THE WHITE HOUSE.
FOR THREE YEARS WE TOLD THAT THE
CHOICE OF THE AMERICAN PEOPLE
WAS AN RUSSIAN ASSET, THE
PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES A
RUSSIAN ASSET.
ALL TO BE FOUND BY ROBERT
MUELLER THAT THERE WAS NO
COLLUSION.
AT THE CORE OF THAT, HARRIS, WAS
THIS MICHAEL SUSSMANN
INTERACTION WITH THE FBI.
HE’S ON THE CLINTON PAYROLL.
HE’S GETTING PAID AS A LAWYER.
HE GOES INTO THE FBI.
HILLARY CLINTON, WE LEARNED
THROUGH THIS TRIAL THROUGH ROBBY
MOOK, HER CAMPAIGN MANAGER, SHE
GREEN LIGHTED THIS INFORMATION,
DESPITE NOT HAVING THE EXPERTISE
TO ASSESS IT.
IT WAS GIVEN THE --
[ INDISCERNIBLE ]
BEING TRUE.
BECAUSE OF AN FBI INVESTIGATION
INTO PRESIDENT TRUMP.
AS A CENTER OF THAT WAS THIS
SUSSMANN MEETING.
MICHAEL SUSSMANN, THE PROSECUTOR
IN THIS CASE ARGUED THAT HE
WANTED A OCTOBER SURPRISE.
THAT WAS AT THE HEART OF HIS
INTENTIONS.
IT DOESN’T APPEAR THAT THE JURY
BOUGHT THAT.
THE D.C. JURY POOL, THIS IS AN
AREA OF THE COUNTRY WHERE 76% OF
PEOPLE IN THE DISTRICT OF
COLUMBIA REGISTERED DEMOCRAT.
THIS WAS A JURY POOL, OF THOSE
37 JURORS THERE WERE MANY
CLINTON SUPPORTERS WHO SAID THEY
DONATED TO THE CLINTON CAMPAIGN.
SOME INDIVIDUALS WEREN’T
CHOSENNEN.
A THIRD OF THAT JURY POOL HAD
STRONG FEELINGS ABOUT THE
ELECTION AND PROSECUTORS WERE
FRUSTRATED THAT THEY WOULD NOT
GET A FAIR SHAKE HERE.
I THINK THIS DOES RAISE
QUESTIONS ON HOW FAIR A SHAKE
YOU WILL BE GIVEN IN D.C. WITH A
JURY POOL THAT DOES GOES IN ONE
DIRECTION.
>> Harris: I WANT TO GET THIS
BREAKING NEWS IN NOW.
WE ARE LEARNING THAT MICHAEL
SUSSMANN IS SET TO GIVE A
STATEMENT.
WE HAVE NOT BEEN CLEAR ON THE
TIMING.
WE EXPECT IN A SHORT WHILE TO
HEAR FROM MICHAEL SUSSMANN WITH
TIMING.
WHAT WOULD YOU THINK, EMILY,
THAT HE MIGHT SAY?
AGAIN, THIS DOESN’T WIPE AWAY
WHETHER OR NOT WHAT WE KNOW
ABOUT HIM WAS PERTINENT TO THE
CASE.
HE WAS STILL WORKING FOR HILLARY
CLINTON.
MESSAGES WERE CHANGING HANDS
THROUGH HIM TO THE FBI.
>> Emily: IF I WAS HIS ATTORNEY,
I WOULD ADVISE HIS STATEMENT TO
BE ONE OF A BLANKET, THIS
AFFIRMS WHAT I’VE BEEN TELLING
YOU ALL ALONG.
WHICH IS THAT I DID NOT LIE TO
THE FBI, ETCETERA.
GENERAL VAGUE STATEMENT.
I LIKE TO FOCUS ON SOMETHING
THAT DAVID SAID WHEN HE CALLED
OUT THAT THIS JURY’S ACQUITTAL
COULD MEAN THAT THEY ASCERTAINED
THAT HE DID NOT LIE TO THE FBI
OR THAT LIE WASN’T MATERIAL.
IT’S IMPORTANT TO LAY THAT
AGAINST THE BACKDROP JUST ABOUT
TWO AND A HALF HOURS AGO WHEN
JURY ASKING A QUESTION, THEY SAY
DO THE PROSECUTION NEED TO MEET
ALL THE ELEMENTS OF OF CHARGE IN
ORDER TO GET A GUILTY VERDICT.
THAT GOES TO THIS ARGUMENT OF
EVIDENCE.
THIS IS ONGOING CONVERSATION
WE’VE BEEN HAVING WHERE THE
AMOUNT OF EVIDENCE OF THIS
SPECIFIC CHARGE IS OR THE OF
MINIMAL.
NOTWITHSTANDING HER POINT ABOUT
THE HEAVILY SKEWED DEMOCRATIC
JURY, THE BOTTOM LINE IS THAT IT
WAS A HE SAID CONVERSATION WHERE
THERE WERE NO NOTES.
ALL WE HAVE IS A THREE HOUR
BUILDING WINDOW BUT A 30 MINUTE
CONVERSATION.
I’M NOT SURPRISED WITH THIS
ACQUITTAL BASED ON THAT SPECIFIC
CHARGE AND THE EVIDENCE
SURROUNDING IT.
WHAT VIEWERS NEED TO UNDERSTAND,
THIS PROBABLY RAISES SOME
QUESTIONS ABOUT THE LEGAL
STRENGTH OF SPECIAL COUNSEL
DURHAM’S OVERALL PROBE.
THIS IS, AGAIN, AGAINST THE
LANDSCAPE WHAT WE LEARNED FROM
THIS.
WHAT ROBERT MOOK TESTIFIED ABOUT
HILLARY CLINTON’S BLESSING AND
FURTHERING THE DISSEMINATION OF
THIS DEFUNKED NARRATIVE.
THAT’S THE BIGGER PICTURE.
NOTWITHSTANDING THE ACQUITTAL OF
THIS SMALL CHARGE, IS THE
SURROUNDING INFORMATION THAT NOW
HAS BECOME QUITE PUBLIC, EVEN
THOUGH IT’S NOT BEEN AMPLIFIED
BY THE MAINSTREAM MEDIA.
>> Harris: I WANT TO BRING THIS
IN THE CONVERSATION.
SOME OF THE REPORTING HAS SAID
THAT DURING THE TWO WEEKS OF
TESTIMONY, PROSECUTORS ARGUED
THE CASE IS ABOUT A BROADER SCHEME BY THE CLINTON LOYALISTS
SCHEME BY THE CLINTON LOYALISTS
TO USE THE FBI.
THAT MAKES IT SOUND MORE
DECIDEDLY POLITICAL.
WHILE THAT IS GREAT FACT
GATHERING, EMILY, WHAT’S YOUR
TAKE ON THAT?
IS THAT PART OF WHY YOU SAY SOME
OF THE LEGALITY MAYBE SHAKIER
THAN 30 MINUTES AGO?
>> Emily: IT GOES INTO THAT
ETHICAL REALM THAT WE’VE BEEN
DISCUSSING.
WHICH SOMETIMES THAT IS NOT
ILLEGAL OR LEGAL.
IT’S FRANKLY, TOTALLY UNETHICAL.
IT DOESN’T SIT WELL WITH OUR
CONSCIOUS.
TO YOUR POINT, WHAT WE HAVE BEEN
DIVING INTO, IT DOESN’T SIT WITH
THEM.
WHAT WILL BE THE CHARGE OF A
LIE?
I THINK THE RAMIFICATIONS ARE
REALLY IMPORTANT.
THAT’S WHAT GET INTO THE
POLITICS AND THAT FINE LINE
BETWEEN THE POLITICAL DAMAGE AS
KAYLEIGH, SAID FOR THREE YEARS.
WHEN A FILM OPPONENT WAS HAILED
AS A RUSSIAN ASSET NOW KNOWN TO
BE TOTALLY FALSE.
WHAT’S THE ACCOUNTABILITY FOR
THAT?
WHAT’S THE CHARGE?
THAT’S SOMETHING THAT WILL
REMAIN TO BE SEEN.
WITH THESE UNCOVERED INFORMATION
THAT WE’VE BEEN TALKING ABOUT,
ESPECIALLY WITH HILLARY
CLINTON’S ROLE, I SEE FUTURE
INDICTMENTS.
I SEE FUTURE DEVELOPMENTS OF
ACTUAL CHARGES.
>> Harris: YEAH.
KENNEDY, LET’S GET INTO THE
POLITICS OF THAT.
FROM WHAT I READ YOU GUYS, IF
ALL OF THIS IS TRUE AND HILLARY
CLINTON WAS LOOKING FOR A LAST
MINUTE WAY TO KIND OF TAKE OUT
TRUMP POLITICALLY, WHAT HAPPENED
TO THE POLICIES?
WHAT HAPPENED TO THE WOMAN WHO
WAS IN THE WHITE HOUSE WITH HER
HUSBAND FOR EIGHT YEARS?
THIS WOULD HAVE BEEN SO BEYOND
THE PAIL OF OPTIONS, I WOULD
THINK FOR A DEMOCRAT AT THAT
POINT.
>> SOMEONE WITH HER RESUME, SHE
WASN’T ONLY A FORMER FIRST LADY.
SHE WAS A UNITED STATES SENATOR
AND SECRETARY OF STATE.
SHE HAD ARGUABLY ONE OF THE MOST
IMPRESSIVE POTENTIAL
PRESIDENTIAL RESUMES OF ANYONE
IN THE MODERN ERA.
THAT WASN’T ENOUGH WITH HER
RESUME, BACKGROUND AND FAMILY
CONNECTIONS.
IT WAS NOT RESONATING WITH
VOTERS.
THEY HAD QUESTIONS ABOUT HER
COMPETENCE AND ABOUT HER HEALTH.
THERE WAS THE FACT THAT PEOPLE
DIDN’T LIKE HER.
SHE WAS ALIENATING HALF THE
COUNTRY BY CALLING THEM
DEPLORABLE.
THIS WAS A HAIL MARY THAT SHE
WAS TRYING TO THROW WITH THE
HELP OF THE FBI AND THEN,
MANUFACTURING A SCANDAL, FEEDING
IT TO THE MEDIA AND THEN
RETWEETING THE MEDIA STORY THAT
SHE SCOOPED THEM.
IT’S DISGUSTING.
MAY BE PEOPLE WHO LIVE IN D.C.
PRESENTED WITH THIS EVIDENCE,
FEEL THAT SOME OF THE DWELLERS
THERE ARE JUST SO GROSS, THAT
THIS DOESN’T RISE TO THE LEVEL
OF GUILT.
>> TO GO BACK TO KELLY’S POINT.
DONALD TRUMP GOT 5.4% OF THE
VOTE IN WASHINGTON D.C. IN 2020.
THE FACT THAT THIS JURY WAS
GOING TO BE SYMPATHETIC AND
FRIENDLY TO HILLARY CLINTON’S
CAMPAIGN LAWYER, IS NOT
SURPRISING.
ESPECIALLY WHEN THAT JURY HAD
CLINTON DONORS ON IT.
I’M TELLING YOU, OUR FAITH IN
INSTITUTIONS JUST TOOK ANOTHER
BIG HIT.
THIS IS A WHOLE BOWL OF WRONG.
VERY FRUSTRATING TO SEE, YOU
HAVE A MAN WHO PEDDLED A LIE.
A LIE THAT HE WAS GOING THERE AS
A CONCERNED CITIZEN.
THEN HE TURNS THE CLINTON
CAMPAIGN FOR THAT VISIT TO HIS
FRIEND JAMES BAKER.
WHAT ELSE DO YOU NEED?
THIS JURY WAS PRETTY
DISPOSITIONED TO HAVE NOT GUILTY