The verdict in the trial of Hillary Clinton lawyer Michael Sussmann was a disgrace. Americans are taught to have faith in our nation’s justice system, but it genuinely failed in this case.
Special counsel John Durham had the receipts and testimony proving that Sussmann lied when he told the FBI he wasn’t representing a client when he delivered bogus dirt on Donald Trump. An objective jury would have looked at this evidence and convicted him. Between Sussmann’s text messages, his billing of the Clinton campaign, and the testimony of FBI official James A. Baker, it was a slam dunk.
Except Sussmann was never going to get a fair trial. As we’ve previously reported, due to Washington, D.C., residents voting 90% for Hillary Clinton in 2016, the possibility of a politically balanced jury was virtually impossible. Under questioning by the prosecutor, several of these jurors could not confirm that their political views wouldn’t influence their opinions in the jury room. Others withheld consequential information until after they were selected.
While it’s easy to blame the jury for not being objective, they were only part of the problem.
Related: The D.C. Swamp – A Place Where Only Leftists Like Sussmann Get a Jury of Their Peers
U.S. District Judge Christopher “Casey” Cooper, who presided over the case, was the one who let the jury be stacked with pro-Hillary and Democrat partisans and dismissed concerns about objectivity by simply instructing the potential jurors with pro-Clinton views that the trial wasn’t about the 2016 election.
“This case has political overtones, but Hillary Clinton is not on trial. Donald Trump is not on trial. Michael Sussmann is on trial and he deserves a fair one,” he told them.
In my view, U.S. District Judge Christopher Cooper should never have presided over the case.
Judge Cooper has been a judge on the District of Columbia court since March of 2014, when Barack Obama appointed him, after having previously served on the Obama/Biden transition team. Of course, being an Obama appointee alone is a red flag, but that’s actually not the most significant reason Cooper should have recused himself from the case.
For starters, Judge Cooper is married to Amy Jeffress, a lawyer who represented FBI lawyer Lisa Page—who is best known for her anti-Trump text messages with former FBI agent Peter Strzok— in a civil case.
Cooper and Jeffress are very well-connected in the Democratic Party, and when they got married in 1999, Merrick Garland, the current U.S. Attorney General, presided over their wedding.
These shocking details were known last year, so the fix was in well before the jury was picked.
Ah, but there’s more. In September, Cooper acknowledged that he knew Sussmann in the 1990s when they worked for the Justice Department. Cooper even said he’d consider recusal if either side asked.
“I worked in the ’90s at the deputy attorney general’s office two years following law school. Mr. Sussmann also worked at the building at the same time in the criminal division. We did not work together or socialize, but I think it’s fair to say we were professional acquaintances,” Cooper said. “I don’t believe that this creates a conflict, but my regular practice is to disclose these sorts of relationships with lawyers or with parties on the record. And I would advise you that I would be happy to entertain a motion if either side believes there is a conflict on that basis or any other.”
Tom Fitton of Judicial Watch argues that recusal would have been challenging to get. “That is the insular nature of the D.C. political and legal establishment that causes public mistrust, and I can understand why,” Fitton explained. “But if that alone were enough for recusal, you wouldn’t have any judges left in D.C.”
If Judge Cooper had any integrity whatsoever, he would have recused himself. But what would you expect from a partisan, leftist judge?
