-Sussman acquitted-

The irony couldn't be any clearer.  General Flynn was CONVICTED of lying to the FBI by an activist DC judge when he in fact did not lie, even though the prosecution moved to dismiss their own case against him after seeing that the evidence was fake all along and was part of a campaign to smear him by the Obama Whitehouse.  So in the case of Flynn, the judge no longer had a case either in fact or in law yet nevertheless persisted in convicting and sentencing him, and the DNC-run media repeats the debunked allegation that he did lie.  In Sussman's case, his charge was nullified by a DC jury even though it was shown to them that he both lied in writing, in a text message entered into evidence, and verbally, according to the eyewitness testimony of the FBI's chief legal counsel whom Sussman had spoken with.  The DNC-run media runs interference for his lie claiming that lying in writing (inexplicably) does not count (see that nugget embedded in this article by Charlie Savage of the NYT).  They also continue to repeat the same debunked allegations at the heart of the Sussman case and ignore the evidence presented proving that the Alfa Bank internet traffic data was a hoax invented by the Hillary campaign, and they also ignore evidence of highly illegal spying on a sitting presidential Whitehouse.

A jury might nullify a law that it does not agree with, or a jury might simply refuse to find a defendant guilty if they are sympathetic.  In this case, the head juror publicly stated that they were angry that the prosecution even brought this case at all.  What they are saying, in essence, is "this is our town, this defendant is one of us, we run Washington, and how dare you try to insinuate otherwise."

Michael Sussmann has been acquitted
DC Jury and DC Verdicts
Detailed background on the Sussman case

This is pure tribalism.  DC is 95-99% Democrat.  Many on the jury were Clinton and/or AOC supporters; one even had a child in the same rowing team as Sussman.  What the Dems are telling you is that they are above the law.  What they are telling you is that you are to believe what the New York Times says and not any evidence to the contrary.  What they are telling you is that they are above you, and that you are unworthy of a fair hearing in any court of law that they operate.

They are going to find out later this year that they do not control all of the courts, that they are not above the law, and that the truth is the truth no matter how hard you choose to shut your ears and believe otherwise.

A reckoning is coming, and it will be a very welcome relief when justice rolls down like waters.