As RedState reported, John Durham’s prosecution of Michael Sussmann has failed, with the Hillary Clinton lawyer being found not guilty of lying to the FBI.

The details are stunning in that Durham went so far as to provide literal receipts showing Sussmann was working for Clinton and that he even charged her for the USBs he delivered the false information to the FBI on. Yet, that wasn’t enough for the Washington, DC, jury that deliberated and ultimately ruled on the case.

Unfortunately, as I shared in an article after the initial jury selection, Durham never stood a chance.

On what planet can a juror who outright says they have a strong animus against Trump be impartial in judging someone who’s on trial for actively trying to destroy Trump with falsities? It’s absolutely insane that this woman made it into the final jury pool.

She’s not the only one, though. Other jurors also revealed that they donated to Hillary Clinton in 2016 and/or donated to Joe Biden in 2020. Given that most people never donate to any political campaign for president, it seems unreasonable that doing so would be disqualifying. There are plenty of other possible jurors to choose from who aren’t overtly political to the point where they gave money to Clinton….

…Unfortunately, this is the problem with holding criminal trials against those involved in corruption at the federal level in the nation’s capital. DC is the most liberal city in the country, voting 92.5 percent for Biden in the last presidential election. The bias among possible jurors there is unbelievable. Past that, the judge that allowed the above jurors into the pool is also an Obama appointee. Make of that what you will.

As Tuesday’s ruling makes clear, my concerns were more than valid. Yet, it appears that my critique was actually mild. Johnathan Turley noted on Fox News over a week after I wrote my piece that the jury also included an Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez donor and the parent of a child who played on the same sports team as Sussmann’s child.

TURLEY: “I mean, he is facing a jury that has three Clinton donors, an AOC donor, and a woman whose daughter is on the same sports team with Sussmann’s daughter. With the exception of randomly selecting people out of the DNC headquarters, you could not come up with a worse jury” pic.twitter.com/RHqen6AMAc

— Benny Johnson (@bennyjohnson) May 26, 2022

There are what? Nearly a million people in DC? How insane is it to allow a juror who not only knows the defendant but who has such an obvious conflict of interest as their children being on the same sports team? Yet, that’s exactly what the Obama-appointed judge allowed on top of several jurors who admitted they could not be impartial regarding Donald Trump. And to be clear, this case absolutely revolved around Donald Trump.

And while we are talking about the judge, let’s also remember that his wife represented Lisa Page, the corrupt, embattled FBI lawyer who expressed her desire to use the government to take down Donald Trump during the 2016 election. Somehow, that wasn’t a conflict of interest either, though.

To give a broader commentary, it is absolutely nuts that this country tries cases related to the government in a city that 1) exists to protect itself, and 2) is made up of voters that vote 92.5 percent of the time for one political party. Yet, that’s exactly what we do, and over and over, we see examples of Democrat apparatchiks being acquitted in the face of overwhelming evidence. How is anyone supposed to have trust in a system that operates that way?

As I said, Durham never stood a chance. It was a laudable effort, and it’s one that I fully supported. But in nearly every article I wrote on the matter, I expressed skepticism about whether he could secure a conviction. That’s not because he didn’t have the evidence. The evidence was overwhelming, but nothing would ever have been enough for a DC jury. You can expect a similar outcome in the Danchenko case, which is happening in DC-adjacent Nothern Virginia.