The evidence against Michael Sussmann, Hillary Clinton’s 2016 campaign lawyer, was objectively incriminating. However, a Washington, D.C., jury somehow didn’t see it that way.

A juror in Sussmann’s trial made statements following the verdict hinting at possible jury nullification, Breitbart reported. The juror minimized the alleged crime that played a significant role in the Russia collusion hoax.

“I don’t think it should have been prosecuted,” the anonymous juror told Washington Times White House reporter Jeff Mordock. “There are bigger things that affect the nation than a possible lie to the FBI,” she said.

Sussmann was acquitted by a unanimous jury Tuesday on charges that he lied to the FBI. His trial was the first to come of Special Counsel John H. Durham’s investigation into the origins of the Russia collusion hoax.

However, there was solid evidence that Sussmann didn’t disclose his close ties to the Democratic candidate. His statements to the FBI setting in motion events that would lead to an investigation that dogged former President Donald Trump before and after his 2016 victory.

There were text messages and statements from FBI agents attesting to Sussmann’ss insistence that his role was as a “concerned citizen”” when turning over supposed evidence. It seems that Sussmann had hidden the fact that he was one of Clinton’s attorneys when turning over supposed evidence about collusion between Russia’s Alfa Bank and then-candidate Trump.

Notably, a similar but less credible charge leveled at Trump confidant Michael Flynn resulted in a conviction. Some believe that Flynn’s prosecution was incorrect and politically motivated due to the scant evidence produced in that case.

If it’s true that the jury went into the trial with a verdict already in mind, this would be a serious indication that Sussmann was given special consideration. The partisan effort to take down Trump on little more than a cooked-up rumor was bad enough, but the continued effort to uphold the lie is that much worse.