Sussmann acquitted
-
Turley:
"The Washington Times is reporting that a juror told the press "There are bigger things that affect the nation than a possible lie to the FBI." If true, that is the type of statement that would have drawn a likely challenge from prosecutors during voir dire. Telling a lie to the FBI was the entire basis for the prosecution. It was the jury's job to determine the fact of such a lie and its materiality. Of course, this statement can be a simple criticism of the underlying charge without admitting to bias in weighing the elements. Yet, it would have prompted a challenge in the courtroom if expressed during jury selection."
"Process crimes." The important word in that is "crimes."
-
Actually, there were three Hillary donors on the jury.
“Cry havoc and let slip the DOGE of war!”
Those who cheered as J-6 American prisoners were locked in solitary for 18 months without trial, now suddenly fight tooth and nail for foreign terrorists’ "due process". — Buck Sexton
-
-
-
@Jolly said in Sussmann acquitted:
Actually, there were three Hillary donors on the jury.
Three Hillary donors
One AOC donor
And one juror whose daughter is on the same crew team as Sussman's daughter.Of course, in the first two cases, getting someone in DC who didn't fit in that camp might be difficult, LOL.
"Now look here, you Baltic gas passer... " - Mik, 6/14/08
The saying, "Lite is just one damn thing after another," is a gross understatement. The damn things overlap.
-
@Jolly said in Sussmann acquitted:
Actually, there were three Hillary donors on the jury.
Three Hillary donors
One AOC donor
And one juror whose daughter is on the same crew team as Sussman's daughter.Of course, in the first two cases, getting someone in DC who didn't fit in that camp might be difficult, LOL.
@George-K said in Sussmann acquitted:
@Jolly said in Sussmann acquitted:
Actually, there were three Hillary donors on the jury.
Three Hillary donors
One AOC donor
And one juror whose daughter is on the same crew team as Sussman's daughter.Of course, in the first two cases, getting someone in DC who didn't fit in that camp might be difficult, LOL.
Which is why DC cases, regardless of party, should not be tried in the Beltway.
-
@George-K said in Sussmann acquitted:
@Jolly said in Sussmann acquitted:
Actually, there were three Hillary donors on the jury.
Three Hillary donors
One AOC donor
And one juror whose daughter is on the same crew team as Sussman's daughter.Of course, in the first two cases, getting someone in DC who didn't fit in that camp might be difficult, LOL.
Which is why DC cases, regardless of party, should not be tried in the Beltway.
@Jolly said in Sussmann acquitted:
Which is why DC cases, regardless of party, should not be tried in the Beltway.
Did Durham try to get a change in venue?
-
@Jolly said in Sussmann acquitted:
Which is why DC cases, regardless of party, should not be tried in the Beltway.
Did Durham try to get a change in venue?
@George-K said in Sussmann acquitted:
@Jolly said in Sussmann acquitted:
Which is why DC cases, regardless of party, should not be tried in the Beltway.
Did Durham try to get a change in venue?
I do not know.
-
@Jolly said in Sussmann acquitted:
Actually, there were three Hillary donors on the jury.
Three Hillary donors
One AOC donor
And one juror whose daughter is on the same crew team as Sussman's daughter.Of course, in the first two cases, getting someone in DC who didn't fit in that camp might be difficult, LOL.
@George-K said in Sussmann acquitted:
@Jolly said in Sussmann acquitted:
Actually, there were three Hillary donors on the jury.
Three Hillary donors
One AOC donor
And one juror whose daughter is on the same crew team as Sussman's daughter.Of course, in the first two cases, getting someone in DC who didn't fit in that camp might be difficult, LOL.
The prosecuting attorney must have been a complete idiot for not blocking #3.
-
John Durham Tried to Prove Trump’s Russiagate Theory. Instead He Debunked It. Trump’s prosecutor face-plants.
By Jonathan Chait
…
The fact Durham even had to bring [the Sussman] case was a testament to the failure of his probe. He had set out to uncover the FBI’s crimes against Mr. Trump. He was reduced to trying, and failing, to prosecute somebody for lying to the FBI.
…
The final, largest hole in the conspiracy theory is that there were in fact serious grounds for suspicion. By 2016 it was already apparent that Trump had hired as his campaign manager a guy who owed money to a Russian oligarch and who had previously managed the foreign campaign of a Russian puppet, had publicly asked Russia to hack his opponent’s emails, had exploited the results of that hack, among other things. The investigation turned up many more details, including a secret meeting where Trump’s campaign manager passed polling data on to a Russian agent, a secret business deal that promised to give Trump hundreds of millions of dollars in profit at no risk (and which he was exposing himself to Russian blackmail by denying in public), and so on.Why would Sussmann go to the FBI? No doubt he wanted Clinton to win. Durham presupposes this was his only motive. But Sussmann was also privy to an allegation whose technical details he wasn’t qualified to judge, but which had potentially alarming implications. The reason Sussmann was afraid Trump posed a security threat to the United States is that Trump posed a security threat to the United States.
-
Is now the time to dig up Jolly's old quotes about all the money wasted in years long investigations ending in
a few convictionsone acquittal for process crimes???"You never know what worse luck your bad luck has saved you from."
-Cormac McCarthy
