(no message)
Link: https://thelibertydaily.com/they-got-away-with-it/
Yet, the Wisconsin jury who acquitted Kyle Rittenhouse did follow their oath?
A trial is a trial is a trial. It’s not a scoreboard.
Defense matters. Juries do a good job following their oaths.
When you have 3 Clinton donors, 1 AOC donor, and one whose kid is teammates with Sussman's kid, it doesn't exactly look like an impartial group. Regardless of party, people should still be outraged by what Hillary/DNC, FBI/DOJ and media did and got away with. Seems like all you need is some friends at the FBI/DOJ and in the media and you can start any false narrative you want. If it happened to one side, it could happen to the other side if this isn't fixed and people held accountable. As long as we have a biased MSM, the country will continue to be divided and will rot from within. A trustworthy media/press is the one thing that is supposed to keep elected officials from getting corrupt.
Lots of D inbreds involved, from the judge to jurors.
The lawyers have tons of information about the jury pool. Both sides have unlimited "for cause" challenges, plus an equal number of peremptory challenges.
The prospective jurors are scrutinized by the lawyers and the judge for unfair political bias. Both sides battle to get rid of those prospective jurors who they believe are least inclined to adopt each side's theory of the case.
The net result/objective is seating 12 neutral jurors.
Verdicts are unanimous. Why did the other 9 jurors render the same NOT GUILTY verdict as the 3 who you assume did not honor their oaths?
Are you OK if black jurors serve on a panel where the defendant is black? Are you OK if jurors who own AR-15s serve on Kyle Rittenhouse's panel?
Give jurors the benefit of the doubt.
(no message)
(no message)
This was WAY worst then Mueller's investigation and not providing a judgement. Now the right wants to demean the jury system in our country.
both ways.
(no message)
1 juror's daughter on the same crew team as the defendants daughter. Not to mention the judge and the wife of the judge. Yep. In DC, seems about right.
(no message)
(no message)
(no message)
The smoking gun text of Sussman’s was discovered AFTER charges were filed. Normally, that would be easily remedied by the Prosecution with refiling….. but the statute pf limitations on the event has now just expired recently.
Yes, COVID delayed the investigation by about a year or more, but Durhams absurdly slow progress (which Trump complained correctly about - as usual -made this event of a guilty man hetting off on a technicality possible.
Rush Limbsugh predicted this 3 years ago. Amazing.
(no message)
(no message)
(no message)
NOVEMBER GOLF!
Link: https://forum.uhnd.com/forum/index.php?action=display&forumid=2&msgid=68167
(no message)
The false statement allegation was the indicted charge, but the Government's theory of the case is that Sussman was Hillary's messenger to dirty the Trump waters.
WASHINGTON — Michael Sussmann, a prominent cybersecurity lawyer with ties to Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign, was acquitted on Tuesday of a felony charge that he lied to the F.B.I. in 2016 when he shared a tip about possible connections between Donald J. Trump and Russia.
The verdict was a significant blow to the special counsel, John H. Durham, who was appointed by the Trump administration three years ago to scour the Trump-Russia investigation for any wrongdoing.
But Mr. Durham has yet to fulfill expectations from Mr. Trump and his supporters that he would uncover and prosecute a “deep state” conspiracy against the former president. Instead, he has developed only two charged cases: the one against Mr. Sussmann and another against a researcher for the so-called Steele dossier, whose trial is set for later this year.
Both consist of simple charges of making false statements, rather than a more sweeping charge like conspiracy to defraud the government. And both involve thin or dubious allegations about Mr. Trump’s purported ties to Russia that were put forward not by government officials, but by outside investigators.
The case against Mr. Sussmann centered on odd internet data that cybersecurity researchers discovered in 2016 after it became public that Russia had hacked Democrats and Mr. Trump had encouraged the country to target Mrs. Clinton’s emails.
The researchers said the data might reflect a covert communications channel using servers for the Trump Organization and Alfa Bank, which has ties to the Kremlin. The F.B.I. briefly looked at the suspicions and dismissed them.
On Sept. 19, 2016, Mr. Sussmann brought those suspicions to a senior F.B.I. official. Prosecutors accused him of falsely telling the official that he was not there on behalf of any client, concealing that he was working for both Mrs. Clinton’s campaign and a technology executive who had given him the tip.
Mr. Durham and prosecutors used court filings and trial testimony to describe how Mr. Sussmann, while working for a Democratic-linked law firm and logging his time to the Clinton campaign, had been trying to get reporters to write about the Alfa Bank suspicions.
But trying to persuade reporters to write about such suspicions is not a crime. Mr. Sussmann’s guilt or innocence turned on a narrow issue: whether he made a false statement to a senior F.B.I. official at the 2016 meeting by saying he was sharing those suspicions on behalf of no one but himself.
Mr. Durham used the Sussmann case to put forward a larger conspiracy: that there was a joint enterprise to essentially frame Mr. Trump for collusion with Russia by getting the F.B.I. to investigate the suspicions so reporters would write about it. The scheme, Mr. Durham implied, involved the Clinton campaign; its opposition research firm, Fusion GPS; Mr. Sussmann; and a cybersecurity expert who had brought the odd data and analysis to him.
That insinuation thrilled Mr. Trump’s supporters, who have embraced his claim that the Russia investigation was a “hoax” and have sought to conflate the official inquiry with sometimes dubious accusations. In reality, the Alfa Bank matter was a sideshow: The F.B.I. had already opened its inquiry on other grounds before Mr. Sussmann passed on the tip; the final report by the special counsel, Robert S. Mueller III, made no mention of Alfa Bank.
But the case Mr. Durham and his team used to float their broad insinuations was thin: one count of making a false statement in a meeting with no other witnesses. In a rebuke to Mr. Durham; the lead lawyer on the trial team, Andrew DeFilippis; and his colleagues, the 12 jurors voted unanimously to find Mr. Sussmann not guilty.
Some supporters of Mr. Trump had been bracing for that outcome. They pointed to the District of Columbia’s reputation as a heavily Democratic area and suggested that a jury might be politically biased against a Trump-era prosecutor trying to convict a defendant who was working for the Clinton campaign.
The judge had told the jury that they were not to account for their political views when deciding the facts. The jury forewoman, who did not give her name, told reporters afterward that “politics were not a factor” and that she thought bringing the case had been unwise.
Mr. Durham expressed disappointment in the verdict but said he respected the decision by the jury, which deliberated for about six hours.
“I also want to recognize and thank the investigators and the prosecution team for their dedicated efforts in seeking truth and justice in this case,” he said in a statement.
Outside the courthouse, Mr. Sussmann read a brief statement to reporters, expressing gratitude to the jury, his defense team and those who supported him during what had been a difficult year.
“I told the truth to the F.B.I., and the jury clearly recognized that with their unanimous verdict today,” he said, adding, “Despite being falsely accused, I am relieved that justice ultimately prevailed in this case.”
During the trial, the defense had argued that Mr. Sussmann brought the matter to the F.B.I. only when he thought The New York Times was on the verge of writing an article about the matter, so that the bureau would not be caught flat-footed.
Officials for the Clinton campaign testified that they had not told or authorized Mr. Sussmann to go to the F.B.I. Doing so was against their interests because they did not trust the bureau, and it could slow down the publication of any article, they said.
James Baker, as the F.B.I.’s general counsel in 2016, met with Mr. Sussmann that September. Mr. Baker testified that he had asked Eric Lichtblau, then a reporter at The Times working on the Alfa Bank matter, to slow down so the bureau could have time to investigate it.
Mr. Sussmann’s defense team offered the jurors many potential paths to acquittal, contending that the prosecution had yet to prove multiple necessary elements beyond a reasonable doubt.
His lawyers attacked as doubtful whether Mr. Sussmann actually uttered the words that he had no client at his meeting with the F.B.I. in September.
That issue was complicated after a text message came to light in which Mr. Sussmann, arranging for the meeting a day earlier, indicated that he was reaching out on his own. But it was what, if anything, he said at the meeting itself that was at issue.
Mr. Baker testified that he was “100 percent” certain that Mr. Sussmann repeated those words to his face. But defense lawyers pointed out that he had recalled the meeting differently on many other occasions.
The defense team also argued that Mr. Sussmann was in fact not there on behalf of any client, even though he had clients with an interest in the topic. And they questioned whether it mattered, since the F.B.I. knew he represented the Democratic National Committee and the Clinton campaign on other issues, and agents would have investigated the allegations regardless.
Midmorning, the jury asked to see a trial exhibit meant to bolster the defense’s argument that Mr. Sussmann did not consider himself to be representing the Clinton campaign. It was a record of taxi rides Mr. Sussmann expensed for the Sept. 19 meeting at F.B.I. headquarters.
He logged those rides to the firm rather than to the Clinton campaign or to a technology executive, Rodney Joffe, who had worked with the data scientists who developed the suspicions and brought them to Mr. Sussmann. Prosecutors asserted that Mr. Joffe was his other hidden client in the meeting.
During the trial, prosecutors had made much of how Mr. Sussmann logged extensive hours on the Alfa Bank matter to the Clinton campaign in law firm billing records — including phone calls and meetings with reporters and with his partner at the time, Marc Elias, the general counsel of the Clinton campaign.
Defense lawyers acknowledged that the Clinton campaign had been Mr. Sussmann’s client for the purpose of trying to persuade reporters to write about the matter, but argued that he was not working for anyone when he brought the same materials to the F.B.I.
Charged with lying to the FBI.
Scroll to the bottom of the DOJ link, and click pdf attachment.
Rather than acknowledge that you were incorrect about the Government's theory of the case, I'm guessing you'll go with the predictable "Thanks for proving my point."
Link: https://www.justice.gov/sco/pr/grand-jury-indicts-dc-attorney-making-false-statements-fbi-2016-regarding-alleged
(no message)
(no message)
Link: https://www.foxnews.com/media/durhams-biggest-problem-in-sussmann-trial-is-the-jury-andy-mccarthy
(no message)
(no message)
It's a tough standard when the most critical evidence is circumstantial.
More importantly, Clinton is effectively done and gone... so who cares?
Now if only we could say the same about the orange haired albatross around the neck of the Republican party.
moaned, and lied about his entire term and claimed he was guilty ? That guy ?
Prosecutors showed the jury emails, law-firm billing records and even a Staples receipt for thumb drives to tie Sussmann to the Clinton campaign. But Berkowitz said much of the witness testimony showed that the Clinton campaign did not want the Alfa Bank allegations taken to the FBI, because they preferred to see a news story about the issue.
The key witness of the trial was James Baker, who was the FBI’s top lawyer when he met with Sussmann on Sept. 19, 2016.
Baker told the jury he was “100 percent confident” that Sussmann insisted to him he was not acting on behalf of a client and that if he had known, he would have handled the conversation differently and perhaps not even agreed to the meeting at all. and feared an investigation might complicate or delay such stories.
But in the minds of the jurors this was enough to create a scintilla of doubt.
(no message)
There was evidence to the contrary and thus others might feel 100% certain that Sussman was there for Hillary... especially since Baker himself had Democrat connections.
I mean it is possible that Baker himself was also lying.
And jury nullification itself is a form of lying.
(no message)
(no message)
(no message)
(no message)