Ignoring for a moment it appears you have no idea what you're talking about...so your claim is that the jury decided this prosecution was brought in bad faith and you think that supports your point?
dont ask for ridiculous gets
Then don't say stupid things.
do you know the text? it verifies Bakers testimony, and no that's not my claim
www.foxnews.com
www.foxnews.com
www.foxnews.com
I disagree. It's no longer sour grapes, it is now in their DNA. If they don't win it must be rigged!
ROFL, enjoy FoxNews home page (3pm ET.)
Michael Sussmann found not guilty of charge brought by Special Prosecutor John Durham
Michael Sussmann was found not guilty of making a false statement to the FBI, a defeat for special prosecutor John Durham.
And the commentary is already setting up this evening's lineup of freak outs.
Kayleigh McEnany: Verdict in Sussmann trial raises questions about DC jury partisanship
Kayleigh McEnany noted that a number of the Sussmann jurors had expressed "avowed" support for Hillary Clinton while others had donated to her campaign.Jim Jordan on Sussmann trial: What we learned about Hillary Clinton was ‘huge’
Rep. Jim Jordan, R-Ohio, calls out Clinton campaign for "encouraging" a fake narrative by delivering false information on Trump campaign to the press and FBI.
This is going to be popcorn ready... for weeks.
Wanna bet the fact that even if he did lie the jury found it had no material impact, as is required by the statute, won't come up.ROFL, enjoy FoxNews home page (3pm ET.)
Michael Sussmann found not guilty of charge brought by Special Prosecutor John Durham
Michael Sussmann was found not guilty of making a false statement to the FBI, a defeat for special prosecutor John Durham.
And the commentary is already setting up this evening's lineup of freak outs.
Kayleigh McEnany: Verdict in Sussmann trial raises questions about DC jury partisanship
Kayleigh McEnany noted that a number of the Sussmann jurors had expressed "avowed" support for Hillary Clinton while others had donated to her campaign.Jim Jordan on Sussmann trial: What we learned about Hillary Clinton was ‘huge’
Rep. Jim Jordan, R-Ohio, calls out Clinton campaign for "encouraging" a fake narrative by delivering false information on Trump campaign to the press and FBI.
This is going to be popcorn ready... for weeks.
I'm sorry, but Durham had enough opportunities to strike jurors. The judge has very little to do with this process.
Well, the SC is full of conservative partisan hacks. They have way more influence than one district court judge.Sorry, your blog by some random liberal does nothing to refute more reputable sources that this judge was a liberal partisan hack.
Deep State Allies Play Judge, Jury and Perhaps Executioner Against Durham
The lack of even the appearance of impartiality erodes confidence in our justice system.www.newsweek.com
The text which happened BEFORE the day Durham indicted Sussman for? Do YOU know the text? Or are you just vomiting rhetoric in ignorance?
Which testimony of Bakers? Because he has repeatedly claimed, under oath, he did not ever remember Sussman making that claim during their September 19th meeting.
I can't help but notice you dodged the question. You are (erroneously) claiming this is jury nullification...why do you think it is a point in your favor to claim the jury heard this case and thought the prosecution was wrongful?
No worse than Trump publicly asking Russia to find the 30,000 missing emails. Or Campaign officials meeting with Russian lawyers in Trump tower.
Just so I'm clear...do you think it is proper for the DOJ to arrest and charge people with crimes in order to score political points? I find it hard to believe that you believe that, you've never struck me as the kind of poster to take that kind of a position.
I knew there was something funky about that guy. I could sense it when I read the first part of his article.
Like the sitting President of the United States dispatching his personal lawyer to pressure Ukrainian officials to dig up dirt on Biden including having an Ambassador to Ukraine recalled? Trumpers have no business whining about the Clinton campaign when a sitting President uses the Oval Office to do his "opposition research".
Is that similar to a process crime the right was crowing about during the Mueller investigation?Yep, that pesky material impact (loophole?) means that lying to the FBI about someone already under investigation was just peachy.
Look at it this way, had the jury been half Trumpets, there still would have been a mistrial. And no way Durham would have tried it again. He would have looked even dumber than he already does.
Apparently Trump thought so when he sent Rudy on his mission.