• Please read the Announcement concerning missing posts from 10/8/25-10/15/25.
  • This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Sussmann, who worked for Clinton, acquitted of lying to FBI in 2016

dobieg said:
Delusional takeaway from a blatantly partisan trial led by a liberal judge who allowed multiple liberals on the jury against the wishes of the prosecution.
Click to expand...
Exactly what are you asking for? A country where only judges appointed by right wing presidents get to be judges?

I'd bet a paycheck in a heartbeat that you know next to nothing about the actual evidence presented in this case.
 
EMNofSeattle said:
It’s quite clear that juries in leftist cities were never going to take this seriously.

It’s the same effect as the trial of Derek Chauvin, where an actual BLM activists who’d attended rallies about George Floyd was put on his jury. When dealing with courts in areas controlled by the left it’s obvious what will occur.

The defendant in this case was clearly guilty, lying to a federal agent about anything during an investigation is a crime and it doesn’t matter how relevant it was to the investigation. That’s what Flynn got railroaded on.
Click to expand...

Not sure an appeals court would have taken a guilty verdict in a case like this seriously. They usually don't. The judge said as much.
 
upsideguy said:
Federal prosecutor's have a 90%+ conviction rate. If you are indicted by a federal prosecutor, history shows you are very likely guilty. A large part of their high conviction rate are federal charging standards, which are very high.

If Durham could not get a conviction on a charge like lying to the FBI, which is pretty much a layup, he is either a very incompetent federal prosecutor (not likely) or way over charged this one. Given the pressure on him to get results, the overcharge seems almost self-evident..... and that is the best he could do.

Conclusion: What a farce this whole investigation that the DoJ initiated at Trump's request because he was butt hurt.

May we return to our regularly scheduled adult discussions now?
Click to expand...

It was a weak charge.
 
MTAtech said:
Yet, Durham didn't accuse anyone of that. It's time for you to switch TV channels.

"While we are disappointed in the outcome, we respect the jury's decision and thank them for their service. 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," Durham said in a statement.

Note how the poster implies that liberals shouldn't sit on juries. It reminds me of this:
Click to expand...



It's comical how some of our liberal friends can't see a problem with allowing muliple Clinton donors on a jury in the trial of a Clinton related investigation.
 
roughdraft274 said:
Exactly what are you asking for? A country where only judges appointed by right wing presidents get to be judges?

I'd bet a paycheck in a heartbeat that you know next to nothing about the actual evidence presented in this case.
Click to expand...


An impartial jury and not one made up of donors tied to the person being prosecuted.
 
3 Clinton donors on 1 jury? any Trump donors? lol
Kids who play on the same team as Sussman? this is jury nullification...but it was assumed that going in.
I would have been surprised by a guilty verdict even though he was guilty as sin

But it doesn't matter. 'Clinton did it" -she was behind the entire hoax and she approved the release to the press of the alpha bank knowing it was ginned up and gawd knows what else.

Sussman put his lies in writing -he'll wind up on MSBC or write a book.
No Democrats ever get convicted in DC.. and then the text said it all
 
anatta said:
3 Clinton donors on 1 jury? any Trump donors? lol
Kids who play on the same team as Sussman? this is jury nullification...but it was assumed that going in.
I would have been surprised by a guilty verdict even though he was guilty as sin

But it doesn't matter. 'Clinton did it" -she was behind the entire hoax and she approved the release to the press of the alpha bank knowing it was ginned up and gawd knows what else.

Sussman put his lies in writing -he'll wind up on MSBC or write a book.
No Democrats ever get convicted in DC.. and then the text said it all
Click to expand...

I get the Fox News talking points, but any source evidence?
 
It will be interesting to see what happens in the Igor Danchenko trial this October. The Sussman trail was incredible weak from square one, but I do not know enough
about the Danchenko trial to make any kind of prediction how things are going to go at the moment.
 
dobieg said:
Delusional takeaway from a blatantly partisan trial led by a liberal judge who allowed multiple liberals on the jury against the wishes of the prosecution.
Click to expand...
Sorry there were not enough kangaroos on the jury for your liking....

... but that is what trial by jury is. It is idiotic of you, without evidence, to blame the outcome of a trial on politics. But even if were the case, 40%-50% of the population leans left, so a jury of anyone's peers is going have liberals and conservatives on it. Each side has some call in eliminating jury members they will be preferrential, but they do not get to eliminate everyone and pick their jury.

It is a fact that Sussman is to be considered "not guilty" in the eyes of the law. But even if he were guilty this was charge incidental to the investigation and had nothing to do with the overarching issue. Nonetheless, he is not guilty.

Quit your whining and respect your justice system, to do otherwise is un-American.

dcsports said:
Sussman is a democrat.
Click to expand...
Irrelevant. Justice is not a team sport nor is it any kind of sport.
 
dobieg said:
An impartial jury and not one made up of donors tied to the person being prosecuted.
Click to expand...

Jurors are picked from a pool of registered voters. If we assume that because they vote and support a candidate, they can't be impartial jurors, we no longer have a justice system.
 
dobieg said:
It's comical how some of our liberal friends can't see a problem with allowing muliple Clinton donors on a jury in the trial of a Clinton related investigation.
Click to expand...
Apparently the prosecution didn't have a problem either. Too bad Durham brought a charge that didn't meet the criteria of the statute.
 
dobieg said:
Sorry, your blog by some random liberal does nothing to refute more reputable sources that this judge was a liberal partisan hack.



www.newsweek.com

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 www.newsweek.com
Click to expand...
Judge Cooper kept the trial about the very narrow charge that was brought against Sussmann... that he lied to Baker on a particular date during a particular conversation about a particular thing.

Sussmann should only be forced to defend what he is charged with... not the entire conspiracy theory that Durham wants to put out there.
 
RAMOSS said:
It will be interesting to see what happens in the Igor Danchenko trial this October. The Sussman trail was incredible weak from square one, but I do not know enough
about the Danchenko trial to make any kind of prediction how things are going to go at the moment.
Click to expand...
the only weakness was Bakers testimony as he's pettifogged before - really the text should have done it
Maybe you still believe DC is capable of a fair trail
 
MTAtech said:
Did he? It was only mentioned tangentially. I think that if fully investigated, there is indeed fire where that smoke originated.
www.businessinsider.com

We still don't know why a Trump server has mysterious connections to a Russian bank, despite a DOJ indictment

In 2016, researchers found unexplained connections between a Trump Organization server and the Russian Alfa Bank. They remain a mystery.
www.businessinsider.com www.businessinsider.com

After all, one aim of Durham’s probe was to prove that the Russia investigation was not properly predicated. Durham failed to do that.
Click to expand...

An inconvenient truth.
 
anatta said:
the only weakness was Bakers testimony as he's pettifogged before - really the text should have done it
Maybe you still believe DC is capable of a fair trail
Click to expand...
This is pushing the same kind of M.O. that Trump pulled with the Emmy's, the 2016 election before he won it (and indeed after he won it , since he didn't win the popular vote', and the ongoing dialogue he is pushing over the 2020 election.

Frankly, the claim is sour grapes.
 
j brown's body said:
I get the Fox News talking points, but any source evidence?
Click to expand...

The citizens of Trump Fan Nation seem to be saying over and over that a "Trump donor" would not have paid attention to the evidence, and would have simply voted "guilty" because the cult requires it.
 
j brown's body said:
Jurors are picked from a pool of registered voters. If we assume that because they vote and support a candidate, they can't be impartial jurors, we no longer have a justice system.
Click to expand...
any other venue we probably do. federal employees and Clinton donors and a juror who's daughter
plays on a sports team with Sussman -we dont
 
RAMOSS said:
This is pushing the same kind of M.O. that Trump pulled with the Emmy's, the 2016 election before he won it (and indeed after he won it , since he didn't win the popular vote', and the ongoing dialogue he is pushing over the 2020 election.

Frankly, the claim is sour grapes.
Click to expand...
nope. are you familiar with the text? the evidence was overwhelming -it was jury nullification
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom