[W:#290]Michael Sussmann found not guilty of lying to FBI in Durham investigation

[The AntiDonald]

Very well. List the political persuasion of each jury member. If your opinion is correct then there should have been at least 4 Trump supporters on the jury.

That right, but you missed the point. There are Trump supporters that are capable of thinking on there own. I know it's not many of them. That's why lawyers do the selection.

 

[JMB802]

Clinton campaign lawyer Michael Sussmann found not guilty of lying to FBI, in blow to Durham investigation

Hillary Clinton campaign lawyer Michael Sussmann was acquitted Tuesday of lying to the FBI, in the first trial of special counsel John Durham's investigation.

www.cnn.com

"Hillary Clinton campaign lawyer Michael Sussmann was acquitted Tuesday of lying to the FBI, in the first trial of special counsel John Durham's investigation.
The verdict is a major defeat for Durham and his Justice Department prosecutors, who have spent three years looking for wrongdoing in the Trump-Russia probe. He claimed Sussmann lied during a 2016 meeting in which he passed a tip to the FBI about Donald Trump and Russia.
The Washington, DC, federal jury deliberated for six hours over two days before reaching its verdict."

Womp womp, looks like all those wasted tax payer dollars by this scam artist Durham has led to nothing......

LOCK HER UP!!

 

[Jezcoe]

For added comedy:

Remember when Flynn pleading guilty… twice… was political prosecution?

Now the Government has been incapable of proving the charge in court… it is
Suddenly a miscarriage of Justice.

What cynical pricks these people are.

 

[Slartibartfast]

It seems like a lot of people in this thread think that "not guilty" is synonymous with innocent.

Just like with Rittenhouse?

I mean if we are going to play this game, we can insert anyone we want.

 

[Argent]

The odds of getting jurors favorable to Trump was slim to none.

So you wanted the jury stacked for *Rump because that's more important than truth and justice?

 

[trixare4kids]

Yawn. No surprise. I'd be willing to bet the deed to my house on the verdict being decided this way.

Jonathan Turley: “I mean, he is facing a jury that has three Clinton donors, an AOC donor, and a woman whose daughter is on the same sports team with Sussmann’s daughter. With the exception of randomly selecting people out of the DNC headquarters, you could not come up with a worse jury”

 

[The AntiDonald]

Sounds like an admission that he was barking up the wrong tree.

 

[CaughtInThe]

how much of our $$$$ has Durham spent?

 

[Jezcoe]

Jonathan Turley: “I mean, he is facing a jury that has three Clinton donors, an AOC donor, and a woman whose daughter is on the same sports team with Sussmann’s daughter. With the exception of randomly selecting people out of the DNC headquarters, you could not come up with a worse jury”

Jonathan Turley has brain worms.

Stop listening to him.

 

[Slartibartfast]

Jonathan Turley: “I mean, he is facing a jury that has three Clinton donors, an AOC donor, and a woman whose daughter is on the same sports team with Sussmann’s daughter. With the exception of randomly selecting people out of the DNC headquarters, you could not come up with a worse jury”

The prosecutor should have done a better job with the venue and strikes.

 

[Rexedgar]

Jonathan Turley: “I mean, he is facing a jury that has three Clinton donors, an AOC donor, and a woman whose daughter is on the same sports team with Sussmann’s daughter. With the exception of randomly selecting people out of the DNC headquarters, you could not come up with a worse jury”

 

[Cardinal]

It seems like a lot of people in this thread think that "not guilty" is synonymous with innocent.

Not guilty is not guilty.

Just for once...just once...conservatives should just accept the results of investigations and trials that don't go how they wished they did.

 

[skews13.]

If I were Dunham, I'd resign before he becomes the Rudy Guiliani of prosecutors.

Garland needs to fire him. Today. As in right now. Not one more minute should he have a job.

 

[Crovax]

Just like with Rittenhouse?

I mean if we are going to play this game, we can insert anyone we want.

I think it's important to look at the evidence and the feds had a strong case (they usually won't even try a weak case), if you want to compare to Rittenhouse the prosecution had a weak case that they probably wouldn't have tried except for the political and social pressure.

 

[Lord Tammerlain]

Of course Durham's loss had absolutely nothing to do with the makeup of the jury.

Red lipstick would have no impact on a jury trial.

Durham would have had the opportunity to exclude biased jurors

 

[trixare4kids]

The prosecutor should have done a better job with the venue and strikes.

I don't disagree.
That he didn't is on him.

 

[Crovax]

Not guilty is not guilty.

Just for once...just once...conservatives should just accept the results of investigations and trials that don't go how they wished they did.

I accept not guilty. I'm just pointing out how a lot of people are turning not guilty into innocent.

 

[Cardinal]

Jonathan Turley: “I mean, he is facing a jury that has three Clinton donors, an AOC donor, and a woman whose daughter is on the same sports team with Sussmann’s daughter. With the exception of randomly selecting people out of the DNC headquarters, you could not come up with a worse jury”

Do you think juries are obligated to consist entirely of trump supporters every time there's a trial that you want them to rule guilty on?

 

[Slartibartfast]

I think it's important to look at the evidence and the feds had a strong case (they usually won't even try a weak case), if you want to compare to Rittenhouse house the prosecution had a weak case that they probably wouldn't have tried except for the political and social pressure.

Strong case as in the FBI agent not remembering if he was lied to?

 

[JMB802]

Jonathan Turley: “I mean, he is facing a jury that has three Clinton donors, an AOC donor, and a woman whose daughter is on the same sports team with Sussmann’s daughter. With the exception of randomly selecting people out of the DNC headquarters, you could not come up with a worse jury”

Sounds like a lot of whining to me. Turley and friends need to suck it up buttercups.

 

[Rexedgar]

There will be a run on turd polish!

 

[Cardinal]

I accept not guilty. I'm just pointing out how a lot of people are turning not guilty into innocent.

You're just trying to hang on to a narrative that lets you believe he's guilty. He's not guilty of the crime he was accused of. That means he's innocent of that crime.

Unless you're trying to communicate that he's guilty of other crimes?

 

[trixare4kids]

Do you think juries are obligated to be consist entirely of trump supporters every time it's a trial that you want to rule guilty on?

Post #66
I've already said what I think.

 

[CaughtInThe]

didn't a bunch of people here (or was it the Hannity message board that took away from 1st Amendment rights) that had this as their avatar?...

 

[The AntiDonald]

I think it's important to look at the evidence and the feds had a strong case (they usually won't even try a weak case), if you want to compare to Rittenhouse the prosecution had a weak case that they probably wouldn't have tried except for the political and social pressure.

It's funny that on all the right-wing media, this is exactly what they were saying. On the left-wing media, it was just the opposite.