• 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!

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

TheDoctorWasIn said:
You certainly made the implication.

Without that implication, every post you've made in this thread is meaningless.
Click to expand...
Find it and link to what you think I was implying they weren't following the law. By serving on the jury and returning a verdict they were following the law.
 
Overitall said:
What does "following the law" have to do with the point I raised about how juries are selected?
Click to expand...
You said that the defense tries to get members favorable to their side, by that I assume you mean Democrats right? Why do you think being a Democrat would be favorable to them? Because Democrats believe you should be able to lie to the FBI for political purposes? Because Democrats think being a Democrat makes them above the law? What is it?
 
Overitall said:
Find it and link to what you think I was implying they weren't following the law. By serving on the jury and returning a verdict they were following the law.
Click to expand...

If they followed the law, what are you complaining about??

The law doesn't just say they have to serve on the jury and return a verdict - the law very specifically tells them how to come to a verdict.
 
exoplanet said:
You said that the defense tries to get members favorable to their side, by that I assume you mean Democrats right? Why do you think being a Democrat would be favorable to them? Because Democrats believe you should be able to lie to the FBI for political purposes? Because Democrats think being on their side make them above the law? What is it?
Click to expand...
Not going to play this game with you. Just asking the questions I find a waste of time. It is yours, but don't think I'm going to waste my time entertaining them.
 
TheDoctorWasIn said:
If they followed the law, what are you complaining about??
Click to expand...
Didn't complain either. You're striking out here. :)
TheDoctorWasIn said:
The law doesn't just say they have to serve on the jury and return a verdict - the law very specifically tells them how to come to a verdict.
Click to expand...
Yet many verdicts are reached where the court of public opinion disagree.
 
trouble13 said:
If I sound redundant it's because I am being asked the same question over and over like my answer is going to magically change if I am asked enough times.
Click to expand...
But, you aren't answering questions. Durham never raised any objection about the jury.

Why are you?

(because you don't have jack shit, and you can't accept it)
 
bave said:
An interesting bit I just read...

On the jury that acquitted Sussman...

3 people who donated to Clinton
1 person who donated to AOC
1 person whose kid was on the same soccer team as the defendant and routinely interacted with him

Not surprising, it is one of the bluest juror pools in the nation.
Click to expand...
Its been brought up by other posters, yet no one proved any of it. Durham didn't object to the jurors, and there is a process where each side questions the juries pre-trial.

Keep up.
 
Lol we should go visit Luther's thread on Hillary and chuckle to ourselves
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom