John Durham Loses Case, Clinton Campaign Lawyer Acquitted

[whell]

Originally Posted by bobabode

There sure is a lot of wailing, gnashing of teeth and rending of garments in the Maga universe. smh.

The idea that the right can't get an unbiased jury out of ~ 600,000 citizens in Washington DC is blatant racism. Pure and simple.

Suggesting that one might only get a less objective jury in DC only by selecting that jury from the DNC headquarters is hardly a stretch, and certainly isn't racist. In fact, some of the jurors that were seated, and for whom the judge denied the prosecution's request to not allow these folks to be seated on the jury, sound very much like they could have been DNC employees:

Looking at the jury box, one can understand Shaw’s unease. During jury selection, one juror admitted he was a Clinton donor and could only promise to “strive for impartiality as best I can.” Prosecutors objected to his being seated, but Judge Christopher Cooper overruled them.

In another exchange, a former bartender and donor to far-left Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) was told by a Sussmann defense lawyer that neither Clinton nor Trump were on trial and then asked if she could be impartial. She responded, “Yes, knowing that” — which might suggest she would not be impartial if the campaigns were part of the trial.

Other jurors include a woman who said she thought she was a Clinton donor but could not remember; a juror whose husband worked for the Clinton 2008 campaign; and a juror who believes the legal system is racist and police departments should be defunded.

While the prosecution failed to prove its case to the just beyond a reasonable doubt, I think the comments of the jury foreperson are quite telling:

“Personally, I don’t think it should have been prosecuted because I think we have better time or resources to use or spend on other things that affect the nation as a whole than a possible lie to the FBI. We could spend that time more wisely.”

The foreperson apparently thinks we have bigger things to worry about than lying to law enforcement, and that lying to law enforcement doesn't "affect the nation as a whole". I don't think you have to be black, white, green, or blue to logically process that statement and disagree with it. But if that perspective informed her verdict or the verdict of the other jurors, it's a sad statement.

Originally Posted by Chicks

Bradley P. Moss @BradMossEsq

Remember when Sussman was indicted, all the MAGA pundits were laughing about how the beginning of a conspiracy charge against Hillary was clearly in the works?

Don't you all look like idiots now.

9:08 AM · May 31, 2022·TweetDeck

And just to set the record straight, Durham is not 0 for 1 at this point. He's 1 for 2. You may have forgotten that this is the second trial resulting from Durham's investigation. The first resulted in a conviction: https://www.courthousenews.com/forme...-russia-probe/

Yes, the Sussmann trial flew a bit closer to the campaign, since Sussmann was clearly - according to his own billing records - working on behalf of the Clinton campaign. And yes, Robbie Mook did state during this trial that Hillary herself greenlighted the dissemination of the Alpha Bank narrative.

The trial wasn't about any of that, though, even though testimony like Mook's are now recorded under oath.