John Durham Loses Case, Clinton Campaign Lawyer Acquitted

[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.

[Oerets]

Really.

Surprised.

Truth and facts matter NOT over the narrative and what is wanted to be....

No surprise here and generally think it will play well in the uninformed closed minds the right rely on to stay in power.

Gin up the zombies with abortion guns and Clinton.....

Watch out when they have the keys....

[Chicks]

Originally Posted by Oerets

Watch out when they have the keys....

They already have the keys. SCOTUS. The Federalists there, who are supposed to be all about "States Rights", will very soon be disallowing states to have ANY kind of laws regulating firearms, and will be disallowing states the right to write laws allowing ANY abortions. They are hypocrites, pure and simple.

Federalists, Libertarians and conservatives make up a minority of voters, but the antiquated, outdated Electoral College system, and two senators per state, no matter how small, will destroy democracy in this country.

[donquixote99]

Re wailing and gnashing of teeth: there certainly are failures, but a trial by jury is still nonetheless the gold standard of human methods of getting at the truth. Need plain evidence to think that anything was wrong with this one. "There must have been" doesn't cut it.

[whell]

Originally Posted by Chicks

They already have the keys. SCOTUS. The Federalists there, who are supposed to be all about "States Rights", will very soon be disallowing states to have ANY kind of laws regulating firearms, and will be disallowing states the right to write laws allowing ANY abortions. They are hypocrites, pure and simple.

Wow, not sure where you're getting that info from. If anything, the expected ruling on the NY concealed carry law is expected to be rather narrow in scope.

Further, the SCOTUS draft Roe ruling that was circulated - which may or may not represent the Court's final ruling - actually would have given the decision-making about regulating abortion back to the states. It was then Senate Dems - likely in an election season publicity grab - that vowed to push abortion rights legislation that would have "disallowing states the right to write laws" that regulate abortion.

[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.

[bobabode]

There he goes again...^ ^ ^

[whell]

Originally Posted by bobabode

There he goes again...^ ^ ^

Thanks for the thoughtful response

[finnbow]

Originally Posted by whell

...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.

Having someone as a client does not mean you are representing that client at all times. Hillary greenlighting the dissemination of the Alpha Bank narrative is neither a crime nor unusual in political campaigns. It's called oppo research when a campaign provides info to the media in hopes they take it further (look at all of the water carried by Fox News on behalf of Trump's delusional lies/accusations).

This trial was never really about lying to the FBI. It was intended by Barr to disprove the findings of the (GOP-controlled) Senate Select Committee on Intelligence and the DOJ-IG, both of whom concluded that the Russia investigation was properly predicated. Barr as much as admitted it in a recent interview on Fox News.

If you actually want to read something a bit more objective and thoughtful than the wingnut garbage you normally gobble up, here's a good take on the Sussman trial.
https://www.lawfareblog.com/thoughts...ssmann-verdict

Here's another than goes a bit further in its analysis. Both conclude the case wasn't really about Sussman's alleged lie (the only charged conduct). In trying to prove that the Russia investigation was a witchhunt, Durham/Barr themselves conducted an actual political witchhunt which ultimately again confirmed the validity of the original Russia investigation.
https://sidebarsblog.com/sussman-pro...erdict-durham/

[whell]

Originally Posted by finnbow

Having someone as a client does not mean you are representing that client at all times. Hillary greenlighting the dissemination of the Alpha Bank narrative is neither a crime nor unusual in political campaigns. It's called oppo research when a campaign provides info to the media in hopes they take it further (look at all of the water carried by Fox News on behalf of Trump's delusional lies/accusations).

I don't disagree conceptually about the use of opposition research. Look at how WaPo, NY Times, and others willing pushed the Russia Collusion narrative fueled by endless leaks from "unnamed sources". And sure, attorneys have multiple clients concurrently. But that wasn't what the case was about.

Originally Posted by finnbow

This trial was never really about lying to the FBI. It was intended by Barr to disprove the findings of the (GOP-controlled) Senate Select Committee on Intelligence and the DOJ-IG, both of whom concluded that the Russia investigation was properly predicated. Barr as much as admitted it in a recent interview on Fox News.

Well, the jury thought that was what the case was about. Maybe they had a perspective that you don't based on the facts that were presented at trial.

In fact, the case was about the way Sussmann (mis)represented himself and the information that he provided to the FBI. The "lie" was about whether or not he was representing the campaign at the time he presented the Alpha Bank info. There's certainly sufficient evidence to suggest that he was working on behalf of the Clinton campaign at that time. The jury ultimately decided (both or either) that the prosecution failed to prove that at trial beyond a reasonable doubt, or that a case about lying to the FBI has no currency in the US justice system.

Originally Posted by finnbow

If you actually want to read something a bit more objective and thoughtful than the wingnut garbage you normally gobble up, here's a good take on the Sussman trial.
https://www.lawfareblog.com/thoughts...ssmann-verdict

Here's another than goes a bit further in its analysis. Both conclude the case wasn't really about Sussman's alleged lie (the only charged conduct). In trying to prove that the Russia investigation was a witchhunt, Durham/Barr themselves conducted an actual political witchhunt which ultimately again confirmed the validity of the original Russia investigation.
https://sidebarsblog.com/sussman-pro...erdict-durham/

I may have a look at that. Thanks.