User Panel
Quoted: My resolve is beginning to look alot different. The justice system has been a complete failure since Obama became president in my view. So thats 14 years of abuses by this government that have gone unanswered and accounted for. View Quote There is no more equal justice under the law anymore Just do as you please. But don't post about it or talk to anyone about it. Certain don't post pictures of whatever it is you did here or anywhere else. |
|
Quoted: The fix is in. https://thehill.com/opinion/judiciary/3492664-tale-of-two-trials-how-sussmann-is-receiving-every-consideration-denied-to-flynn/ Tale of two trials: How Sussmann is receiving every consideration denied to Flynn B View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted: The fix is in. https://thehill.com/opinion/judiciary/3492664-tale-of-two-trials-how-sussmann-is-receiving-every-consideration-denied-to-flynn/ Tale of two trials: How Sussmann is receiving every consideration denied to Flynn B he criminal trial of Clinton campaign lawyer Michael Sussmann began this week with a telling warning from prosecutors to the D.C. jury: “Whatever your political views might be, they cannot be brought to your decisions.” The opening statement by Deborah Brittain Shaw reflected the curious profile of the Sussmann case. Prosecutors ordinarily have a massive advantage with juries despite the presumption of innocence. When pleas are counted, federal prosecutors can report as high as 95 percent conviction rates. However, with Sussmann, prosecutors clearly have concerns over whether they, rather than the defendant, will get a fair trial. Sussman’s trial for allegedly lying to the FBI is being heard in the same District of Columbia federal courthouse where former Trump national security adviser Michael Flynn and others faced the very same charge brought by another special counsel. The cases, however, could not be more different. Whereas Flynn’s prosecution was a no-holds-barred affair, Sussmann’s prosecution has been undermined by a series of unfavorable rulings by the court. Special prosecutor John Durham still may be able to eke out a conviction, but the difference in the treatment of Trump and Clinton associates is striking. Sussmann is charged under 18 U.S.C. 1001 with lying to the FBI during a meeting with then-FBI general counsel James Baker when he came forward with what he claimed was evidence of possible covert communications between the Trump organization and Alfa, a Russian bank. Sussmann allegedly concealed that he was representing the Clinton campaign, which he billed for his efforts. Shaw told the jury that the FBI “should not be used as a political tool for anyone – not Republicans. Not Democrats. Not anyone.” She then added that the jurors themselves should not use this trial for their own political judgments. 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. To be sure, D.C. voters chose Clinton over Trump in 2016 by a breathtaking margin: 90.9 percent to 4.1 percent. While liberal and Democratic jurors still can be fair and impartial, Judge Cooper has seated a couple jurors who seemed to struggle with the concept of impartiality. The most notable aspect of the trial is what will be missing: context. Durham contends that Sussmann was no rogue lawyer. After the Mueller investigation, Durham’s team revealed information about how people affiliated with the Clinton campaign allegedly funded, developed and spread the false collusion claim. On July 28, 2016, then-CIA Director John Brennan briefed President Obama on Hillary Clinton’s alleged plan to tie Donald Trump to Russia as “a means of distracting the public from her use of a private email server.” Obama reportedly was told how Clinton allegedly approved “a proposal from one of her foreign policy advisers to vilify Donald Trump by stirring up a scandal claiming interference by the Russian security service.” That was three days before the FBI’s collusion investigation was initiated. This appears to have been an all-Washington effort assisted by key figures associated with a liberal think tank, Democratic members of Congress, and allies in the media. However, it was the role of lawyers like Sussmann that attracted Durham’s interest. Durham contends that, in addition to allegedly lying to Baker during their meeting, Sussmann sent a text message to Baker the night before the meeting, reading: “Jim — it’s Michael Sussmann. I have something time-sensitive (and sensitive) I need to discuss. Do you have availability for a short meeting tomorrow? I’m coming on my own — not on behalf of a client or company — want to help the Bureau. Thanks.” Notably, the campaign’s law firm was accused by some journalists of hiding the campaign’s role in financing the infamous Steele dossier, which provided the basis for the collusion story. (The Federal Election Commission recently fined the campaign for using the firm to hide those payments.) The Durham team argued that Sussmann’s alleged lying to the FBI was not just some passing omission but a knowing pattern of deceit. That is why one of the first witnesses expected to be called by the prosecution was Marc Elias, Sussmann’s former law partner and the Clinton campaign’s general counsel. Elias is not charged with any crime, but at least one reporter has claimed Elias denied the campaign’s connection to the Steele dossier. Judge Cooper has stressed that this trial cannot be about the Clinton campaign per se, but the specific lie that was told. He specifically barred Durham from arguing that there was a “joint venture” in deception with the Clinton campaign. The judge sharply limited the evidence that Durham can present which, in the words of Politico, “spares the Clinton campaign and the Democratic National Committee … potential embarrassment.” Without the broader context, the prosecution could sound like a play without a plot — just characters and insular acts. The first witnesses included FBI agents who told the jury that the claims passed along by Sussmann “didn’t make sense” and that the collusion theory was rejected within days of looking at the underlying data. However, Cooper warned that he will keep a tight rein on prosecutors delving into how the underlying data was produced or managed through the campaign. That is not the only blow delivered to the prosecution by the court. The judge refused prosecution access to some evidence and, while allowing access to some emails between the campaign and an opposition-research firm, he barred their introduction at trial due to the late request from the prosecutors. The treatment given to Sussmann is in stark contrast to how Trump associates were treated in this same court. In the Flynn trial, Judge Cooper’s colleague, Judge Emmet Sullivan, conducted a series of bizarre hearings, including one in which he used the courtroom flag as a prop to accuse Flynn of being an “unregistered agent of a foreign country while serving as the national security adviser” and to suggest that Flynn could be charged with treason — crimes not brought against him. Sullivan then declared: “I cannot assure you that if you proceed today, you will not receive a sentence of incarceration. I am not hiding my disgust and my disdain.” Likewise, another judicial colleague, Judge Amy Berman Jackson, refused to grant Trump associate Roger Stone a new trial despite disturbing reports of juror bias. While the judge in Flynn’s case was eager to remove obstacles from the prosecution’s path, the judge in Sussmann’s case seems to have created a virtual obstacle course for Durham. Durham may be able to jump the legal hurdles, but he will do so without much of his evidence. To paraphrase Charles Dickens in “A Tale of Two Cities,” for a prosecutor D.C. can be the best of venues or it can be the worst of venues. This post aged well |
|
Quoted: I'm not implying anything. I'm flat out saying that failing to disqualify jurors wasn't the issue in this case. Having a jury pool in Washington DC had way more to do with it than any individual juror, and an acquittal for a process crime isn't surprising at all. Lying to the FBI shouldn't be a crime, anyway. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted: Quoted: What are you implying? That the jury was not already inclined to acquit Sussman at the beginning of trial? The steady ouput of tv news before the trial says otherwise. This is indeed surprising. Surprising in that a DC jury lacks a good enough conscious and ethical judgement to see the evidence and testimony as nothing less than a guilty verdict for lying. Process crime or not, the dude obviously lied on several accounts. There was a pattern and everything. But because he was a Trump-hating Democrat.....who was pushing Russian disinfo...he gets a pass. |
|
Durham is done. This was nothing but an embarrassing waste of time and money. As usual, nothing happens.
|
|
|
Quoted: This is indeed surprising. Surprising in that a DC jury lacks a good enough conscious and ethical judgement to see the evidence and testimony as nothing less than a guilty verdict for lying. Process crime or not, the dude obviously lied on several accounts. There was a pattern and everything. But because he was a Trump-hating Democrat.....who was pushing Russian disinfo...he gets a pass. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: What are you implying? That the jury was not already inclined to acquit Sussman at the beginning of trial? The steady ouput of tv news before the trial says otherwise. This is indeed surprising. Surprising in that a DC jury lacks a good enough conscious and ethical judgement to see the evidence and testimony as nothing less than a guilty verdict for lying. Process crime or not, the dude obviously lied on several accounts. There was a pattern and everything. But because he was a Trump-hating Democrat.....who was pushing Russian disinfo...he gets a pass. |
|
Quoted: When it was Flynn and Papadapoulous in that chair being accused of process crimes, GD was up in arms about how they didn't actually commit a crime and that it was political persecution. I like consistently held beliefs that don't change when the party of the accused changes. It shouldn't have been a crime for them, and it shouldn't have been a crime for Sussman, no matter how big of a shitbag he was. Feel free to continue the outrage, though. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: What are you implying? That the jury was not already inclined to acquit Sussman at the beginning of trial? The steady ouput of tv news before the trial says otherwise. This is indeed surprising. Surprising in that a DC jury lacks a good enough conscious and ethical judgement to see the evidence and testimony as nothing less than a guilty verdict for lying. Process crime or not, the dude obviously lied on several accounts. There was a pattern and everything. But because he was a Trump-hating Democrat.....who was pushing Russian disinfo...he gets a pass. Papadopoulos and Flynn didn't lie. Sussman contributed to Flynn and PapaD being persecuted by the FFBI. Your inconsitent tyrannical beliefs do change depending on the narrative. The justice system failed and is now a laughing stock, congratulations. |
|
View Quote Congrats on winning your trial! |
|
So, just like many of us said, nothing happened. Least shocking development ever. We have a two tiered justice system and a country that's too comfortable to do the needful until it's too late.
|
|
Quoted: Papadopoulos and Flynn didn't lie. Sussman contributed to Flynn and PapaD being persecuted by the FFBI. Your inconsitent tyrannical beliefs do change depending on the narrative. The justice system failed and is now a laughing stock, congratulations. View Quote |
|
Put your big boy pants on for once:
Let's hear from the people that like the verdict or find it funny. Then tell the class why you think it is funny....that way we get to know you better |
|
Quoted: When it was Flynn and Papadapoulous in that chair being accused of process crimes, GD was up in arms about how they didn't actually commit a crime and that it was political persecution. I like consistently held beliefs that don't change when the party of the accused changes. It shouldn't have been a crime for them, and it shouldn't have been a crime for Sussman, no matter how big of a shitbag he was. Feel free to continue the outrage, though. View Quote Flynn and Papa D didn't go to the FBI and accuse an innocent third party of committing a crime. Sussman did. |
|
Quoted: Flynn and Papa D didn't go to the FBI and accuse an innocent third party of committing a crime. Sussman did. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted: Quoted: When it was Flynn and Papadapoulous in that chair being accused of process crimes, GD was up in arms about how they didn't actually commit a crime and that it was political persecution. I like consistently held beliefs that don't change when the party of the accused changes. It shouldn't have been a crime for them, and it shouldn't have been a crime for Sussman, no matter how big of a shitbag he was. Feel free to continue the outrage, though. Flynn and Papa D didn't go to the FBI and accuse an innocent third party of committing a crime. Sussman did. |
|
Quoted: They were both charged and convicted of something that shouldn't be a crime. Sussman was also charged and acquitted of something that shouldn't be a crime. I'm not tyrannical for believing that lying to the FBI shouldn't be a crime. Thats nonsense. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted: Quoted: Papadopoulos and Flynn didn't lie. Sussman contributed to Flynn and PapaD being persecuted by the FFBI. Your inconsitent tyrannical beliefs do change depending on the narrative. The justice system failed and is now a laughing stock, congratulations. Lying to the fbi is a crime. You cannot make an argument against the charged crime in the aftermath of a verdict that you like. The crime is on the books. It was charged. Not one legislative proposal is seeking to remove it. So stop the nonsense and come out with your agenda. |
|
Quoted: Lying to the fbi is a crime. You cannot make an argument against the charged crime in the aftermath of a verdict that you like. The crime is on the books. It was charged. Not one legislative proposal is seeking to remove it. So stop the nonsense and come out with your agenda. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Papadopoulos and Flynn didn't lie. Sussman contributed to Flynn and PapaD being persecuted by the FFBI. Your inconsitent tyrannical beliefs do change depending on the narrative. The justice system failed and is now a laughing stock, congratulations. Lying to the fbi is a crime. You cannot make an argument against the charged crime in the aftermath of a verdict that you like. The crime is on the books. It was charged. Not one legislative proposal is seeking to remove it. So stop the nonsense and come out with your agenda. |
|
Quoted: My agenda is that I don't think lying to the FBI shouldn't be a crime. Full stop. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Papadopoulos and Flynn didn't lie. Sussman contributed to Flynn and PapaD being persecuted by the FFBI. Your inconsitent tyrannical beliefs do change depending on the narrative. The justice system failed and is now a laughing stock, congratulations. Lying to the fbi is a crime. You cannot make an argument against the charged crime in the aftermath of a verdict that you like. The crime is on the books. It was charged. Not one legislative proposal is seeking to remove it. So stop the nonsense and come out with your agenda. Then open a new thread. This is about Sussman lying to the fbi, which he did. |
|
|
Quoted: And which he didn't get convicted for, which is also what this thread is about. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted: Quoted: Then open a new thread. This is about Sussman lying to the fbi, which he did. It is more about the lie he told. The failure to convict him is the symptom of a corrupt system full of corrupt occupants. |
|
The Sussmann lie was the left hook. The bullshit Piss Dossier was the right cross. Both were lies, manufactured out of whole cloth in attempt to frame, and place into dire legal jeopardy, a US presidential candidate.
The whole thing is fucking staggering in its scope and implications. We are. So. Boned. |
|
|
We all knew this would happen. Its impossible to not have rabid Leftist on the jury in that area.
|
|
Really dark times. I really don't understand how this country is still together.
|
|
|
Judge and the Jury just gave the Left the green light to commit other mortal sins against people they disagree with.
|
|
Quoted: Judge and the Jury just gave the Left the green light to commit other mortal sins against people they disagree with. View Quote Correct, crimes against conservatives or republicans are totally fine as long as they're for the Democrats interest. Imagine if a lawyer working for Trump lied to the FBI and provided fraudulent information framing Biden for crimes. |
|
|
Boy was I wrong.
I thought they would give a token guilty on some bullshit charge to bury it and give some closure. They decided to “go fuck yourself” and call it a day. |
|
How The Case Against Michael Sussmann Fell Apart Thanks to the FBI, with Robert Gouveia |
|
Quoted:
@goneshootin time to update the OP. View Quote |
|
|
|
For millions this verdict is going to be the final confirmation of what stage of empire collapse we're in. For those keeping score, this is the "All citizens are equal, but citizens of Rome are more equal than others" stage.
Gotta love what the jury foreperson had to say on the topic. "There are more important things than lying to the FBI". Of course, this lie was meant to abrogate the ballots of people that don't think like her, so that's perfectly OK. Mandatory, actually. |
|
Quoted: Quoted: How does he win when he is up against a well oiled corrupt machine that has infiltrated everything. Then why bother? Because Attached File |
|
Quoted: For millions this verdict is going to be the final confirmation of what stage of empire collapse we're in. For those keeping score, this is the "All citizens are equal, but citizens of Rome are more equal than others" stage. Gotta love what the jury foreperson had to say on the topic. "There are more important things than lying to the FBI". Of course, this lie was meant to abrogate the ballots of people that don't think like her, so that's perfectly OK. Mandatory, actually. View Quote A consequential lie that sent the FBI on a wild witchhunt for collusion. Lol, that jury and everyone in DC with few exceptions are whackjobs that need every bit of luxury taken from them. |
|
Quoted: Durham is done. This was nothing but an embarrassing waste of time and money. As usual, nothing happens. View Quote Okay, Sussman didn't lie? Then the FBI KNEW he was there representing Hillary? Next logical step, but it won't get taken. Durham is a swap rat like the rest. |
|
Quoted: He was just covering for the FBI and DOJ. Okay, Sussman didn't lie? Then the FBI KNEW he was there representing Hillary? Next logical step, but it won't get taken. Durham is a swap rat like the rest. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted: Quoted: Durham is done. This was nothing but an embarrassing waste of time and money. As usual, nothing happens. Okay, Sussman didn't lie? Then the FBI KNEW he was there representing Hillary? Next logical step, but it won't get taken. Durham is a swap rat like the rest. The FFBI leadership are basically immune from prosecution because they delegated everything and are testifying that they believed and trusted the information was accurate and truthful. Had no reason to believe otherwise. Sussman was a "credible expert" with credentials and knowledge. He may have worked with democrats but his expertise is unquestionable and great. So in other words, your word against theirs and you weren't there. |
|
And today we learn that Sussmann's law firm, the hammer of choice for the DNC, had an FBI workspace, complete with access to FBI databases, right there in the office. Been there for over a decade.
We are. So. Boned. |
|
Quoted: And today we learn that Sussmann's law firm, the hammer of choice for the DNC, had an FBI workspace, complete with access to FBI databases, right there in the office. Been there for over a decade. We are. So. Boned. View Quote Comey, McCabe, Strozk, Page...they were all in on the sedition plot. |
|
Quoted: My resolve is beginning to look alot different. The justice system has been a complete failure since Obama became president in my view. So thats 14 years of abuses by this government that have gone unanswered and accounted for. View Quote |
|
The prosecutor failed to convince the jury that the guy did anything wrong.
The defense attorney secured it with sewing the seeds of reasonable doubt. They can’t dismiss every juror they don’t like. They only get so many strikes and back strikes. They also may have seen worse jurors than the ones they kept. |
|
Quoted: The prosecutor failed to convince the jury that the guy did anything wrong. The defense attorney secured it with sewing the seeds of reasonable doubt. They can’t dismiss every juror they don’t like. They only get so many strikes and back strikes. They also may have seen worse jurors than the ones they kept. View Quote They could’ve petitioned to move the trial. Cited the bias of the venue. Also even Democrat pundits following thec trial said it appeared Sussman was guilty. |
|
Quoted: And today we learn that Sussmann's law firm, the hammer of choice for the DNC, had an FBI workspace, complete with access to FBI databases, right there in the office. Been there for over a decade. We are. So. Boned. View Quote Political protection racket like the Pakistani ISI or the South African SSA… |
|
Quoted: They could've petitioned to move the trial. Cited the bias of the venue. Also even Democrat pundits following thec trial said it appeared Sussman was guilty. View Quote |
|
Quoted: Durham is done. This was nothing but an embarrassing waste of time and money. As usual, nothing happens. View Quote Meh, it’s having an impact, even on traditional leftists who see this kind of corruption as detrimental to the whole system…this was posted yesterday. So... Hillary Was In On It! |
|
Quoted: "DC is full of democrats" isn't a valid reason to ask for a change of venue. There is no court on the planet that would rule in favor of that argument. As far as the verdict, I could see if it was a hung jury that there would be an argument to be made about the jury being tainted, but this was a full acquittal with all 12 jurors letting the guy off. This was jury nullification and the jury foreman pretty much admitted it when they gave an interview. View Quote Lol. Dems “shop” venues constantly, even for indictments. |
|
Quoted: Lol. Dems "shop" venues constantly, even for indictments. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted: Quoted: "DC is full of democrats" isn't a valid reason to ask for a change of venue. There is no court on the planet that would rule in favor of that argument. As far as the verdict, I could see if it was a hung jury that there would be an argument to be made about the jury being tainted, but this was a full acquittal with all 12 jurors letting the guy off. This was jury nullification and the jury foreman pretty much admitted it when they gave an interview. Lol. Dems "shop" venues constantly, even for indictments. |
|
Quoted: The Constitution provides that trials are to be held where the crime is committed. This crime was committed in Washington DC. You get to venue shop when crimes are committed across state lines. View Quote From what I understand, in cases where the court establishes that both the defendant’s right to venue and the defendant’s right to an impartial jury cannot be satisfied and the defendant refuses to waive his right to venue the court can order a change of.venue to satisfy the requirement of an impartial jury. I think in this case the court’s own bias towards the defendant and the justice’s own conflict of interest in the case led them not to care.and to pursue both a biased court and an outcome that favored the defendant instead of what serves justice. |
|
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.