I ‘think’ probably 80-90% of us called this one…
Democratic lawyer Michael Sussmann was found not guilty Tuesday on the false statements charge of concealing his representation of Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign from the FBI when he pushed since-debunked Trump-Russia claims to the bureau in 2016.
The verdict is a significant loss for John Durham’s investigation, with the special counsel losing the first case that he has brought to trial.
Full article, HERE from the Washington Examiner.
Having to take a case to trial in DC is almost guaranteed to result in a not guilty verdict if the perp is a democrat, and a guilty verdict if the perp is a republican…
Why? Because DC is 90% or better hard core democrat. There is no way in hell the jury isn’t biased from the git go!
In other news, Xiden once again demonstrated that he doesn’t know jack about actual weapons…
President Joe Biden said a 9mm bullet “blows the lung out of the body” while discussing options on gun legislation on Monday, prompting some to suggest he was calling for handguns to be banned.
Full article with video, HERE from Newsweek.
And he flat out lied at the Naval Academy graduation about how he didn’t accept a nomination to the Academy in 1965 because he didn’t want to compete with Staubach for ‘athletic glory’. And he did the ‘whisper’ thing again, this time whispering that he was their ‘Commander in Chief’…
Full article HERE with video from the NY Post.
How much longer will it be before they lock him up in the White House and don’t let him say ANYTHING in public? Everything he says gets walked back by ‘White House’ or ‘Administration’ personnel.
My question is, WHO are those personnel that make those retractions AND are making those decisions for the direction of the country???
Re Sussman. Not that I think he is a good guy but lying to the Feds simply should not be a crime. They are absolutely free to lie to you, in fact it is viewed as good investigative technique.
While I prefer telling someone to simply pound sand or the famous “no comment”, if I am asked a question they have no right to an answer to a lie should be not only expected but perfectly legal. Who is you client? Luke Skywalker etc, etc.
How about perjury? Fraud?
So you can start a media campaign against your opponent backed by the force of federal law enforcement and Congressional oversight on lies and distortions without any consequences. Brillant!
Bet all those Midshippersons will go on as commissioned officers with full confidence in their CinC – NOT.
Isn’t it about time that we the people let the swamp dwellers know that we are out of patience with their constant lying about virtually EVERYTHING! The FBI lies, The politicians lie, the cops lie, the news media lie constantly and the elections are corrupt. If we are not being lied to, we are treated to cover ups of their incompetence / corruption. Everywhere we look we see misdirection, lying, coverups, corruption. Meanwhile, they are maliciously working to disarm us so we cannot resist their nefarious agenda.
Soap box is ignored, ballot box was stolen, and now the jury box has proven inadequate to rein in the overeach of the .gov.
The fuel is piled and oiled, but I can not yet imagine what the spark will be.
I look at Canada as a WEF test bed for how much physical oppression a formerly first world nation will accept, without undrrstanding that Americans are different. Not all of them, unfortunately, but far more than “enough”.
John in Indy
Bayou Renaissance Man reports on a Tucker Carlson interview with Rep. Mat Gaetz. Mat Gaetz and Jim Jordan found that Perkins Coie, the Democrat Party’s lawfirm, has a “secure workspace” with access to the FBI databases. Sussman ran that “workspace”. This occurred under Obama from all indications after the IRS got caught out being a wing of the Democrat Party. Now the FBI/DOJ is just part of the Democrat Party.
The FBI from the lowest employee to the Director and hence the Attorney General along with the DOJ are untrustworthy.
Rich- You DO have a point…
Gerry- Apparently… sigh
WSF- Snort
Roger/John- Good points… And Canada (Fidel Jr.) is apparently ‘freezing’ all gun buying.
Bill- Again not surprised…
Don’t know who is pulling the Biden’s strings but I’m certain they call themselves “The Central Committee.”
Wasn’t surprised by the verdict – the words “jury nullification” were being said days ago.
Who is making the decisions? Whom in the peverse morass that deecee became 40 odd years ago does not have their fingers in the influence soup. Rhetorical thought, we all know the answer, everyone does to some extent. Great or small is a minor consideration, corruption has bitten all of them on the ass and poisoned their brains.
Stretch- Possible…
PH- Yep!
Grog- Damned good question, and yes, they are corrupt!
Not the jury nullification case we wanted.
Re: Slussman trial
lots of silly games, generally, being played by lawyers thinking that they are very clever
ignoring that the formal legal system is competing with vigilantism, and has certain minimum requirements to meet in terms of being perceived as justly deciding disputes, and not giving violent felons an entirely free range
Jurors were not acting as lawyers here. However, they did act with a overconfident stupidity that is similar in misunderstanding the consequences of their choices. Or at least, so I have been led to believe. If the allegations about public statements made by jurors are truthful, then the jurors included some very stupid people. It is possible that evidence presented in court (which I am not familiar with) could have been persuasive in favor of not guilty. If so, as a juror the smart move early on is shutting up.
I understand that very many people now are under a lot of stress, and are a bit crazy. I understand that a jurors understanding of broader current events is, almost necessarily, going to be very different from my own.
If you make statemetns about controversial issues in public, under your own name, right now the smart move is to stick pretty strictly to evidence and provably self evident things. We have pretty profound separations in mental universes, and this is blatantly obvious. How an emotional appeal appears in one’s own universe is not going to have any bearing on how it plays in the other universe. Any situation that needs to persuade both people working off of one universe, and working off of the other universe, is going to be massively screwed over by careless statements. If a juror wants their results to be seen as binding, and they did the procedure justly, shutting up is the smart default move. Only for a blatantly unjust procedure does flapping one’s gums right off the bat make any sense. The inherent stupidity there is that a juror may not be enough of a professional liar to do an effective job of persuading people to treat the result more credibly. If you screw up the lying task, you make it less credible.