Tale of Two Trials: How Sussmann is Receiving Every Consideration Denied to Flynn

Judge Christopher Cooper
Judge Emmet Sullivan

Below is my column in The Hill on the Sussmann trial and the striking comparisons with prior prosecutions of Trump officials like Michael Flynn.  The court has limited the evidence available to the prosecution, the scope of questioning, and cleared a jury that includes three Clinton campaign donors. A jury of your peers is not supposed to literal with an array of fellow Clinton supporters. Those negative rulings continued during the trial, including a refusal to dismiss a juror whose daughter is playing on the same team with Sussmann’s daughter.  For John Durham, it may seem that the only person missing from the jury at this point is Chelsea Clinton.

Here is the column:

The 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.

Sussmann’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.

Jonathan Turley is the Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at George Washington University. Follow him on Twitter @JonathanTurley.

465 thoughts on “Tale of Two Trials: How Sussmann is Receiving Every Consideration Denied to Flynn”

  1. I didn’t even bother to read today’s piece of Turley tripe because just the headline tipped me off to the fact that it’s just another dodge away from the REAL political stories that matter. More red meat for the disciples, plus an effort to make it look like the Sussman case is important or even relevant. Meanwhile, the Jan. 6th has gotten photos of Trump taken while the insurrection was going on, and they are going to be released. Can you guess what they likely show? Reportedly, Trump is gleeful, smiling, pleased with the show of his power and the adulation of his fans while Capitol Police officers are getting bludgeoned with flag poles and other weaponized objects, the Capitol is being trashed and one of his fans was getting shot.

    1. Jonathan Turkey Esq. Needs to hire a logician to analyze the formal and informal errors of your arguments. They may not bar your comments but expose your sophomoric logic. I’m sure my arguments lack rigor as well but I’m not a partisan and am willing to accept analysis and alter my opinions if my reasoning is faulty.

  2. “ 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.”

    That’s because that evidence was privileged and Turley leaves out the fact that Durham kept missing deadlines for filing for discovery, it wasn’t just “late requests”. They were late because Durham sought evidence way too late in the process when he could have gotten it earlier. It’s just incompetence on his part. That “blow” was Durham’s own self inflicted mistake. Not the judge’s.

  3. You could have written the same article substituting BLM rioters for sussman and 1/6 rioters for Flynn. Seems to be a pattern.

    1. So accurately stated yet so oblivious to the cult jihadists on the left whose will to control the globe with their ideology will allow them the license to destroy our constitution they way the Islamic jihadists destroyed the colossal Buddhas of Bamiyam that represented an alternative ideology than theirs. We are up against a very similar mindset and fanatical force.

  4. “ 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.”

    Turley is a lousy lawyer. If he put in just 1/8 of the amount of work Marcy Wheeler did in keeping up with the case he would understand why the judge limited the evidence Durham could present. Durham is relying on a conspiracy theory of his own making as the basis for his charge. Problem is he has no evidence to present to the court. The proof? It’s in his 27 page long “explanation” of why Sussman is being charged with lying to the FBI. That’s an explanation that is not material to the charge itself. It’s an attempt to use the evidence less conspiracy theory that he’s been relying on to justify his three year long fruitless investigation that resulted in one charge that would just require at least 3 pages instead of 27.

    Turley is just trying to enable Durham’s conspiracy theory and feed it to his gullible gaggle of “fans” so they have something to rage about. Turley is a sad shell of his former self. He’s become an addict of attention rather than a honest legal analyst. He’s more concerned about how many followers he has like a YouTuber desperately begging for subscribers by posting clickbait he calls “ objective legal analysis”.

          1. No sh!t Sherlock.

            Wheeler has as much training to diagnose heart disease as she does to discuss the issues on her website. Fortunately for you, she needs a license to practice medicine. One doesn’t need a license to blog. However, she has good writing skills to write sh!t and make it look good for people who aren’t very discerning. Each time I look at her site, it shows she doesn’t have much training in the sciences where one can learn how to do rigorous analysis.

            She is made for you. Not the brightest crayon in the box, but able to convince people that have no minds of their own.

              1. “Your opening claim is false”

                No sh!t Sherlock is false? Are you missing a screw? Now you want me to tell you what she got wrong? Are you kidding? I’ll tell you what the doctor got wrong. When you were born he dropped you on your head.

                1. Your opening claim about her — “Wheeler has as much training to diagnose heart disease as she does to discuss the issues on her website” — is false.

                  All you have is insults.

                  1. Prove it.

                    I have already gone through several of Wheeler’s posts and you weren’t able to defend her. You can go buy yourself a stethoscope and pretend to be a doctor. See how you do. Wheeler isn’t doing much better.

    1. “Turley is a lousy lawyer. If he put in just 1/8 of the amount of work Marcy Wheeler did in keeping up with the case he would understand why the judge limited the evidence Durham could present.”

      I think by now most on the blog realize how terrible the Dunnin-Kruger effect is.

  5. At least Garland shall never be on the Supreme Court….let him live with that!

    Just as Hillary Clinton shall never be President….and it is eating her Liver because of that.

    Joe Biden is now the worst President ever….and Jimmy Carter is giving thanks to the Almighty!

    Do we see a trend here?

  6. Ha!, as I expected. Turley is laying the groundwork for Fox pundits for paint Durham’s already shoddy investigation as being unfairly adjudicated because of the jury’s alleged political contributions or irrelevant relationships. This is a tacit acknowledgment that Durham’s case IS indeed weak.

    Turley is being deliberately disingenuous with his “analysis” of the two cases. He’s lawyer and supposedly a good one, but he is either being obtuse or just purely partisan. I’m betting on the latter.

    Attacking the jury while ignoring the missteps and flat out incompetence of Durham’s team is simply a deliberate deflection from the simple fact that Durham’s investigation has not produced anything of significance in three years. Michael Flynn WAIVED a jury trial and pled guilty twice. Turley, a lawyer, should know the distinction between the two cases, but he’s deliberately trying to lay blame on the makeup of the jury instead of focusing on Durham’s incompetence which has been pointed out by multiple lawyers who are clearly much more competent than Turley.

    He’s literally setting up his crazy conspiracy theory engorged crowd to start blaming the jury and the judge if Sussman is acquitted.

    1. You act as if the jury has already decided…wonder why?

      Keep posting, you’re clown act makes the left weaker every time you do.

      “…spares the Clinton campaign and the Democratic National Committee … potential embarrassment.” Haha, there is no more potential, it has been realized – clinton and the dnc are borish clowns, thieves, incompetents, and racists. That is really all they are, just look at the pudding. Making morons believe they can make their world better is all they do…and the dem morons fall for it every single time. Oy vey, those morons are suckers, aren’t they.

      1. “ You act as if the jury has already decided…wonder why?”

        That’s what Turley is doing, not I.

        I’m pointing out this straw argument Turley is making as a deflection from Durham’s weak case. He KNOWS it’s a weak case, but doesn’t want to state the obvious. Instead he lays the groundwork for blaming the likely outcome on the judge and jury. Never mind the facts of the case and the rules of the court. He’s a lawyer and he should know better. He’s pandering to the gullibles and conspiracy theory nutties because it gives him the attention that validates his “status” as a “respected” constitutional scholar.

          1. It IS a straw argument. Turley leaves out pertinent facts that are so obvious to those of us who have been following this case for months.

            Durham kept missing deadlines for filing discovery. He wasn’t just late. He repeatedly kept asking for extensions of the deadlines. He was caught trying to alter dates on documents and admonished for it. Turley leaves out a LOT of facts that point to the weakness of Durham’s case against Sussman.

            If his conspiracy theory of that this is about a hoax being pulled on the FBI is true. Why didn’t he charge Sussman with conspiracy instead of lying to the FBI? What every competent lawyer paying attention to this case is saying is because Durham has no evidence to back up his allegations.

  7. It’s pretty obvious that the only thing stopping the dems from doing an out in the open coup are the 1st and 2nd amendments. Just as with their chicanery in swing states, look at what they attack for answers. There is nothing resembling ethics or morals remaining in their ranks, not the tiniest shred, and they seem to have given up even attempting to draft *actual* policy – all they have is fear, intimidation, and an assurance that a portion of their base is so ignorant they’ll sign anything to avoid the heresy of being non-dem. This reminds me more of The Troubles in Ireland than our own Civil War (which wee still ongoing in my lifetime). And incidentally, we used to call that FUD (fear, uncertainty, doubt); it’s something millennial silicon valley has always done as a strategy, and convinces me beyond a doubt those same people are now dem journos and staffers in every institution this has popped ip in. It’s an easy trail to follow.

    1. The projection is nothing short of amazing. The one who attempted a “coup” was Trump. He cheated to get into office, then, after 4 years of failing to win the approval of even half of America, tried to cheat a second time. He started the BIG LIE even before Election Day as a salve to his fragile ego, because polls showed he would lose. He tried to bully and litigate to keep the power he stole but failed. He still won’t shut up or go away, and Republicans are furiously trying everything possible to cheat again: kicking Democrats off of local election boards, gerrymandering furiously to dilute Democratic influence, passing laws calculated to make it harder for likely Democrat voters to vote, to limit mail in ballots, restricting polling locations, and everything else they can think of, because in the Senate they only represent 30% of Americans, but have 50% of the power. This is wrong.

      You say Democrats don’t have any actual policy? What about the Build Back Better project? What about the infrastructure package Biden got passed? What about tax cuts, COVID relief, COVID vaccination that has brought down deaths and serious illness, aid to Ukraine and relief for the baby formula shortage? Democrats are also trying to pass legislation to stop states from denying women the right to choose. What have Republicans done? Nothing, other than refuse to pass any bills proposed by Democrats, complain and project blame onto Biden for the mess Trump left for him to clean up. Biden has healed the wounds Trump caused with our allies and NATO is stronger than ever. Economic growth under Biden has set a record, as has his job creation policies. Unemployment went from 10% to 3.9% in record time. We are still suffering from the supply-chain issues caused by Trump’s incompetence and the trade war he started with China.

      The party without any actual policies are the Republicans, and THEY are the ones peddling fear, intimidation and lies, including the BIG LIE. The party relying on the ignorance of their base is the Republicans, who continue to feed into so many conspiracy theories that it’s hard to list them all here, but the Big Lie just won’t die, even though there have been 38 audits of state election ballots from 2020 that continue to prove Biden won in 2020. Republicans are going to try to cheat again this fall. The only policy I’ve seen is to sunset all legislation, which would include Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid and food stamps that people rely on. Republicans will try to leverage re-authorization at lower benefit levels in exchange for other things they want to shove down the throats of the majority of Americans. Republicans are a clear and present threat to democracy and their party leader is a lying narcissist cheater and loser. VOTE REPUBLICANS OUT IN NOVEMBER–IT’S YOUR PATRIOTIC DUTY.

        1. Bob,
          Have you bought gas lately, or checked your 401k, or gone grocery shopping, or bought a car, used or new? If you have, I’m sure you might have a different slant on the Trumpster. You may have disliked the man but I’m sure you had to enjoy the MAGA policies. Just look at what we have today. I don’t need to repeat it; you and everyone else knows it by heart and wallet.

          1. Narquan, I have checked all the above. Trumps first 3 years were great. Gasoline was reasonable, 401K was making money. Now we are hemorrhaging money. Who the hell can say anything good about this administration!

        2. Maybe if the pig shut up and went away like all former occupants of the White House, you could. But, his malignant narcissism requires him to put his fragile ego ahead of the will of the American people, so he refuses to honor the results of the election, despite 38 audits over 60 lawsuits and an insurrection, and he keeps stirring the pot, pretending that the majority of Americans still want him around.

          1. Why does Barack Obama still have a mansion in Washington DC? Why is he still hanging around DC? He’s got a mansion in Chicago, an estate on Martha’s Vineyard, a mansion in Hawaii. Did I miss any other Obama mansions? Massive Carbon Footprint Obama wants to make the peasants suffer while servants wait on his lame lazy ass. You know what we all say? FJB. And take your puppet master O with you when you go straight to hell.

          2. You are one of the few Americans who actually thinks the country under FJB is heading in the right direction? There really is something wrong with you. Fortunately, 80% of the country sees exactly what FJB is doing. The Dems will be wiped off the face of the earth in November. Good riddance to every last one of them. And the RINOS too!

  8. It could have been worse. Christopher “Casey” Cooper’s attorney wife Amy Jeffress, a former Justice Department lawyer, could have been tied to Eric Holder as his legal advisor, his wife could have legally represented disgraced, law breaking FBI agent Lisa Page, Cooper could have been part of the DOJ, and part of Obama’s advisory presidential transition team, and he could have been nominated by Obama as a Federal Judge for the DC District Court

    Oh wait:

    AUGUST 02, 2013
    Covington’s Casey Cooper Chosen for D.C. District Court
    https://legaltimes.typepad.com/blt/2013/08/covingtons-casey-cooper-chosen-for-dc-district-court.html

      1. Gosh, posters using the same pseudonyms, intentionally causing confusion, You have to be an idiot not the realize that.

      2. Troll, you go by the name anonymous to purposely screw your fellow bloggers and then you complain. You are so predictable.

  9. When reading how this trial is being conducted is there any wonder why there is so much disregard of the law in our nation? Why should any average citizen expect justice when those who are entrusted with administering the law violate the rules they are expected to protect?

  10. Once again, Turley chooses to feed the “age of rage” that he complains about.

    Sussmann chose to have a jury trial and is pleading not guilty; Flynn chose to plead guilty. Of course the two situations are different. Flynn CHOSE not to have a jury trial! Don’t blame anyone except Flynn for that.

    “with Sussmann, prosecutors clearly have concerns over whether they, rather than the defendant, will get a fair trial.”

    That might be because the Durham team has screwed up several times — for example, by not asking the DOJ OIG for Baker’s phone in the OIG’s possession, which Durham had been alerted to in 2018.

    “The judge sharply limited the evidence that Durham can present”

    Yup, and anyone who’s interested can read his reasoning: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/60390583/united-states-v-sussmann/
    He is trying to keep the trial about the actual alleged crime and not everything else that Durham wishes to talk about.

    1. Aninny:

      “Once again, Turley chooses to feed the “age of rage” that he complains about.”
      *********************************
      Yeah, like blowing up an enemy foxhole makes it “bigger.” Love the logic.

      1. Feeding the rage does not get rid of it; feeding it — which Turley does regularly — encourages it.

    2. Have you got a long list of judges that asked for third party briefs in a criminal trial? Sullivan made the request, but never explained why?

      1. Sullivan explained why, and if you actually want to know why, you should read what Sullivan wrote about why he did it.

              1. Pasting that link is part of his incantation to convert all of us to prog minions. He does it daily, sometimes hourly

  11. It was clear beyond a reasonable doubt that Judge Emmitt Sullivan was as corrupted as a Judge could be as the evidence of a fabricated case against Gen Flynn unfolded. His rulings and failure to rule on a motion of dismissal will go down in history as the example of Judicial activism to the high heavens!

    1. MRR:
      “t was clear beyond a reasonable doubt that Judge Emmitt Sullivan was as corrupted as a Judge could be as the evidence of a fabricated case against Gen Flynn unfolded.”
      ****************************
      From some folks I know up there, let’s just go with biased and not the sharpest pencil in the box.

  12. The Turkey article assume that the readers know who all these people like Flynn, Sudsms, etc all were bound to. Did they work for Trump but help Clinton? Bill or Hillary?

  13. Turley said:

    “However, with Sussmann, prosecutors clearly have concerns over whether they, rather than the defendant, will get a fair trial.”

    The *prosecutors* have *concerns*

    Turley is NOT stating that *he* believes that a “not guilty” verdict is a foregone conclusion as the many Trumpists on this blog will claim as they virtue signal their moral superiority.

    Unlike a Trumpist, Turley has an abiding faith in the rule of law and our system of justice. He has NEVER intimated that there is a shadowy “Deep State.”

    1. Turley is NOT stating that *he*…

      Stop your idiocy of putting words if the Prof’s mouth. You are a retard, and have no clue. Turley on the other hand, is a well respected Professor of Constitutional Law. Speaking for himself is what he does best.

      1. Iowan says:

        “Speaking for himself is what he [Turley] does best.”

        That is why I know you respect Turley’s opinion when he disparaged Trump as a “carnival snake charmer” years ago and has not made a complimentary remark about his character since.

        We are in agreement again.

          1. Why don’t you ask Turley whether he was complimenting Trump’s integrity by his snide remark. He also dismissed Trump as an “absurd television reality star” whose proposed participation as a moderator in a presidential debate would be “obscene” and “degrade American politics!”

            Don’t take my word on it. Read it for yourself:

            https://jonathanturley.org/2011/12/09/newsmax-flames-out-trump-debate-down-to-gingrich-and-santorum/

            1. Come on retard, you spend all day telling us what Turely means. Whats the problem with snake charmers?

              1. The truth hurts. That’s why you lash out with the name calling. I pity you. I really do. I hope one day I can call you my friend.

                1. Do your own thinking, stop claiming you have some insight into our hosts opinions. Your repeat the ‘snake charmer’ thing like a smear, I just need you to tell my why? You keep repeating, you own it.
                  Your response continues to inform you know nothing, you have no input, other than that of a no nothing, mindless, are brain damaged troll.
                  Prove me wrong.

                  1. Iowan,

                    You made a boo-boo believing Trump. One day you will realize that Turley was right all along. You’ll get over your infatuation. It’s hard, but you’ll manage, buddy.

  14. When a federal trial judge puts his thumb on the scale of justice, there’s usually a reason that involves a change of venue for him. Let’s see how corrupt the Dins truly are. Like we don’t know, right?

  15. Flynn had the highest levels of the DoJ sabotaging its own case, then got a pardon. That seems like pretty darn good treatment.

    1. Sammy:

      I like your history. You just forgot about the part where the Leftist DOJ trumped up the charge against a military hero in the first place and then coereced him intoa plea by threatening his son. You’re a real Herodotus.

      1. Flynn did what he was accused of. That is not a point of debate. Even JT acknowledged Flynn lied. JTs argument was the lie was minor and not a big deal. Oh, that is a another thing Flynn got easy. Every other person the FBI prosecutes for lying does not get people saying it is ok cause the lie was little or not a problem because the FBI knew the truth already.

        1. Flynn did what he was accused of.
          As a matter of law, there is an argument that since the FBI had a transcript to the call in question, what ever Flynn said, did not hinder the FBI, no harm no foul. There is also a matter of implied/infered meanings and exactly why the FBI leaked the Conversation between Flynn and Pence.

          1. “the FBI leaked the Conversation between Flynn and Pence.”

            Just what conversation between Flynn and Pence are you alleging the FBI leaked?

              1. LOL. The FBI didn’t leak that. Pence and Trump were the ones who announced that Flynn lied to Pence.

                  1. After all this time, you don’t know?

                    Interesting that you ask about Pence even though Trump was told first, by Don McGahn.

  16. Are we surprised that lefty judges are lefties first and judges second?

    We no longer expect impartiality from lefty judges.

    1. Monument says:

      “We no longer expect impartiality from lefty judges.”

      Unlike a Trumpist like you, Turley did NOT accuse the Sussmann judge of being not impartial. He simply reported that- in his opinion- the rulings were unfavorable to the prosecution, BUT Turley categorically did NOT state that he believed the judge was acting in bad faith. All judges render rulings which will disappoint one side or the other- that is the nature of the adversary system.

      It takes a paranoid and resentful Trumpist to play the victim card and insinuate that the trial is RIGGED.

      1. JS:

        You leave a juror on who will only “try” to be impartial next to one whose kid is on the defendant’s daughter’s rowing team. That’s partial with a capital “D.” Daniel Webster got a better jury in Hell.

        1. You have reason to believe that the judge is biased or are you just pulling this out of your a$$?

          You are presuming that the jury will not abide their sworn oaths to be impartial?

          Have you already decided the trial is rigged and will not accept a “not guilty” verdict?

          1. Jeff,

            “ Have you already decided the trial is rigged and will not accept a “not guilty” verdict?”

            Turley made that decision for him already. That’s why he put out this column. Because it will be used as an excuse to deflect from Durham’s poor case against Sussman. Remember Durham is under pressure to produce something significant from his three year investigation that has produced anything of value.

            1. Svelaz,

              We can’t know Turley’s actual motivation until he is asked to explain the rhetorical gulf between what he says and what his followers ascribe to him saying. Why does he allow it to exist? Why doesn’t he disassociate himself from the false narratives?

    2. Are we surprised that lefty judges are lefties first and judges second?

      Garland lifted that veil. He is more political than any AG min memory. That includes Holder, and Lynch. Maybe its because he just doesn’t care that people know how corrupt he is.

    3. Are we surprised that righty judges like Alito, who is a member of the same Catholic extremist organization Robert Hanssen was recruited by the GRU from, or Clarence Thomas, also a member and who is also married to an evangelical activist/insane person are righties first and judges second?

      No one expects impartiality from right-wingers.

      1. No one expects impartiality from right-wingers.

        You went a long way, and yet never identified anything wrong with the opinions of Alito, or Thomas

        Just the ad hominem attacks by those with nothing to offer.

      2. What in Alito’s opinion wasn’t impartial?

        You have been listening to yourself too much.

Leave a Reply to J G Gordon Cancel reply