The acquittal of Clinton campaign lawyer Michael Sussmann has been the subject of furious debate among politicians and pundits. Some have argued that the case collapsed from lack of evidence while others have alleged that prosecutors faced as biased judge and jury. For his part, Sussmann claimed that the jury found that “I told the truth.” The truth is more complex and few would assume that the verdict was based on Sussmann’s veracity. However, a statement from a juror immediately after the verdict fueled speculation of the impact of juror bias. According to the Washington Times’ Jeff Mordock, the juror reportedly said “I don’t think it should have been prosecuted. There are bigger things that affect the nation than a possible lie to the FBI.” If that statement had been made during voir dire, it is likely that the juror would have been challenged.
Before the verdict, some of us noted the adverse elements for the prosecution. Few would honestly question that trying a Clinton campaign lawyer in a city that voted over 90 percent for Clinton was not an advantage for the defense. The same is true for some cases tried in conservative areas. In this case, prosecutors challenged some jurors but were overruled by Judge Christopher Cooper. I believe that the court was wrong on a couple of those rulings. In the end, the prosecution was faced with a jury that contained three Clinton donors, an AOC donor, and a woman whose daughter played on the same team as Sussmann’s daughter. As I previously said, that does not mean that the jurors could not be impartial.
The prosecutors were also hit with a series of adverse rulings by the judge that limited the scope of evidence and examinations. That denied the prosecution the ability to show how the campaign knowingly pushed unsupported claims.
Nevertheless, I noted at the outset that “this is not an easy case to prove.” There was overwhelming evidence, in my view, that Sussmann lied to conceal his work with the Clinton campaign. Yet, the defense did a good job in attacking elements like materiality in how the allegedly false statement impacted the FBI.
The juror statement is not something that is likely to be raised with the court. The juror could have still rendered an unbiased decision despite viewing the prosecution as much to do about nothing. If such a statement were made during voir dire, it would have been viewed as more serious as a preexisting view that could impact the impartiality of the juror.
In the end, there is no proof of actual juror nullification. While the evidence of lying seems overwhelming to some of us, there were interstitial questions on how the lying impacted the investigation. Yet, I believe that the court undermined the prosecution in a number of its rulings. Moreover, there is a legitimate concern over how this trial was handled as opposed to the trial of figures like Michael Flynn in the same courthouse.
The more important issue following this verdict is whether Special Counsel John Durham will be allowed to release a public report on his overall findings. Democrats previously demanded such a report from Special Counsel Robert Mueller. Some even demanded the release without redactions, including grand jury material. In the end, a report was released with a comparably small number of redactions. The same should be true with Durham. This trial resulted in the release of new information, but it is clear that Durham was strictly limited in what he could reveal at trial. The public has a legitimate interest in a full account of these findings, as it did after the Mueller investigation.
Tell that to General Flynn, who had to plead guilty even though the FBI agents did not actually believe he’d lied to them.
If there wasn’t a double standard, the Left would have no standards at all.
How can Republicans possibly get a fair trial and justice with a jury comprised of a poll that votes over 90% Democrat? How could a juror who was a Clinton donor be impartial in a case about Hillary Clinton’s infamous Russia hoax against Donald Trump?
They did not *initially* believe that he’d lied to them. They became convinced that he’d lied to them after they gathered more evidence, includes text messages.
Apparently you cannot deal with the fact that people sometimes change their minds after seeing additional evidence.
Would you also have persisted in believing that the Sun revolves around the Earth, or would you have changed your mind in light of new evidence?
I make no bones about it. I am a staunch Conservative. A former LEO and I have sat on a criminal jury. In the latter, I knew in my heart the defendant was guilty. The state just could not prove their case and I strongly suspected the lead officer lied through his teeth about one critical action that he failed to take. I supported a verdict of not guilty and later talking to the prosecutor my suspicions were correct, the defendant was an habitual offender but I put aside my own predjudice to find him not guilty because I have strong belief that it is up to the Government to prove guilt. Having said this you wirte and I quote,”… and a woman whose daughter played on the same team as Sussmann’s daughter. As I previously said, that does not mean that the jurors could not be impartial” Professor I must disagree with you. I find your analysis on most issues compelling even when I disagree. I think you play it impartial better than anyone even when we both know your true beliefs. For that I commend you. Yet, when three Hillary donors, one AOC donor and one person whose kid plays with the defendant, and knowing this is D.C and that this would be looked at as political, there is no way the jury would be impartial an neither was the judge. No conservative that I know of has ever been aquitted in a Federal Trial in D.C. The jury in the Scotter Libby trial had no issue with a lie to the FBI. They had no issue with Roger Stone lying, and they will convict Bannon and Navarro if those cases procede to trial. Eric Holder was never even indicted, neither was Bill Clinton for perjury in a Federal Civil trial…yet the government does not hesitate to prosecute any Conservative or associate of the Republicans for the slimest of process charges. Sandy Berger who stole classified documents plead to a misdmeanor and was only given a fine and probation, with no jail time. There are two teirs of justice, one for the ruling class of the liberal establishment and one for the rest of us. Please wake up, smell the coffee and admit that fair trials when they involve politicians have biased juries that will convict the ones from the other party that D.C is not kind too and aquit the left.
Wrong Turley, this was easily proved. We have a problem when DC is the only venue a case cn be brought in, his PEERS should be all of the USA, Not just DC voters. As per Navarro, the Jan. 6 Committee is nit a legal committee since the Republican Leader was not allowed to place people of his choice on the committee. Maybe you need to start calling out the FBI/DOJ/Courts and call out what they are truly, and you know this, they are punk hacks who are using MOB TACTICS.
In order to ban any arms, the U.S. Constitution must be amended by due process pursuant to the U.S. Constitution.
The President is provided no power by the U.S. Constitution to ban arms, or to arbitrarily and unilaterally repeal the 19th Amendment.
The Congress is provided no power by the U.S. Constitution to ban arms, or to arbitrarily and unilaterally repeal the 19th Amendment.
By attempting to ban arms, Joe Biden is inciting to general subversion, gross and egregious usurpation, sedition, rebellion, treason and other crimes of high office, and, pursuant to fundamental law, he shall be impeached and convicted.
Any ban on arms, by any means other than the amendment process prescribed by the U.S. Constitution, must be immediately struck down by the Supreme Court.
In the event of the failure of the Supreme Court to immediately strike down any and all illicit and unconstitutional means and methods of banning arms by the President and/or Congress, all dissenting Justices must be impeached and convicted for aiding and abetting a direct and mortal enemy of the United States, and for acting as accomplices and co-conspirators to general subversion, gross and egregious usurpation, sedition, rebellion, treason and other crimes of high office.
“By attempting to ban arms, Joe Biden is inciting to general subversion, gross and egregious usurpation, sedition, rebellion, treason and other crimes of high office, and, pursuant to fundamental law, he shall be impeached and convicted.”
LOL!!!!!
Biden is giving his gun speech, going full Beto. Annie, get your guns. If you have not yet armed yourself against the governmental tyranny to come, do it now ladies and gentlemen. Look to Canada to see what’s coming in America.
Oh, and yep, Joe could not do a speech without needlessly invoking his son Beau.
FJB. It cannot be said often enough.
President Unity smears Republicans as he is calling for his “unity agenda” to be worked out with bipartisan support. (FJB)
Any Republican lawmaker who compromises, capitulates and gives in to this gun grab effort will be destroyed politically. Talking to you McConnell.
Allow me to offer a little list…, Lindsey Graham, Linda Murkowski… Susan Collins, Dic…. I mean”Liz” Cheney then that butt was MITTENS ROMNEY…
“I respect the culture, tradition, the concerns of lawful gun owners,” says Joe Biden days after he said there was no reason to own an AR-15 except to kill people. (FJB)
says Joe Biden days after he said there was no reason to own an AR-15 except to kill people.
Yea….there’s 15 million Component rifles in the US. If all the can do, is killing people, they are doing a piss poor job of it.
History shows no example of a man both free and unarmed. FJB!
Ah, the essence.
Hear, hear!
When will Russia promise not to hit Ukraine with their own missiles? I mean, Russia might escalate the war. God forbid that should happen.
If Putin is breaking the law, then effort should be expended to stop him, just as any other criminal is stopped, just as police would expend effort to stop any other kind of criminal.
Police in his own country must stop him.
Sorry JT but you are bending over backwards to cover for what most of us knew was going to be a biased jury.
It is near Certain that Sussman would have been convicted by a conservative Jury – and in fact near certain he would be convicted by any impartial jury.
Materiality was NOT difficult. It was Self evident.
The Jurrors, to some extent the prosecutors, the Judge and those on the left confuse materiality with the question of whether the FBI Beleived Sussman.
That confustion is understandable as NORMALLY when LAw Enfforcement does not beleive someone making an allegation they eiher:
Drop the investigation,
or oinvestigate the person making the allegation.
But what happened in 2016 was Far from NORMAL.
Just as this Jury was hopelessly politically biased, so was the FBI.
Just to be clear the bias (in the jury and the FBI) was not inherently anti-republican bias – or even pro- democrat, it was not even pro-Hillary biases – though in some form all of those existed to a disturbing extent.
The BIAS was anti-trump bias.
To be clear – as a private citizen you are free to be as biased as you want.
You are NOT as an actor within the Federal Government.
I do not think the FBI believed Sussman when he lied to them – though there is some debate as to when they established that.
Nor do I think they cared that he lied to them.
There are TWO reasons the LIE is inarguably material. the first is that whether they beleived Sussman’s Lie or not – they NEEDED Sussman to Lie. If he had told the truth the investigation would have died either immediately or shortly after it started. The FBI may not have Beleived Sussman – but the ACTED as if he was telling the truth – hence the lie is material.
The 2nd reason is that A lie for the purposes of causing the investigation of another person is ALWAYS material. Doubly so if it succeeds.
I have argued that Sussman should have been charged with filing a false complaint.
The standard of proof for that is more difficult – it is self evident that Sussman lied to the FBI. It is also evident that he made a false complaint, but it takes more evidence to prove a false complaint than the garden variety lie Sussman told.
This jury verdict is inarguably “jury nullification” – and I fully support jury nullification. But it is also evidence that democrats in this country right down to ordinary people are politically corrupt.
And that is both bad and very dangerous.
This verdict is extremely daangerous. It is my hope that a GOP tsunami in November will satisfy the building and legitimate anger on the right at the growing lawlessness of the left and worse of our institutions.
The legitimate anger of a significant portion of ordinary people at the lawlessness of govenrment is very very dangerous.
Left wing nuts here – and to a lessor extent Turley rant about J6.
But there is growing evidence of massive ballot harvesting in 2020. There has also been substnatial evidence of other frauds too.
This was all enabled by the lawlessness of our state governments, and by the courts before and after.
At one point 56% of people polled beleived the election was stolen.
What is the legitimate response of the people to a stolen election ? What is the legitimate response when government enabled that through lawlessness ? What is the legitiamte response when the courts refuse to conduct meaningful inquiry ?
IF you do not beleive any of that actually occured – that does not change the fact that very very many people do – with much better reason than you are willing to credit them
This Jury verdict is a loud and clear message to much of the country – democrats can not be trusted to do justice, they can not be trusted to follow the law.
The fact that this juror actually thinks that a LIE to the FBI that resulted in this country tearing itself apart over the LIE that our president might be a Russian plant makes this one of the most importat cases a jury could have to decide.
And this jury not only failed – this juries message to the country is – go away Yokels, by hook or crook we are in power, we will protect our own and there is no chance you will get justice from us. We loath you and do not give a $hit if you are right.
Everyone should be praying for a republican Tsunami in 2022.
The left has been raising the stakes over and over. They are moving us towards the point were they will not cede whatever power they get short of being destroyed.
John B. Say,
It’s pretty obvious that you have a very poor understanding of the legal system. Your claims that Sussman provided a false report are even worse. As always you are making arguments that rely on the absence of evidence as evidence.
Sussman’s “lie” was not material simply because he was giving information to the FBI. Whether he worked for the Clinton campaign or not was irrelevant to the information he was giving to the FBI. He was just giving the FBI a heads up on some data that he thought was pertinent to the trump organization’s close ties to Russian interests.
It was entirely predictable that you would blame the jury, and judge for the obvious outcome of a weak case.
Durham’s case was so weak even Turley knew it was not going to succeed.
The right has been engulfed in the pursuit of multiple self sustaining conspiracy theories devoid of evidence as relying on them to support biased opinions detached from reality.
You are just plain wrong and you’re in denial.
Hey, Svelaz – keep gaslighting, Democrat troll.
You missed your ride with the circus. It already left town.
Lets try this from 10,000 feet.
A hoax was delivered to the FBI as if it was a credible allegation of a crime.
The result of that Hoax was years of criminial investigations of people who had not committed a crime,
some of which were convicted by DC judges and juries for crimes that never happened.
Are you actually going to try to argue that foisting a hoax on law enforcement to trigger an investigation into innocent people is not criminal ?
If I call the FBI and tell them you are a pedophile and are distributing child pornography over the internet
Is that OK with you ? Is it OK if they tear your life apart, cause you to spend a fortune defending yourself – and possibly even end up in jail – because you misremembered something ?
Hopefully we can agree that knowingly false reports to law enforcement are SERIOUS crimes.
Hopefully we can agree that when you make up a criminal complaint – when you mangle data to make it appear to mea something different than it does.
When you gather gossip and rumors together into a dossier – with no direct sources at all and present it as evidence of a crime
That these are all hoaxes and that they are FALSE REPORTS, and that the are Crimes.
That leaves but one question ?
What is Sussman’s personal criminal culpability in what OBVIOUSLY is criminal conduct.
Are you saying that if some overarching evil mastermind – say “hillary” directs minions each of which knowsd only a peace of the full story
i.e that you chop a crime up into small peices that you can pretend that none of the people involved in the crime is guilty – because they did not know the whole story ?
Are you saying that Hillary committed the perfect crime ?
Because Svelaz – there is ZERO doubt at all that a crime was committed here.
What was sold to the FBI as evidence was manufactured – it was Fraud. And that evidence resulted in a massive criminal investigation that wrecked many peoples lives and damaged those of much of the country to one extent or another.
Somehow in left wing nut world – Trump asking Zelensky to investigate the Biden syndicate – based on copious REAL evidence – that was good enough at th time but has only grown – that is a crime.
But MAKING UP a crime that never happened, selling it to the FBI and subsequently the Special Counsel – that is OK with you ?
Sorry you are an incredible hypocrite.
If you wish to arguee that Sussman did not commit this crime – I am fully prepared to listen to what you have to say WHEN you can tell me who did.
The Crime is self evident – we have the body, The only question is who is the killer.
For the umpteenth time, John, Sussmann did not allege that a crime had occurred.
You can repeat that until you are blue in the face, but you are OBVOUSLY wrong.
The FBI would not have met with him if he was not offering evidence of an alleged crime.
They would not have opened an investigation without evidence of an alleged crime,
The FBI is a LAW ENFORCEMENT agency – they do not meet with high powered attorney’s to discuss the color of paint.
It is idiotic arguments like this that lead to Sussman’s acquital and to the conviction of Stone for crimes that Mueller said never happened.
Sussman did not meet with the FBI for Dinner and a movie.
(OT)
The House Jan. 6 Select Committee will hold a public hearing next Thurs., June 9, at 8 pm:
https://twitter.com/nycsouthpaw/status/1532481083635294235/photo/1
It has been reported that conservative Republican stalwart Judge Michael Luttig is expected to testify:
“Luttig, who served on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, was a key behind-the-scenes figure in the lead up to Jan. 6. He furnished Pence with the legal argument the vice president used to publicly reject Trump’s unconstitutional order to overturn President Biden’s victory.”
https://www.axios.com/2022/06/02/january-6-public-hearings-witness-luttig
While Trumpists reflexively will dismiss Luttig as a RINO, Turley cannot and will not because he long ago recognized his unimpeachable Conservative credentials to be a Supreme Court pick for Bush:
“The people who should be most aggrieved on this are conservatives. The president walked by intellectual leaders on the right — Michael Luttig, Michael McConnell, Harvie Wilkinson — people who were considered the bright stars of the conservative right — and basically picked his personal attorney,” Turley noted.”
https://www.nbcnews.com/id/wbna9578821
Turley will acknowledge that he respects Luttig and his good faith arguments despite the cries from his Fox colleagues calling Luttig a “NeverTrumper”! These hearings are going to put Turley on the spot.
Luttig would be a good witness.
But they should also call Pence to testify.
They should also call Trump to testify.
Has anyone noticed?
The government in Washington, D.C., is crazy.
If you let crazy people vote,
you end up with a crazy government.
_____________________________
“This is not a democracy. Everybody doesn’t get to do what they want to do. Everybody doesn’t get to do what they feel like doing.”
– Nick Saban
__________
“[We gave you] a [restricted-vote] republic, if you can keep it.”
– Ben Franklin
I’ve noticed that you project your own craziness onto others.
“Crazy” like Constitution crazy?
Oh, and the “others” are parasitic dictatorial communists (liberals, progressives, socialists, democrats, RINOs) in sheep’s clothing.
______________________________________________________________________________________________________
“The goal of Socialism is Communism.”
– Vladimir Ilyich Lenin
“People have done, I think, a very good job trying to develop this case in the face of very strong headwinds,” Barr said. “And part of this operation is to try to get the real story out. And I have said from the beginning, you know, if we can get convictions, if they are achievable, then John Durham will achieve them. But the other aspect of this is to get the story out. And I think the Danchenko prosecution is going to further amplify these themes and the role that the FBI leadership played in this, which is increasingly looking fishy and explicable.”
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/justice/barr-says-durham-accomplished-something-far-more-important-than-sussmann-conviction
Olly deliberately omitted this countervailing fact in this article:
“Justice Department Inspector General Michael Horowitz determined there was sufficient cause for the FBI’s counterintelligence investigation into the Trump campaign. But both Barr and Durham publicly disagreed with that conclusion in late 2019.”
Caught him red-handed. Nice try!
🤣 I deliberately omitted more than that. That’s why I provided the link. But hey, you go with Horrowitz and I’ll go with Durham and Barr.
You are on! Care to make it interesting? Paul will hold our wager.
You need to review the work, the fine art, of the screenwriters of the “Warren Report,” late of the Warren Commission.
Playwrights at their finest; possibly the finest script since Shakespeare.
Nothing gets “the story” out better than convictions.
But there is more at stake and more that we have lost in the Sussman mess than that.
I mostly do not fault Durham – at worst he beleived it was possible to overcome the immense political bias of a DC jury.
He was wrong.
But we have the worst political scandal in US history. We have the presidential candidate and leader of one party using the FBI and the press to spread a HOAX about an opposing candidate and then on losing using that hoax to spawn a criminal investigation that subject thousands of completely innocent people to the threatening power of federal law enforcement.
This is FAR FAR FAR worse than Watergate, it is worse than Iran Contra, it is worse than Monica Lewinsky, It is worse than the worst claims against Clinton,
It is worse than Richard Jewel, it is worse than the Anthrax letters, it is worse that The Nigerian Yellow Cake.
We had the power of DOJ, the FBI, the Special Counsel and the american Press all used to attempt to destroy innocent people all restin on a couple of HOAXES.
I am not aware of anything like that EVER in the US
People – not just Sussman, but the top brass in the FBI should be jailed or barred from ever seriving in public office again.
They should all be pariah’s They should all be treated the way the LEft wishes they could treat Trump.
The congressmen and senators – of either party that bough this nonsense – shouldnever serve as dog catcher again.
Our federal agencies should be purged of everyone who merely Bought this garbage but certainly everyone with the smallest role in it.
And the DC jury has done a disservice to all of us.
They have saved Sussman’s hide – at the expense of increasing the possibility of political violence.
Worse still they move us one step closer to political violence being JUSTIFIED.
Read the declartion of independence.
“Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.”
We are on step closer to justified political violence.
NATO is to blame for the destruction of Ukraine for not letting Ukraine join NATO due to corruption. Did Ukrainians deserve to have their country destroyed just because of a little corruption?
Russian Mafia Don Operated Just 3 Floors Below Trump’s Penthouse
And ‘Yes’, Trump Knew Him
There, indeed, was an FBI wiretap involving Russians at Trump Tower. But it was not placed at the behest of Barack Obama, and the target was not the Trump campaign of 2016. For two years ending in 2013, the FBI had a court-approved warrant to eavesdrop on a sophisticated Russian organized crime money-laundering network that operated out of unit 63A in Trump Tower in New York.
The FBI investigation led to a federal grand jury indictment of more than 30 people, including one of the world’s most notorious Russian mafia bosses, Alimzhan Tokhtakhounov. Known as the “Little Taiwanese,” he was the only target to slip away, and he remains a fugitive from American justice.
Seven months after the April 2013 indictment and after Interpol issued a red notice for Tokhtakhounov, he appeared near Donald Trump in the VIP section of the Miss Universe pageant in Moscow. Trump had sold the Russian rights for Miss Universe to a billionaire Russian shopping mall developer.
“He is a major player,” said Mike Gaeta, the agent who led the 2013 FBI investigation of Tokhtakhounov and his alleged mafia money-laundering and gambling ring, in a 2014 interview with ABC News. “He is prominent. He has extremely good connections in the business world as well as the criminal world, overseas, in Russia, Ukraine, Uzbekistan, other countries.”
Gaeta, who ran the FBI’s Eurasian organized crime unit in New York, told ABC News at the time that federal agents were closely tracking Tokhtakhounov, whose Russian ring was suspected of moving more than $50 million in illegal money into the United States.
“Because of his status, we have kept tabs on his activities and particularly as his activities truly enter New York City,” Gaeta said. “Their money was ultimately laundered from Russia, Ukraine and other locations through Cyprus banks and shell companies based in Cyprus and then ultimately here to the United States.”
The FBI investigation did not implicate Trump. But Trump Tower was under close watch. Some of the Russian mafia figures worked out of unit 63A in the iconic skyscraper — just three floors below Trump’s penthouse residence — running what prosecutors called an “international money-laundering, sports gambling and extortion ring.”
The Trump building was home to one of the top men in the alleged ring, Vadim Trincher, who pleaded guilty to racketeering and received a five-year prison term. He is due to be released in July.
Edited From:
https://abcnews.go.com/US/story-fbi-wiretap-russians-trump-tower/story?id=46266198
“There are bigger things…than a possible lie to the FBI”.
Yeah, tell that to Judge Sullivan and Director Wray. The “justice” system is corrupt.
It’s looking like Durham sank the ship intentionally. Otherwise, why argue the FBI was duped? The premier investigative agency was duped? Why give the FBI even a smidgen of benefit of the doubt when they were in on it!? The media were in on it.
Because: The Swamp Protects Itself.
The FBI’s reputation is now sealed as the Secret Police, the Stasi, the Gestapo — whatever you want to call them, they are not a “premier investigative agency” –if they ever were. The veils have been lifted. Everyone in this country should fear the FBI and no one should say one word to the FBI if they come knocking on your door. Not one word without a lawyer. The FBI are not “the good guys.” The Garland DOJ should be feared. There is no “justice” being done under this regime.
It’s so convenient to now say it was a DC jury that decided to aquit based on the evidence presented. Bullsh*t. The fix was in from top to bottom. Corrupt system to the core. Justice is swift in only one direction. And we all know what direction that is.
Zero accountability. Liars one and all. When is the last time someone guilty as hell paid a price of even losing their goddam government pension? Even McCabe got his back. Book deals for everyone. Cable gigs, too.
Anyone who votes for Democrats to make Government bigger and even more powerful over us than it already is, needs to wake up and Walk Away.
Republicans are part of the corrupt system of The Swamp too, but at least they lean in the direction of more freedom and sovereignty for the individual. Republicans by and large favor giving more power to the people than the government. I’ll vote every time for the side that values personal liberty over government tyranny and control. The Democrat plantation is real. It’s all they have left. Get off it now, while you still can.
You are a starry-eyed disciple. Republicans sold their soul of conservatism when they sided with the fat election cheater and supported the Big Lie because they know they continue to lose support among the American people and think that supporting the election cheater will at least guarantee votes from the disciples. “More power to the people”? How about “the people” being free to choose who will serve as our Chief Executive, and not someone who colluded with a hostile foreign power to get Electoral College votes when every poll predicted he would lose? How about “the people” being free of lies about an election being “stolen” when it wasn’t and when 38 audits and over 60 lawsuits and certification by 50 Secretaries of State prove it wasn’t stolen? How about “the people” having every opportunity to vote without being harassed and intimidated by the ReTrumplicans who, according to yesterday’s revelations, will have what they call “poll watchers” (really voter harassers) at Michigan precincts that are predominately black and predominately vote Democratic, to challenge and invalidate as many votes as possible? They claim they will have partisan attorneys and judges there to back up challenges to votes so they won’t get counted. How about “the people” being helped to vote by extended early voting, voting by mail and steps taken to reduce long lines at the polls, instead of ReTrumplicans, where they hold power, cutting polling locations, cutting hours, curtailing early and mail voting, criminalizing handing out of water and snacks to people standing in lines for hours to vote? How about “the people” being reassured that there is bipartisan representation at every polling location, and on local election boards, so ReTrumplicans won’t play games with ballots, won’t try to disqualify Democratic voters or find other reasons to help ReTrumplcians cheat? What represents “personal liberty” more than the right to cast a ballot in a free and fair election? Republicans are so hungry for power that they’ll do anything and everything to cheat their way into office, and they’re trying to insert people who WOULD “find” votes like Trump tried to do with Raffensberger in Georgia. American democracy itself is on the ballot in November. The Republican Party will NOT denounce the Big Lie, even though they KNOW it’s a lie, and are trying to put people in place from the grass roots polling level to the state election board level to prevent Democratic voters from having a voice, which is the very definition of “tyranny and control”. VOTE REPUBLICANS OUT in November! It’s your patriotic duty.
The point that the “LOCK HIM UP” crowd misses is that it’s not enough to prove that Sussman worked for the Clinton campaign, shared the same goal of defeating trump, worked with the campaign in developing the information, knew the information was bad, or even hated puppies. The government charged a specific lie; Sussman claimed he was not providing the info “on behalf of” a client. So the government had to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that when Sussman walked into the FBI headquarters, he did so at the direction of either Joffe or the campaign. The campaign’s larger goals could have been to make Satan’s minion ruler of the world by falsifying evidence that showed trump killed puppies for fun. Sussman could even want to one up the campaign and put Satan himself on the throne by showing that the entire Trump organization was committed to the goal. It wouldn’t matter. Sussmann was charged with a specific crime and only guilty if either Joffe or the Campaign told Sussman to give the information to the FBI.
I followed the trial and the pre trial rulings and the government never offered significant evidence that either client wanted Sussman to give the info to the FBI, let alone directed him to. The government chose not to immunize Joffe, so he didn’t testify. The Campaign’s employee and attorney both testified that they didn’t want the FBI involved at all. This is completely plausible, especially if the info was as flimsy as the prosecution thought it was. The FBI would debunk it right away and the campaign wouldn’t want that fact in any article.
In order to win, the government had to overcome direct statements saying Sussman was not acting on behalf of the campaign when he went to the FBI. The government had plenty of evidence that Sussman worked for the campaign in general, and was directly involved in developing the dns information. But they had nothing to show that the campaign wanted the FBI involved. In fact all they introduced directly related to the specific trip to the FBI were two ambiguous billing records; a few unspecified hours billed to the campaign on the same day and the purchase of a thumb drive. I followed the Court’s pretrial rulings and I dont see any evidence that was precluded that would show that the campaign wanted the FBI involved. Their case was a loser because it lacked both direct and indirect evidence that the campaign told Sussman to go to the FBI. Instead, it relied on a belief that the entire “LOCK HIM UP” crowd shares. They all see the Clinton campaign as corrupt and just assume everyone else sees corrupt motives in anything associated with them.
I have no hope for the bulk of the crowd. I just wanted to say that while i respect you, i wish you would set asside your biases in this instance and admit that the government’s case rested on an assumption that they simply did not have the evidence to prove – the campaign wanted the FBI medling in their opposition research. I think that if you were being intellectually honest, you would admit that career prosecuters should have realized they couldn’t prove the campaign wanted Sussman to bring the info to the FBI, let alone directed him to, and should have dropped this case months ago.
Scott:
Gimme that exact case in say West Liberty, Ohio or Brownville, Nebraska or Bridgewater, Virginia and the conviction wold have taken about two hours – enough time for election of the foreman, a snack and a bathroom break. You were trying a Hatfield in a Hatfield-McCoy case before a Hatfield jury and, believe me, Durham is no Daniel Webster as in “The Devil and Daniel Webster.” The evidence of campaign direction was construable either way but what wasn’t up for grabs was that Sussman intentionally lied to the FBI about his status and motivation (i.e. lying about representation is evidence of guilt). The lie to the FBI is what most neutral jurors would focus on. The exact proof of direction by the Campaign might make good fodder for a conspiracy count against them both but is unnecessary to convict on the charge brought purely against Sussman. The flaw was “where” presented not “what” presented. That’s on the prosecutor. No juror likes a process crime and when its one of your own you sure don’t. This should have been handled as an ethical charge for lying to the FBI and disposed of that way.
I don’t mean this to sound crappy, but I just have more faith in jurries than you and i trust that when i see verdicts i dont agree with, it is because i didnt watch the whole trial and the Jurry saw things i didn’t. While we all argue all sorts of stuff based on our beliefs in blog posts and in bars, I think that the vast majority of people take their responsibility as jurors to try cases on the facts presented to them seriously. And at the end of the day, the campaign said they didn’t want Sussmann to talk to the FBI, a campaign not wanting their crazy conspiracy theory that they are pushing in the media vetted by the FBI makes sense, and there’s no direct evidence to the contrary. Since the charged offense was lying when Sussmann said he wasn’t giving the information on behalf of a client, I think the evidence was too thin to prove that he did give the information to the FBI on behalf of the campaign no matter where he was tried.
But I will give you that there is a decent probability that this jury pool had people that wouldn’t have convicted him absent a video of him twirling his mustach while he said “I am going to lie to the FBI” and Hillary saying “brilliant.” I also agree that in certain areas, the probability of getting some jurors willing to convict on this record is alot higher. But the verdict was unanimous. I don’t believe that there wasn’t at least one person on the jury that took his duty seriously and whoes decision doesn’t reflect what the majority of Americans would decide if they sat through the same case, regardless of where they lived
Scot:
You don;t sound crappy. As a friend of mine on the bench says: “Jurors were people before and after they are jurors.” I’ve tried about 100 jury trials to conclusion and I can tell you that you never can read them. Some are earnest and try hard to do what’s right but giving everyday people complex jury instructions on intricate issues like cause and effect, medical concepts, thin-skull rule, and economic or physics data really isn’t fair. The average American’s IQ is 98. But the range is large from about 85-115. Most of the brightest people, due to oocupation or necessity, can avoid jury duty which narrows the pool and dumbs it down. On top of that, many have not had the education or life experience to understand much less judge the evidence. Lawyers do what they can but I can tell you I had a jury come back with this question: “What are the rules for stopping at a yellow light?” Oh and they were all licensed drivers. Juroes are good on some things like assessing credibility of witnesses, listening to the judge and working hard in the jury room but their decisisons are compromise ones which of course is like a horse built by committee.
Glad it didn’t come across as crappy. I appreciate your comments about juries. I practice in an article one court so only have to convince a person with as much expertise in the subject matter as I have.
Scott:
I’m sure the NLRB has its charms. Hey do you think so-called “student-athletes” are “employees” of the University under the law?
Mespo, for the edification of the visitors, please cite the Constitution for the authority to establish an NLRB.
George:
It’s a slippery slope but Article I, Sec. 8 courts are established by Congress as inferior tribunals to Art. III courts and their judges don’t have lifetime tenure or salary protections. They handle adminstrative cases based on federal legislation rather than the Article III courts which sit nisi prius (or as triers of general issues of fact with a jury).
Thank you.
Mespo,
It appears that the goals and the function of the NLRB are unconstitutional as collective so-called “labor” is enumerated no separate and superior rights or powers by the Constitution, even as Congress is enumerated the power to constitute tribunals and inferior courts.
_______________________________________________________________
Article 1, Section 8
The Congress shall have the power to…constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court;…
_________________________________________________________________________
Article 3, Section 1
The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish.
___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Congress is enumerated no power to regulate private property, employment, employee compensation, facilities, operations, safety, etc., or to regulate through legislation.
Congress has no power to “claim or exercise” any degree of dominion over private property, or to legislate any ability to “claim or exercise” dominion over private property.
The sole arbiter regarding all aspects of free enterprise and enterprise employment is the owner of private property.
Congress has no power to deny the right to private property.
Congress has no power to establish a court or tribunal in order to allow Congress to regulate private property.
The Supreme Court must strike down legislation which ordains a National Labor Relations Board or provides Congress the power to “claim and exercise” dominion over private property, related contracts of employment, or any other private property and free enterprise functions or operations.
Individuals and citizens enjoy the freedom to accept or reject employment on the terms proffered by the employer.
Employees are provided no separate, superior and particular employment rights, employment compensation or employment benefits by the Constitution.
Employees have no power enumerated by the Constitution to “strike,” to fail to present for duties, to fail to meet employer requirements, to disrupt the hiring of replacement workers, or to otherwise disrupt the operations of private property enterprises, etc.
If the right to private property is not absolute, the right to private property does not exist, and the U.S. government is a dictatorship.
Faith in juries is not in question. It is a flawed system, just better than anything else in use on the planet today.
Faith does not mean juries are infallible.
Scott Hovey says it all:
“I don’t mean this to sound crappy, but I just have more faith in jurries than you and i trust that when i see verdicts i dont agree with, it is because i didnt watch the whole trial and the Jurry saw things i didn’t. While we all argue all sorts of stuff based on our beliefs in blog posts and in bars, I think that the vast majority of people take their responsibility as jurors to try cases on the facts presented to them seriously.”
So believed Turley who admitted that jurors take their oaths seriously and can rise to the occasion despite their prejudices. If that were not so, there could be no justice in this country. Trumpists, however, believe the whole system is corrupt.
Trumpists, however, believe the whole system is corrupt.
That’s not entirely true. The justice system, as designed, is not by itself corrupt. It is however corruptible by the very people that bring it to life.
Nothing I say is *entirely* true. I shoot for 90%.
Nothing I say is *entirely* true. I shoot for 90%.
Honest people aim for 100%. So aim higher.
I am being honest!
Scot Hovey:
“I have no hope for the bulk of the crowd. I just wanted to say that while i respect you, i wish you would set asside your biases in this instance and admit that the government’s case rested on an assumption that they simply did not have the evidence to prove – the campaign wanted the FBI medling in their opposition research.”
***********************************
Were that the case and the evidence of such an element of the crime necessary, this thumb-on-the-scale trial judge would have stricken the case at the close of the government’s case in a DC minute. So nice try at feigned reasonability and legal logic but we actually have lawyers here. As for unrecognized biases, invest in a mirror.
The point that the “LOCK HIM UP” crowd misses is that it’s not enough to prove that Sussman worked for the Clinton campaign
The judge would not allow all those conecitons.
We do know the FBI sent draft media releases to Sussman to approve. It is easy to see Sussman was the cutout between the FBI and the Clinton campaign
“We do know the FBI sent draft media releases to Sussman to approve.”
No, that’s nowhere in the trial exhibits.
Trainor with the FBI emailing Sussman
“Michael – our press office is once again getting a ton of calls on the DCCC matter. A draft response is provided below. Wanted to get your thoughts on this prior to sending out,” Trainor wrote.
In his reply, Sussmann asked the FBI to change the first line of the press release to reflect the DNC’s messaging on the hack. He explained that he preferred a more definitive statement that made clear “the FBI is aware of the cyber intrusion involving the DCCC that has been reported in the media.”
Learn the difference between feedback and approval.
Fine, The FBI is seeking feed back and altering press releases by the direction of a lawyer representing a Presidential candidate.
There’s no doubt that Sussman was handling the campaign’s server hack, and that he coordinated with the FBI on that issue. But how does that prove beyound a reasonable doubt that the campaign employee’s testimony that they did not want the dns data to be turned over to the FBI because it interfered with their press strategy, was a lie. The charge was that Sussman lied in saying that he wasn’t bringing the DNS data to the FBI on behalf of a client. To win, the government had to prove that that specific statement was a lie, i.e. a client asked him to give the info to the FBI. While a jury doesn’t have to believe the statement of any particular witness, the government needs some evidence that the campaign wanted that specific data in the FBI’s hands. The government just didn’t have it.
But how do you get over the fact that the campaign testified that they wanted the story in the press ASAP and didn’t want Sussman going to the FBI?
“But how do you get over the fact that the campaign testified that they wanted the story in the press ASAP and didn’t want Sussman going to the FBI?”
*********************************
They’re Dimocrats. Lying is second nature. Barring a smoking gun email, how can that statement ever be disproven? it can’t and they know it.
How do you get over the fact President Trump urged protestors to peacefully march to the Capitol to have their voices heard.
Trump hasn’t been charged with any crimes. If he is, I’ll look at the evidence the government puts forward and form an opinion as to whether it satisfies the elements of the crime actually charged. If he is charged with directing a violent March on the capital, and the government has the same level of evidence they did in this case to rebut his plain statement, then he should get acquitted. If they have more evidence that he was doing something behind the scenes that contradict his plain statements, or if they charge him with something else, I’ll look at it then. But I’m not going to decide Trump is innocent or guilty as a general concept, then complain if he’s acquitted regardless of the charge. That’s not how the system should work.
Please give us all a tutorial on how to argue gross and flagrant governmental/judicial corruption, and defeating the Deep Deep State.
________________________________________________________________________________________________________
“It’s the [jury], stupid!”
– James Carville
_____________
“We are five days away from fundamentally transforming the United States of America.”
– Barack Obama
______________
“We will stop him.”
– Peter Strzok to FBI paramour Lisa Page
___________________________________
“[Obama] wants to know everything we’re doing.”
– Lisa Page to FBI paramour Peter Strzok
________________________________
“I want to believe the path you threw out for consideration in Andy’s office — that there’s no way he gets elected — but I’m afraid we can’t take that risk It’s like an insurance policy in the unlikely event you die before 40.”
– Peter Strzok to FBI parmour Lisa Page
________________________________
“Well, that’s it. You see what you want to see and you hear what you want to hear.”
– The Rock Man – Nilsson, The Point (1971)
So the government had to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that when Sussman walked into the FBI headquarters, he did so at the direction of either Joffe or the campaign.
Joffe hired by Sussman and paid by the Clinton campaign.
Joffe gave the phone claims to Sussman specifically to take to the FBI
Absent the Clinton Campaign, none of it would have happened. Remember Joffee was hired to create a narrative tying Trump to Russia.
When Joffee’s own people said the claim Joffee was making would not convince the most un informed the data suggested what Joffe claimed. Joffee told them all it need to do was support the narrative.
But the campaign testified in court that they wanted to story to go to the press and not the FBI. Sure they made it up and it was trash.
Sure they were slimy in trying to spread it anyway to trash trump. But the question isn’t whether what the campaign was slimy. It’s whether Sussman lied when he told the FBI that he wasn’t told by a client to give the information to the FBI. Where is the evidence that the campaign actually told Sussman to do it?
“Joffe hired by Sussman”
Joffe hired Sussmann. Sussmann did not hire Joffe.
Sussmann was the front man for the Clinton Campaign, contracting Joffee to find a Trump Russia connection.
Durham should have made Joffee plead the fifth from the witness stand. by asking him a couple dozen questions.
Joffee’s only exists in this trial because the Clinton Campaign hired him.
The Campaign’s employee and attorney both testified that they didn’t want the FBI involved at all. This is completely plausible, especially if the info was as flimsy as the prosecution thought it was. The FBI would debunk it right away and the campaign wouldn’t want that fact in any article.
You haven’t been paying attention. The FBI just investigates and leaks bits to the media.
The entire Russia hoax was a long counter intel investigation that should have been secret, but the FBI leaked enough for the media to leap to wild accusations. The FBI gave the media the cover they needed.
You are basing your conclusion on honesty from the FBI and the Clinton Campaign, and the Atty for the Clinton Campaign, that paid Joffee to invent the illusion of evidence.
Natacha says:
“Turley is paid to criticize anything other than a guilty verdict, facts and perspective be damned.”
It’s called the “Fox effect.” Still, we should be thankful that he does not go full Trumpist like Sidney Powell, Giuliani or Eastman! He distances himself from those conspiracy theorists.
A lot of Turley’s criticism in this case can be classified as “dicta.” His “holding” is that there was no proof of jury nullification and accordingly Sussmann was legitimately exonerated. Bottom line.
Jeff.
“ Still, we should be thankful that he does not go full Trumpist like Sidney Powell, Giuliani or Eastman! He distances himself from those conspiracy theorists.”
I would have to disagree on that point. Turley enables the spread of such conspiracy theories by lending them credibility by implying they may be true.
He may not be a Trumpist. But trumpist lite perhaps?
Svelaz,
I agree that Turley often insinuates bad faith, but he concedes that he does not rule out good faith. This stance is typical of his penchant for fence sitting. It provides him plausible deniability that he is acting as a partisan. That’s why Turley NEVER uses the words, “hoax,” “rigged,” or “witch-hunt,” because they preclude good faith. Turley does not dare irrevocably burn his bridges with the Left.
Once Turley resigned himself to damaging his once sterling reputation by signing with Fox News, he might as well earn his keep by leaning in Fox’s direction as far as he might without losing all intellectual credibility like Powell, Giuliani, Eastman, etc. You don’t see those lawyers any longer on Fox do you? They pop up on Newsmax and One America Network! To be useful for Fox, it is imperative that Turley NOT be seen as a Trumpist. That a putative Liberal lends credence to Fox’s false narratives is his value-added role.
However, if Trump is ever put on trial, Trumpists will no longer tolerate having one foot in both camps. They will demand that Turley claim that the charges against Trump are a “hoax”and a guilty verdict was “rigged.” When all the chips are down, you are either with them 110% or against them. There can be no middle ground. Look at Liz Cheney. That will be Turley’s fate.
Anonymous says:
“Turley claims to be a defense lawyer, but he only acts like one when Republicans are charged.”
We’ll have to judge your statement during the upcoming Jan 6 committee public hearings. Will Turley disparage the insider testimonies or, alternatively, ignore the damning revelations? You may suppose so, but unlike a Trumpist, Turley heretofore has denounced Trump’s 1/6 speech as “reckless,” and, as befitting a NeverTrumper, Turley demanded that Congress censure Trump!
Yet not one Trumpist here has vilified Turley for his condemnation of Trump. That will soon enough change, however, if Trump is ever put on trial and ultimately found guilty. Just like he accepts the Sussmann verdict, Turley will not delegitimize Trump’s guilt. Even if begrudgingly, Turley WILL accept it, and in so doing, it will be the final straw in the eyes of Trumpists and remove any doubt where Turley stands on the man he long ago called a “carnival snake charmer.”
Just wait.
Jeff, you’re right, often when Turley cannot defend the actions of a Republican, he is instead silent.
Did you see that the memo that John Eastman received via email and that Judge Carter ruled was subject to the crime-fraud exception has now been made public as an exhibit in the ongoing legal case between Eastman and the J6 Committee?
Here it is, turns out it was written by an attorney named Kenneth Chesebro: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/62613089/350/2/john-c-eastman-v-bennie-g-thompson/
Anonymous,
Thanks for the heads-up. I’ll take a look at it.
I’ll gain newfound respect for Turley when he escapes the Fox silo and engages in a rigorous debate with someone of his caliber, e.g., George Conway, who opposes his defense of Durham.
it is going to be very hard for Turley to debate someone on the left of his caliber – they pretty much no longer exist.
George Conway certainly is not one.
There are people on the right of Turley’s calibur and those often disagree with him and those debates are quite interesting.
I would be happy to see a debate between Turley and someone capable on the left – but you ca not find them.
Regardless, you can argue the sussman issue however you wish.
What you can not escape is that the courts and juries in DC have a massive double standard.
You do not need to be a legal expert to grasp that.
It does not matter how you interpret the law – so long as you do so consistently – you end up with massive double standards and hypocracy in DC
And we see the same right HERE – from those of you on the left ALL THE TIME.
Sussman’s lie resulted in incalculable harm to this country.
Teh Alleged lies of assorted Trump associates NEVER had the consequence of Sussman’s.
Louis Lehner was not indicted for contempt, nor was Eric Holder,
Yet Navaro is facing prosecution where Executive priviledge actually applies.
Again and again – those on the left would have no standards if not double standards.
Trump was impeached for asking for an investigation into the corrupt conduct of the Biden’s.
Most of of grasped at the time that the FACTS were more than sufficient basis.
Yet Sussman faces nothing for LYING to get an investigation of Trump using fraudulent evidence.
Those of you on the left may be stupid, but ordinary people are not.
We all know what a double standard looks like.
Jeff, I suggest that you replace Conway with a law prof. For example, Steve Vladeck (law prof. at UT Austin, has argued before SCOTUS multiple times) frequently disagrees with Turley and is arguably a better match.
Perhaps, but the point is that Turley needs to be confronted with hardball questions, not the softballs he is pitched on Fox News.
A while ago, I had posted this link to a recent interview that Turley gave at the “Future of Freedom Foundation,” a JFK conspiracy website, but it appears that the video has been removed. No tough questions about his First Amendment views. I have not checked of late whether Turley’s law review article has been published to date. I wonder if he submitted, but it was never accepted for publication. It’s long overdue.
As I have said, these Jan 6 hearings will be prove difficult for Turley. He will be hard-pressed to reinforce the false narratives of his Fox colleagues who believe that the committee is engaged in a witch-hunt. The Trumpists here are going to feel betrayed by Turley if he does not validate their view that those testifying negatively about Trump are just disgruntled former employees, attention-seekers angling for a book deal, RINO’s, or NeverTrumpers. As more facts are obtained under oath, there will be less wiggle room for Turley to position himself to the left of full blown Trumpism and to the right of the MSM. He may be forced to take a side.
Wow, the convoluted reasoning behind the memo is astounding.
They relied on Pence just flat out refusing to preside over the electoral count. No wonder Eastman wanted to keep this from the public. It’s pure nonsense. It was a step by step instruction on how to conduct a coup.
It does not matter what Eastman proposed – so long as it was consistent with the constitution.
You still seem to think that illegal is – something at odds with the outcome I want.
It is not, it is something at odds with a constitutional law.
By your logic – the creation of the Steele Dossier and the alpha bank hoax were illegal and an attempted coup.
They were not – The Collusion delusion might be despicable, even immoral, but it was not until it was sold to the FBI that it became illegal.
Over and over we have hypocrites like you pontificating on the law when the clear driver of your choices is who benefits, not rhe actual law.
If you do not like the law or constitution – change them.
But your spin does not make free speech criminal.
Nor does others efforts to get a different outcome than you prefer through constitutional means.
This is not different from Hillary and other democrats trying to get electors to change their votes in 2016
I presume you are the good Anonymous not like so many bad ones here. I believe you are the one who indicated that he would email Turley to notify him that Darren is failing to remove calls for my suicide by leaping from the Golden Gate Bridge.
Did Turley ever reply to you? If so, what did he say?
I emailed Turley about a few different comments made by that person, who posted under something like “Friends of Presidio Park.” Turley didn’t reply, but if I remember correctly, most if not all of the comments were removed.
Thanks for your reply. Because one can’t search an individual’s name, it is too tedious to find out if those violations were removed.
Darren, if you are paying attention, in the past you have noted when someone had violated the rules. Why can’t you inform us when you spot a violation of the civility rule so that we can learn where the line is? That’s what lawyers do to ensure *due process”- due notice of the line not to be crossed so there is a fair opportunity to avoid it!
Jeff,
Are you familiar with site-specific Google searches? They’re imperfect for this site, because Google doesn’t index all of the pages of comments, but I just found 3 comments from that person that were never removed, and I wrote Turley again.
Please don’t pester the man on my account. Next time, however, suggest to him that Darren post a comment informing the “family” that such-and-such comment was a violation so that people can be apprised of what is not acceptable! It is pointless to remove comments from long ago unbeknownst to all of us!
You can suggest it to him yourself.
You think my idea is a good one?
Yes, I think it would be helpful if he clarified where his line is for comments that will be rejected as too uncivil.
Turley would prefer it if you contact him directly rather than through another party. I think he prefers direct contact.
You can not know anything about an anonymous post – except the contents of the current post.
It is always interesting that the views of left wingnuts are always driven by appeals to authority.
Carter is obviously wrong. Advising anyone regarding what is an is not constitutional is NEVER a crime.
Even if the advice was wrong – and Eastman’s was correct – the advice would still be constitutional and protected by the first amendment.
What is disturbing is Not Eastman’s memo – that is just a reflection of what Actually occured in the 1876 Harris/Tilden election,
It is Judge Carters complete failure to understand the constitution.
Many of us were Shocked when Hillary and other democrats asked Electors to vote differently than their state election law required.
This is actually WORSE than Eastman’s advice as Hillary actually asked people to violate the law.
Her speech was STILL protected by the First amendment.
Further in every single election in my lifetime and probably long before that a republican won – some often several Democrats in the house or senate have objected to certification of one state or another electors.
This is NORMAL, it is part of the constitution and federal election law.
The only thing that would be unsual would be for it to succeed – as it did in 1876.
Objections to the certification of elections are normal, but legal.
Successful objections are normal and legal but very rare.
I would further note that while it is unusual for states to have different slates of electors – that too is perfectly constitutional.
There is no constitutional requirement that there are popular elections for president. The constitution delegates the selection of a states electors to the state legislature.
When legislators, whether state or federal are given choices – by the US constitution, or by their state constitutions – they are answerable for those choices ONLY to the electorate.
It is only when they act OUTSIDE the constitution that their actions are improper.
Further given that the legislature – federal or state has a constitutional power – it is ALWAYS legitimate for anyone to advocate that they use that power in a political way.
Those of you on the left seem to beleive that the only acceptable political motivations are those on the left.
That is poppy cock.
It is also incredibly short sighted.
What goes arround comes arround.
I am not a republican and under normal circumstances I would not favor republicans doing the same idiotic politically biased nonsense that democrats have.
But increasingly I think the only way we return to actual sanity is for those on the left to find themselves the victim of their own tactics.
I do not care much who congress subpeona’s and who is held in contempt or even prosecuted.
Generally I favor making the actions of those in government public over secrecy – though congress shoudl have ZERO ability to investigate actions that are NOT government actiions.
Regardless – whatever the rules are – they should be the same for everyone – that is precisely what the rule of law means.
The Sussman jury proved beyond any doubt that DC courts are lawless, that they do not follow the law they follow the politics.
Sussman was aquitedf under completely different “interpretation” or the law than Stone, Manafort, Papadoulis, and Flynn were subject.
Worse still – Stone Manafort, Papadoulis and Flynn were the innocent targets of a fraudulent investigation into a hoax.
While Sussmen was far from innoncent – he initiated selling hoaxes to the FBI,
Most of the country may not understand materiality or 18 USC 1001. but they do understand total double standards.
As is typical – the left again undermines itself.
If you do not wish to be compared to Stalin and Mao – do not act like them.
“Judge in Sussmann case is now set for life. No one hands bags of cash like in movies. But spouse will get more clients, kids get into any schools they want to. That’s how real world works in DC. Nothing vulgar. Just lots of behind the scenes wishes granted now.” @cernovich
100% correct.
“Yet, I believe that the court undermined the prosecution in a number of its rulings.”
Ya think? This judge was a fixer. Corrupt as hell.
The Judge was a buddy of Sussman’s from their days at the Justice Department. The Judge’s wife represents Lisa Page, the fired FBI General Counsel, connected to the Russia Hoax, He should have recused himself, or have been recused.. For some reason, the prosecution did not pursue that. The jury was Sussman’s wet dream – three Clinton donors. Imagine what the venire must have been like in order for that to happen. You also have to wonder how many jurors went online after they returned home in the evening to do “research”. and see what the media had to say about the trial. Of course, this is jury misconduct which is extremely difficult to raise to a reviewing court.. The prosecution’s case was doomed from the beginning, but not for lack of merit. Sussman, who conspired to frame the President with the help of the FBI walks while people who trespassed at the Capitol on January 6 are held in solitary confinement without bail. Meanwhile and at the behest of the White House, the FBI targets parents because they dare to question the subversive curricula taught to their children. People are beginning to lose faith in our system of justice and our government generally. Something is going to give if we stay on this trajectory..
Acquaintances, not “buddies,” and Cooper offered to entertain a recusal motion, but Durham choose not to make the request: https://www.law360.com/articles/1424037/judge-says-he-d-entertain-recusal-motion-in-sussmann-case
“You also have to wonder how many jurors went online after they returned home in the evening to do “research”… ”
Unless you can present evidence that someone disobeyed the order from the judge, then no, we don’t have to follow you down your imagined rabbit hole.
“people who trespassed at the Capitol on January 6 are held in solitary confinement without bail.”
Not a single person being held without bail is there only on tresspassing charges.