On Tuesday, Michael Sussmann will be tried as a Hillary Clinton appatchik for spreading false conspiracies about Donald Trump to FBI agents. That follows the selection of the jury, which is presenting new challenges for John Durham’s first major prosecution in his investigation of the Russian collusion hoax.
Sussmann’s prior attempts to get the case dismissed failed miserably after Durham expertly responded to the contradictory arguments presented. Going forward, though, the final decision will be in the hands of a jury that includes a Hillary Clinton donor and a woman who claims she can’t be impartial regarding Donald Trump.
Both the larger jury and those selected to be on the jury expressed disapproval for Trump, or support for Clinton. Most said they hadn’t heard of the Sussmann case until the judge told them about it last week.
“I remembered that the 2016 election was kind of a mess and that there were a lot of shenanigans,” one of the selected jurors told the court. She said she “strongly” disliked Trump and that she didn’t think she could be impartial if the case was about someone on his team but noted that “if it’s not directly about Trump,” then she could be impartial.
This case is a problem because it’s not clear. It isDonald Trump. No, it’s not a Trump associate on trial, but the entire basis of the case is that Sussmann went to the FBI and lied to them about the Alfa Bank conspiracy theory, which asserted that the former president had a secret server communicating with the Russians.
On what planet can a juror who outright says they have a strong animus against Trump be impartial in judging someone who’s on trial for actively trying to destroy Trump with falsities? It’s absolutely insane that this woman made it into the final jury pool.
She’s not the only one, though. Others jurors revealed that they had donated to Hillary Clinton and/or Joe Biden in 2016. Given that most people never donate to any political campaign for president, it seems unreasonable that doing so wouldn’t be disqualifying. There are plenty of other possible jurors to choose from who aren’t overtly political to the point where they gave money to Clinton.
Additionally, 11 of the jurors are women while only 5 men make up the pool. This is important. Because women, specifically liberal women like you’d find in Washington, DC, represent one of the strongest demographics for the Democrat Party.
Unfortunately, this is the problem with holding criminal trials against those involved in corruption at the federal level in the nation’s capital. DC is home to 92.5 per cent of Biden’s supporters, making it the most liberal country. It is amazing to see the bias of possible jurors. The judge who admitted the jurors above to the pool was also an Obama appointee. Take what you want from this.
However, there is some good news. The case will almost always be resolved when it is filed.
As Sussman’s trial begins, I thought you guys would be interested in what the statistics are for convictions & acquittals in federal court. Acquittals made up 0.0034% for all total cases in 2018. (That’s much less than 1% of all cases & it’s only 17% of the cases that went to trial.) pic.twitter.com/Ft99Zn96bP
— Leslie McAdoo Gordon ⚖️ 👠🇺🇸 (@McAdooGordon) May 16, 2022
These stats are not applicable in Sussmann’s trial, but I doubt it. Most federal cases are non-political and go to trial. Durham’s actions are not common, and it remains to be seen if he will get fair treatment in the prosecution. Besides, I’m a natural cynic on this stuff given the lack of justice handed down in the past.
Still, we can assume that if Durham chose to go to trial, he’s got an open and shut case. Is it possible that the jury would see this differently? That’s another question.
About Post Author
