As RedState reported, John Durham’s prosecution of Michael Sussmann has failed, with the Hillary Clinton lawyer being found not guilty of lying to the FBI.
It is amazing to see that Durham even provided receipts that showed Sussmann worked for Clinton. He also charged Sussmann for the USBs on which he gave the fake information to FBI. Yet, that wasn’t enough for the Washington, DC, jury that deliberated and ultimately ruled on the case.
Durham didn’t stand a chance, according to my article.
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. Another juror revealed they also donated to Hillary Clinton 2016 and/or to Joe Biden 2020. 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….
…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. This is a shocking example of bias between possible jurors. Beyond that, Obama appointed the judge who allowed these jurors to the pool. Take what you want from this.
As Tuesday’s ruling makes clear, my concerns were more than valid. It seems that my criticism wasn’t so harsh. Johnathan Turley noted on Fox News over a week after I wrote my piece that the jury also included an Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez donor and the parent of a child who played on the same sports team as Sussmann’s child.
TURLEY: “I mean, he is facing a jury that has three Clinton donors, an AOC donor, and a woman whose daughter is on the same sports team with Sussmann’s daughter. With the exception of randomly selecting people out of the DNC headquarters, you could not come up with a worse jury” pic.twitter.com/RHqen6AMAc
— Benny Johnson (@bennyjohnson) May 26, 2022
You can find what here? DC has nearly one million inhabitants. Is it insane to give a jury member who is not only familiar with the defendant, but also has a conflict of interest due to their children being on the exact same sporting team as them? Yet, that’s exactly what the Obama-appointed judge allowed on top of several jurors who admitted they could not be impartial regarding Donald Trump. To be precise, the entire case revolved around Donald Trump.
And while we are talking about the judge, let’s also remember that his wife represented Lisa Page, the corrupt, embattled FBI lawyer who expressed her desire to use the government to take down Donald Trump during the 2016 election. Somehow, that wasn’t a conflict of interest either, though.
It is absurd that the United States is trying cases in relation to government officials within a country that exists 1) to defend itself and 2) is composed of 92.5 percent voters who vote for only one party. Yet, that’s exactly what we do, and over and over, we see examples of Democrat apparatchiks being acquitted in the face of overwhelming evidence. What is the point of trusting a system like this?
As I said, Durham never stood a chance. It was a laudable effort, and it’s one that I fully supported. However, in almost all of the articles I wrote about this topic I expressed doubts as to who would be able to secure conviction. That’s not because he didn’t have the evidence. Even though the evidence was overwhelming for DC jurors, nothing could have sufficed. Similar results can be expected in the Danchenko trial, which is taking place in DC-adjacent Nothern Virginia.
About Post Author
