https://www.nytimes.com/2022/05/31/us/politics/michael-sussmann-durham-fbi.html

Maybe, Just Maybe this was another in a long line of attempts by Trump and his minions to distract from their own misdeeds...

You didn't really think a DC jury would find anyone guilty did you?

This is an area of our country where 76% of people in the District of Columbia are registered Democrat. This was a jury pool of 37 that was whittled down to a smaller number. But of those 37 jurors, there were many avowed Clinton supporters who said they had donated to the Clinton campaign. Some of those individuals weren't chosen, but about a third of that jury pool was either a Clinton supporter or had strong feelings about the election, and prosecutors were very frustrated that they would not get a fair shake here. So I think this does raise questions on how fair of a shake you could be given in D.C. with a jury pool that does oftentimes weigh partisan in one direction.

Oh but the things we found out from everyone's testimony under oath!

Yes, the ENTIRE jury must have been tainted.

REP. JIM JORDAN: The big takeaway here was what we learned a few days back when we learned that Secretary Clinton told Sussmann to take false information to the press that was also then taken to the FBI. Step back and think about this - this is the former secretary of state, this is the former first lady, this is the former United States senator from the state of New York, and candidate for one of the major parties for president of the United States. And she's encouraging a false narrative to be taken to the press. And, of course, it was also taken to the FBI. I think that is huge. And so much so, that the former attorney general called it seditious. And again, you don't have to take my word for that. This is her campaign manager, Robby Mook,, under oath in a court of law, making that statement. So that's the big takeaway here.



SHAME!

The Trump-Russia collusion hoax was a 'dirty trick' sanctioned by Hillary Clinton and you, Mac, Daman, OCD and others helped to spread that lie.

Be Proud.

And Durham has been investigating for three years and has come up empty. So much for"lock her up" which you've been droning on about for well over six years now.

Not sure you have served on a jury, but it only takes one to be tainted.

You can only judge others by your own means and motivations ... I guess what you are saying is Conservatives/GOP/Trump supporters (however you want to classify yourself) would never judge a case based on facts and evidence - rather you would judge based on politics.

I guess that at least is consistent with your posting here.

yep. everything is rigged. including the prosecution who signed off on the jury.

The DC jury with three Clinton donors, an AOC donor and a woman whose daughter is on the same sports team as Sussmann's daughter. 🤔

And she was 100% correct in doing so! Trump was being helped by Russia, it's been proven and even republicans acknowledged it. But Trump's demeanor in Helsinki tells a different story, a subservient story about an American POTUS acting like a melted gummy Trumpy bear, either in awe of the brutal dictator or in cowardly inept servitude of the same. But you go ahead and Qsplain it with conspiracy theories baked into a dementia-riddled fictional reality.

There is a link in that article to what the jurors thought of the whole thing.

2 jurors spoke about the jury afterward. One said it should have never even been prosecuted and that the government could have spent their time more wisely.
The other juror said that ""everyone pretty much saw it the same way"

which means the conservative led prosecution signed off on all of those jurors.

so who's corrupt? the jury, the prosecution team? the lead investigator who let the prosecution team sign off on them? the judge?

you're starting to sound like trump. everything is rigged. sure.

Just so I understand correctly, you are quoting the biggest ASS in Congress as proof that this is a wrong decision... The same guy that was involved child molestation at OSU.... Well are't you special!

Did Durham try to get them off the jury?

I read that yesterday,, can't seem to find the article now.. Basically, this was a hit job by Trump allies that just backfired.

Does it mean they signed off or that the other prospective jurors were worse and they hit their limit for peremptory challenges?

Were any attempts to strike for cause made?

Trial science and jury selection are interesting-ish. Our justice system definitely can be "rigged." I'm not saying it was here, but a truly fair trial is practically impossible with biased (I'm not using biased as a bad thing, just a statement of fact) humans involved.

if there were no attempts to strike jurors off, that falls on the republican led prosecution team ran by a trump loyalist. trying to claim the jury is rigged simply because the republican led prosecution team couldn't do the basics properly is pathetic, and also a sign that once again, trump doesn't hire the best people.

everytime we have a thread, you come in with "well, im not saying in this particular case, but overall..."

like seriously can you just take a position on something? if you think the jury was rigged in the clinton's lawyer favor no matter what the prosecution team did or didn't do, just say so. if not, stop with the whatabouts and the constant dancing around these topics.

I didn't say this is rigged, I never said an election was rigged, or anything of the sort. Just pointing out a fact that a politically charged trial may not be "just and true" in DC. So take your Trump statement and shove it straight up your ass bro.

I haven't followed the case closely so I was asking questions. It wasn't whataboutism. Like I said, people have their biases and make assumptions.

My conclusions seem to hold up better if I make them after acquiring the facts. It's unfortunate that all too many people seem to jump to a conclusion and then try to find facts to support it.

the fact that you mentioned 4 total donors to the left, as well as a social connection with the 5th, states that you think this ruling was rigged.

or why mention them? Trump has told you to shove crap up your ass during the pandemic, so let me know the steps i need to take since you have first hand experience.

Nope - he never claimed anything, he just likes to come up with a long list of contrarian "what ifs" - he calls it thinking outside the box. Some of that is justified - it's good to seek alternate answers and ask questions always - but there is quite a pattern a pattern of how and when this is done. And at some point you have to accept that the string of alternatives being proposed as possible become ever more diminishing a possibility to the point of being more like plausible deniability than actually putting forward a justifiable debate. Just how I see it.

One would create a mistrial. It takes all twelve to convict or find someone not guilty.

It's pretty clear that Trump was right some time back, he could shoot someone on 5th avenue and not lose one vote..

Does anyone really think that Durham cares about Sussman? Seriously? (Just a cursory look into the facts and you know he was lying...er...I mean...not-truthful when he "found" the "evidence" and took it to authorities as part of his good-citizenship...and with no compensation to be had. I mean...lawyers do that all the time, right?)

Durham got exactly what he was looking for when Mook called out Hillary for playing-in/paying to create the hoax. Ever wonder what sedition really looks like?

you do realize that even trump supporters think the Durham investigation has been a complete joke now, right?

so far Durham has accomplished absolutely nothing. if you were a conservative who already hated Hillary, all this did was add another reason. in the big picture....what changed? nothing. this is certainly not gonna motivate anybody on either side to head to the polls.

Do you realize that I don't care what other people think about Durham's investigation? Do you understand that Hillary's own lackey testified that she green-lighted the hoax? Anyone who did even the slightest research already knew that the Russia hoax was BS (depends on where one gets their news...or does not get their news)...and now it has been confirmed by a campaign witness in a court of law. That accomplishment is tremendous and part of the purpose of Durham's investigation. You asked 'What's changed?' That's ^ what.

Replace the name Trump with any other name...what SHE did and what Obama knew-about is treasonous. At this point, it isn't about Trump - much to the disappointment of the TDS sufferers out there because it makes for much/great distraction - but it's about what a former Congresswoman/first lady/Presidential candidate, a sitting POTUS and the DOJ/FBI perpetrated on an American citizen and the American people...and continued through the/a later-sitting POTUS.

Mueller knew Hillary was behind it...and he swallowed it while pursuing process-crimes. His investigation was a ruse. Durham getting a witness to even whisper the name Hillary in a courtroom is a huge win for the prosecution.

When you talk about the Russia hoax ... I am a bit confused.

Are you saying Russia didn't interfere in the elections? Are you saying the intelligence agencies didn't conclude that the overwhelming majority of interference was to support and attempt to get Trump elected?

Or are you suggesting that Trump's campaign didn't constantly lie - and then lie again even after they were caught lying - about contact and interactions with foreign contacts. Ae you suggesting the Mueller report didn't call out 140 or more contacts specifically with Russians? Are you suggesting this wasn't an unprecedented level for a presidential candidate?

Or are you using the determination about the Dossier and using it to try to sweep away every last little piece of thing "Russian" that tainted the Trump Campaign?

well you might not care, but the majority in your voting group certain do.

and look at the rest of your post. again, if you already hated hillary, this trial did nothing to change that regardless of the outcome of the trial.

And while I don't know if most Dems "Hate" Hilary .... But I think that most think she was at fault with the email server, that she ran an awful campaign against Trump and virtually any other Dem candidate would have beaten Trump, if she played dirty politics with the Dossier - it's no worse than the other things and she just needs to go away.

I'm saying that the Russia hoax was BS from the get-go. I'm saying it was treasonous. I'm saying that Hillary, Obama and the FBI/DOJ knew there was nothing there...and they ran with it anyway...and the MSM lapped it up continuously. There was no server connected to a Russian bank...there was no justification/need for a Mueller investigation that "somehow" managed to NOT report that Hillary & Obama green-lit the hoax.

Anything else that was "discovered" during the "investigation" pales in comparison to what HC/BO pulled. The mere fact that Mueller swallowed that knowledge is much, much worse than the process-crimes that he DID manage to notice. This is HC and BO in the lead...not something one of their lackey's may - or may not - have done.

Take out the name Trump as the guy they conspired against...I don't care who it was...take out what Trump's lackeys may or may not have done and was found as part of a fishing expedition...what was perpetrated and led by HC & BO was treasonous.

Take out the names Trump AND Hillary and look at what I've told you.

Yep. The DNC and Killery spied on a sitting POTUS in the White House. The hoax was spawned by Killery promising a top cybersecurity job to the shill that enlisted "special computer scientists" to create it. A hoax every step of the way... and if you think Sussmann, who was paid over 40M by the campaign, just stumbled across some evidence and went to the FBI... you're on crack. Hell, he didn't have to "go to the FBI", they shared office space. The FBI maintains secret "workspace" in the office of Perkins Coie, Sussmann's law firm, the DNC's counsel. 🤯

How many stars would have to align to make this all "coincidence"? Nobody's that stupid.

Swish says it doesn't matter, I think you have it backwards, bro. It doesn't need to galvanize "conservatives who already hated Hillary" for the very reasons you mentioned. What it does do is alienates an even wider swath of the liberal base... like anyone that has a shred of decency, values honesty and integrity, looks for politicians to rise above the level of corrupt cartoon characters ("those meddling Trump supporters!").

The DNC has now stolen the candidacy of Bernie Sanders... twice! Spied and created the Trump Russian hoax, tried to cover-up a laptop that proves the now sitting POTUS is at best a liar, at worst another criminal. They've sold their paid-for media on every event; hook, line and sinker; and that media has shoveled that ish into American homes with no shame or fear of consequence.

The Democrats are in big, big, big, BIG trouble... and you and everyone else knows it. The icing on the cake was putting a corpse in office so they could "control" him. A feckless leader who's response to every problem is to blame everyone else, with lies falling out both sides of his mouth as he tries to muster the words.

funny stuff right there.

a President of the United States not only stood side by side with Putin and take his side over his own country's intelligence agencies, but then tried to withhold aid to Ukraine unless the president publicly announces an investigation into his political opponent.

you ok with that? don't insert any president's name either. are you ok with those two things happening, yes or no?

i dislike her, and i think most dem voters didn't like her much, either. She had an alley oop from CP3, but managed to boch an easy dunk.

most of us want her to go away, but republican voters won't let her. they need her to hang around to justify whatever big picture hatred they have toward dem voters. i want trump to go away but he won't shut up, either. on top of that, republican voters keep paying his bills and voting for Trump-lites across the country.

republican voters are loyal to their politicians no matter how trash they are. i dunno if that level of commitment is a good or bad thing, but it's most certainly a thing.

Yes - and while the GOP want to keep HC front and center, she is done as a political candidate.
GOP try to divert attention away from Trump and say talking about Trump is a deflection but he is the odds on favorite to be the GOP candidate 2024.

This is exactly right. You guys should be ashamed of yourselves for not doing a little of your own research but instead listening to every liberal outlet possible as if it’s gospel. Gosh you guys are low information voters at its finest. A Democrats dream you are.

Former Hillary Clinton campaign lawyer Michael Sussmann was acquitted Tuesday of lying to the FBI when he fed it false information about supposed “collusion” between then-candidate Donald Trump and Russia during the 2016 campaign.

Sussmann gave the FBI data that had been produced by researchers working with the campaign and that purported to link Trump to Russia via Alfa Bank. The accusation was soon found to be groundless, but was part of the overall “Russia collusion” conspiracy theory that the Clinton campaign used to smear Trump during the campaign and after his victory.




Sussmann was accused of presenting himself to the FBI as a concerned citizen, when he was working for Clinton. The jury included up to three donors to Hillary Clinton, and the Obama-appointed judge narrowly limited prosecutors’ evidence.

The defense argued that even if Sussmann was found to have given the FBI inaccurate information about his motivations, the lie was immaterial to the investigation that followed. Durham argued that the FBI protected Sussman’s sources as a result of the alleged lie, and that investigators would not have pursued the Alfa Bank tip had they known the source of the data.

Observers agreed that the evidence against Sussmann was convincing, but that he might prevail based on “jury nullification” — an effort by the jury to reject the charges, regardless of guilt, because of their political sympathies with the defendant.


Columnist Byron York of the Washington Examiner observed in the hours before the verdict was delivered on Tuesday:

There is no doubt Sussmann lied to the FBI. There is no doubt he is guilty. But the trial is taking place in Washington, perhaps the deepest-blue jury pool in the United States. Durham’s prosecutors are “facing a jury that has three Clinton donors, an AOC donor, and a woman whose daughter is on the same sports team as Sussmann’s daughter,” George Washington University law professor Jonathan Turley said recently on Fox News. “With the exception of randomly selecting people out of DNC headquarters, you could not come up with a worse jury.”

…

So those are two major revelations from the Sussmann trial: Elements in and around the Clinton campaign sought to weaponize the FBI, and the FBI welcomed the effort — all in the name of defeating the Republican nominee for president.

…

So the Clinton strategy worked. No, it did not make Clinton president of the U.S. The voters just did not want that. But it did enormous damage to the Trump presidency and the Trump administration.

The acquittal is a defeat for Special Counsel John H. Durham, who was appointed to investigate the “Russia collusion” hoax, which was created by the Clinton campaign, took root in the FBI, and undermined the incoming Trump administration.

Still, Durham succeeded in revealing that Clinton herself personally approved the leak of the Alfa Bank hoax to the media. The Alfa Bank hoax was intended as an “October surprise” to damage Trump in the days before voters headed to the polls.



Durham’s investigation will continue, and in October he will prosecute Igor Danchenko, a researcher who allegedly was the source for former British spy Christopher Steele, who worked for Fusion GPS to produce the fraudulent “Russia dossier” on Trump. The Sussmann trial confirmed that the Clinton campaign and the Democratic National Committee paid Fusion GPS, through Democrat election lawyer Marc Elias. However, Durham’s ability to obtain further indictments may be limited.


https://www.breitbart.com/politics/...d-clinton-role-in-russia-collusion-hoax/

Research is only as good and reliable as the source you collect it from. You are a prime example of what's wrong with "research". You never research the sources you get your information from.

Actually I research all of it, you on the other hand not so much. Just like the article I posted, it is fact based. There are no ad hominem attacks it’s all based on facts. You read these stupid little articles from the Washington post and the New York Times that are clearly written opinions by the liberal author and you soak it in as facts like a good little low information voter. Man you guys are sad.

Just like hunters laptop was Russian disinformation… 😂😂😂 how can you guys hear that knowing it’s not true and still continue to believe these people. Straight sickening.

I can't tell you how many times pit has posted an article claiming his point of view, only to read the article and say "dude, it's not what the headline says." He feels he's an 'expert' on everything, and he does such deep extensive research. It's a joke, really.

Sorry dude - you burst on the scene claiming 2000 Mules was a documentary that proved something. Every discussion I have sen you take part in you show that you are a primary example of Confirmation Bias ... you check all your sources with a predetermined predisposition. Pffft.

My stalker is back! You and vers should start a club. lmao

the joke is you are spending your time following me around attacking me. And you say I should get a life? You're such a bitter little man.

You do realize that you used Breitbart as your source and then posted this, right? You tried using 200 Mules which was fact checked and shown to be full of holes and BS. It's like watching the Michael Moore of the right.


Show where I've used The New York Post or The Washington Post as sources.

You are exactly the person you are describing only from the right.