Michael Sussmann Trial

#102
#102
NorthDallas40 said:
Pretty sure he’d look at this stacked jury and just shake his head too sister.

90% of DC voted for Killary. This trial was stillborn and no amount of information was going to change that.
Click to expand...
As far as I can tell, the jury members who were biased, owned up to their prejudice during jury selection. The prosecution objected to some of them, but they were seated anyway. At that point, any beef should be with the judge; not the jury.
 
#105
#105
Perhaps Durham knew he was going to lose this trial (he ought to have knowing the circumstances with the judge and jury). Maybe the objective was to get some things out in the open and on record for use down the road. Just sayin’…
 
  • Like
Reactions: Waylon11 and StarRaider
#106
#106
BowlBrother85 said:
As far as I can tell, the jury members who were biased, owned up to their prejudice during jury selection. The prosecution objected to some of them, but they were seated anyway. At that point, any beef should be with the judge; not the jury.
Click to expand...
For following the law?

1. Striking a juror for cause requires clearance of a pretty high evidentiary high bar. Being a political donor is not cause anymore than having a spouse who is in law enforcement would be cause. The person has to admit that they can’t set aside their bias which a) most people won’t admit and b) isn’t true for most people, with respect to politics.

2. Pretty sure the prosecution gets 6 peremptory challenges that can be used for almost any reason in federal felony trials. Prosecution could have struck the jurors they knew about in voir dire.

3. They selected a panel of 15 jurors, which means there were 3 alternates, probably selected after closing arguments. If it’s like every trial I’ve ever watched or tried myself then it wasn’t just random chance, so the odds are better than 20% that the lady who knew Sussman ended up as an alternate.

This is just more of partially informed, misled grumbling by those who perpetually see themselves as the victims of American institutions. The beef should be with the people who spent the last 5 years saying that lying to the FBI was just a process crime and shouldn’t be prosecuted. Oh wait… they’re the same people.
 
  • Like
Reactions: BowlBrother85
#107
#107
RockyTop85 said:
For following the law?

1. Striking a juror for cause requires clearance of a pretty high evidentiary high bar. Being a political donor is not cause anymore than having a spouse who is in law enforcement would be cause. The person has to admit that they can’t set aside their bias which a) most people won’t admit and b) isn’t true for most people, with respect to politics.

2. Pretty sure the prosecution gets 6 peremptory challenges that can be used for almost any reason in federal felony trials. Prosecution could have struck the jurors they knew about in voir dire.

3. They selected a panel of 15 jurors, which means there were 3 alternates, probably selected after closing arguments. If it’s like every trial I’ve ever watched or tried myself then it wasn’t just random chance, so the odds are better than 20% that the lady who knew Sussman ended up as an alternate.

This is just more of partially informed, misled grumbling by those who perpetually see themselves as the victims of American institutions. The beef should be with the people who spent the last 5 years saying that lying to the FBI was just a process crime and shouldn’t be prosecuted. Oh wait… they’re the same people.
Click to expand...
Solid info!
 
#108
#108
BowlBrother85 said:
As far as I can tell, the jury members who were biased, owned up to their prejudice during jury selection. The prosecution objected to some of them, but they were seated anyway. At that point, any beef should be with the judge; not the jury.
Click to expand...
Lol
 
#114
#114
SlingBlayde said:
Perhaps Durham knew he was going to lose this trial (he ought to have knowing the circumstances with the judge and jury). Maybe the objective was to get some things out in the open and on record for use down the road. Just sayin’…
Click to expand...
you mean like killery's failed campaign manager telling the court that killery greenlighted the russian hoax lie to the fbi?
 
  • Like
Reactions: UT_Dutchman, Orangeburst and SlingBlayde
#121
#121
clarksvol00 said:
Interesting article. Seems like Durham may have been looking to justify his existence.
Click to expand...
I’ve seen others say that the “he wasn’t lying” angle was less compelling than Wittes makes it out to be, but that materiality was iffy. I don’t know, I didn’t really pay much attention to it once the trial started.
 
#122
#122
RockyTop85 said:
I’ve seen others say that the “he wasn’t lying” angle was less compelling than Wittes makes it out to be, but that materiality was iffy. I don’t know, I didn’t really pay much attention to it once the trial started.
Click to expand...
I didnt follow any of this. I just find it interesting that he apparently didn't spend much time trying to prove the crime he was prosecuting.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top