Sussmann acquitted on charge brought by special counsel Durham

Guno צְבִי

Guno צְבִי

We fight, We win, Am Yisrael Chai
The first courtroom test for Special Counsel John Durham ended in defeat Tuesday as a federal jury found a Democratic attorney not guilty of making a false statement to the FBI about allegations of computer links between Donald Trump and Russia.

The jury deliberated for about six hours before acquitting Michael Sussmann, 57, on the single felony charge he faced: that he lied when he allegedly denied he was acting on behalf of any client in alerting the FBI to claims that a secret server linked Trump and a Moscow bank with ties to Russian President Vladimir Putin.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/crim...AAXVzcz?cvid=a5eb5e6fe0374ae5b9c0f57947111053
 
The first courtroom test for Special Counsel John Durham ended in defeat Tuesday as a federal jury found a Democratic attorney not guilty of making a false statement to the FBI about allegations of computer links between Donald Trump and Russia.
Click to expand...
Lot of resources spent by Durham on a Nothingburger
 
ExpressLane said:
Not surprising a DC jury with Clinton donors would acquit Sussman
Click to expand...

Not surprising that a jury would follow the law and constitution and assume Sussmann was not guilty until proven guilty?

This is pretty much a no brainer that he was not proven guilty.
Charged with making one false statement in a meeting where there were only 2 people and no one took notes. The one person has testified to 3 different versions of what happened as to whether the lie occurred or not. Then settled on this version when threatened by the prosecutor if they didn't make this their final story.

With those facts and the requirement that he be assumed not guilty it would seem to be impossible for any reasonable jury to find Sussmann guilty.
 
guno said:
The first courtroom test for Special Counsel John Durham ended in defeat Tuesday as a federal jury found a Democratic attorney not guilty of making a false statement to the FBI about allegations of computer links between Donald Trump and Russia.

The jury deliberated for about six hours before acquitting Michael Sussmann, 57, on the single felony charge he faced: that he lied when he allegedly denied he was acting on behalf of any client in alerting the FBI to claims that a secret server linked Trump and a Moscow bank with ties to Russian President Vladimir Putin.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/crim...AAXVzcz?cvid=a5eb5e6fe0374ae5b9c0f57947111053
Click to expand...

Poor Kraken. Is he really dead now? lol
 
ExpressLane said:
Not surprising a DC jury with Clinton donors would acquit Sussman
Click to expand...

2sTlQL1.gif
 
ExpressLane said:
Not surprising a DC jury with Clinton donors would acquit Sussman
Click to expand...

The jury decision was unanimous. It strains the laws of statistics and probability to the breaking point that all 12 jurors were liberal partisan Democrats who were able to cleverly hide their biases from the prosecutors and Judge
 
Lionfish said:
Guano, for your enlightenment.

Sussmann trial jury features three Clinton donors, AOC donor and close connection to Sussmann: Turley
Click to expand...

Turley ignored the evidence in the case and how weak it was because he needs to be paid by Fox News.

In the US any one indicted is assumed innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Sussmann was charged with telling a lie in a meeting with one other person and that other person has told 3 different stories under oath as to whether the lie occurred or not. His current story is one the prosecutors made him tell or under threat of indictment. Those facts would make it impossible for any reasonable jury to find Sussmann guilty.
Baker suddenly after being threatened with an indictment remembered exactly what Sussmann said in the meeting on Sept 19 but can't remember anything about their phone call on Sept 20. And you think a reasonable person would find Baker to be believable?
 
Cypress said:
The jury decision was unanimous. It strains the laws of statistics and probability to the breaking point that all 12 jurors were liberal partisan Democrats who were able to cleverly hide their biases from the prosecutors and Judge
Click to expand...

There were 15 jurors listening, 3 released when case went to jury and only 12 on jury so Lionfish can't even prove that the 3 he complains about were even in the jury room.
 
Poor Richard Saunders said:
Turley ignored the evidence in the case and how weak it was because he needs to be paid by Fox News.

In the US any one indicted is assumed innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Sussmann was charged with telling a lie in a meeting with one other person and that other person has told 3 different stories under oath as to whether the lie occurred or not. His current story is one the prosecutors made him tell or under threat of indictment. Those facts would make it impossible for any reasonable jury to find Sussmann guilty.
Baker suddenly after being threatened with an indictment remembered exactly what Sussmann said in the meeting on Sept 19 but can't remember anything about their phone call on Sept 20. And you think a reasonable person would find Baker to be believable?
Click to expand...

Did I ever say Sussman was guilty or innocent? I just found the connections with the Clintons to be interesting just as you would have if any of the Trumps were involved.
 
Durham is the partisan hack


I hope he loses can his job

He wasted millions of American tax dollars
 
In 2005 the asshole decided it was OK that CIA members destroyed tapes of them torturing people for Bush
 
Why would he just shrug his shoulders at a crime like destroying evidence of a CRIME by CIA members?



To protect the Bush lies about the concoction of reason to attack Iraq



The man is a traitor
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top