Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123
Results 31 to 39 of 39

Thread: Durham juror (Sussman case) "hates Trump"

  1. #31 | Top
    Join Date
    Dec 2018
    Posts
    10,825
    Thanks
    5
    Thanked 4,986 Times in 3,359 Posts
    Groans
    0
    Groaned 636 Times in 604 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by anatta View Post
    some of the Emails cant be introduced but Sussman charges clearly have a political motive to them.
    And yes there are no conspiracy charges here
    But Sussmans motive was to mislead the FBI regarding Trumps ( never happened) activities
    tied to Russia
    Wow. you don't have a clue what this case is about. Sussmann was not misleading the FBI about Trump's activities. In fact, Durham is not saying the information the Sussmann brought was wrong. He can't say that without lying to the court.

    "Hating" (word used in the report)Trump is clearly biased towards overlooking Sussman's guilt
    and letting him off due to overwhelming prejudice against the target of his misrepresentation to the FBI
    The juror was asked and they said they could be impartial in deciding the case since the case is not about Trump.

    Clearly if Durham had presumptive strikes against sitting any juror these 2 would be unfit to serve
    (in his POV)
    Perhaps Durham had to use strikes on other more grievous bias?
    Or maybe Durham doesnt get those.. this I dont know
    According to news reports, the judge told DeFillipis he could use his preemptive strike to get rid of that juror but he didn't. So no one to blame but Durham's team if you don't like the jury.

    I do know the jury pool is tainted and expect no convictions - my opinion
    So the fact that someone that has donated to the Cato Institute is on the jury is evidence of a tainted jury?
    "We are all born ignorant, but one must work hard to remain stupid."

    "Any fool can criticize, condemn and complain - and most fools do."

  2. #32 | Top
    Join Date
    Apr 2020
    Posts
    23,352
    Thanks
    4,237
    Thanked 10,167 Times in 7,083 Posts
    Groans
    3
    Groaned 1,196 Times in 1,111 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by anatta View Post
    close but not correct. peremptory strikes/ challenge are the purview of each atty
    which is why i cant figure this out . well find out more as i see some coverage
    Attorneys may strike a potential jurist without even saying why!

    If they say no- for any reason- they just move on down the line of potentials!

    Hey I watched Perry Mason! LOL!

    One thing to look out for is stacking the jury. Sometimes jurists that want on a panel for very bad ulterior motives, will say something negative like, "I hate Donald Trump" when in fact, he said that to cover his intentions in the end to vote in favor of Donald Trump.

    Just an example!
    Last edited by Geeko Sportivo; 05-16-2022 at 09:42 PM.

  3. #33 | Top
    Join Date
    Feb 2020
    Posts
    41,796
    Thanks
    26,777
    Thanked 19,968 Times in 14,555 Posts
    Groans
    1,422
    Groaned 949 Times in 933 Posts
    Blog Entries
    20

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Geeko Sportivo View Post
    Attorneys may strike a potential jurist without even saying why!

    If they say no- for any reason- they just move on down the line of potentials!

    Hey I watched Perry Mason! LOL!
    Usually they are given a limited number of strikes.
    IMPEACH 46 FOR TREASON
    Biden/Harris 2024
    IT'S A NO BRAINER!


  4. #34 | Top
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    life
    Posts
    52,794
    Thanks
    13,341
    Thanked 22,579 Times in 15,814 Posts
    Groans
    249
    Groaned 1,951 Times in 1,862 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Geeko Sportivo View Post
    Attorneys may strike a potential jurist without even saying why!

    If they say no- for any reason- they just move on down the line of potentials!

    Hey I watched Perry Mason! LOL!
    calm down lizard brain. this is well established
    so why didn the prosecution do so on these 2? - is the topic here

  5. #35 | Top
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    life
    Posts
    52,794
    Thanks
    13,341
    Thanked 22,579 Times in 15,814 Posts
    Groans
    249
    Groaned 1,951 Times in 1,862 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Poor Richard Saunders View Post
    Wow. you don't have a clue what this case is about. Sussmann was not misleading the FBI about Trump's activities. In fact, Durham is not saying the information the Sussmann brought was wrong. He can't say that without lying to the court.


    The juror was asked and they said they could be impartial in deciding the case since the case is not about Trump.

    According to news reports, the judge told DeFillipis he could use his preemptive strike to get rid of that juror but he didn't. So no one to blame but Durham's team if you don't like the jury.
    So the fact that someone that has donated to the Cato Institute is on the jury is evidence of a tainted jury?
    so he only had one presumptive strike? that explains it

    and no I am not following it all that closely,
    I have been more interested in what is not happening in the courtroom in terms of the Russian Hoax
    that even Andrew Weissmann count pin on Trump. .I dont expect any players Cliunton Comey, McCabe, Rosenweasel to be held accountable

    Sussman is just a cog in the Clinton machine Steele dossier machination

  6. #36 | Top
    Join Date
    Feb 2020
    Posts
    41,796
    Thanks
    26,777
    Thanked 19,968 Times in 14,555 Posts
    Groans
    1,422
    Groaned 949 Times in 933 Posts
    Blog Entries
    20

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by anatta View Post
    calm down lizard brain. this is well established
    so why didn the prosecution do so on these 2? - is the topic here
    Probably ran out of strikes
    IMPEACH 46 FOR TREASON
    Biden/Harris 2024
    IT'S A NO BRAINER!


  7. #37 | Top
    Join Date
    Apr 2020
    Posts
    23,352
    Thanks
    4,237
    Thanked 10,167 Times in 7,083 Posts
    Groans
    3
    Groaned 1,196 Times in 1,111 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ExpressLane View Post
    Usually they are given a limited number of strikes.
    Yes, because at some point, you run out of potential jurists!

    I've reported for Jury duty many times, but I have actually served on only 3 juries.

    I was way down the line in most times, and the jury was already selected before I was interviewed.

  8. #38 | Top
    Join Date
    Feb 2020
    Posts
    41,796
    Thanks
    26,777
    Thanked 19,968 Times in 14,555 Posts
    Groans
    1,422
    Groaned 949 Times in 933 Posts
    Blog Entries
    20

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Geeko Sportivo View Post
    Yes, because at some point, you run out of potential jurists!

    I've reported for Jury duty many times, but I have actually served on only 3 juries.

    I was way down the line in most times, and the jury was already selected before I was interviewed.
    I'm pretty aware of how the Federal Court system works my wife was the court reporter for Chief Judge for the Northern District of Texas for over 35 years.
    IMPEACH 46 FOR TREASON
    Biden/Harris 2024
    IT'S A NO BRAINER!


  9. #39 | Top
    Join Date
    Apr 2020
    Posts
    22,864
    Thanks
    1,440
    Thanked 15,405 Times in 9,440 Posts
    Groans
    101
    Groaned 1,894 Times in 1,783 Posts
    Blog Entries
    5

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Poor Richard Saunders View Post
    Hint - Durham didn't strike anyone from the jury.


    Durham is not the lawyer in the courtroom. But leave it to you idiots to not even know the basics about the case.
    anatta is a telephone salesman. You can't expect him to take time out of his busy schedule taking calls and kissing Putin's ass to actually read anything. Give the guy a break. At least he's not eating crayons. Yet. Apparently he thinks that anyone who dislikes Trump should not be allowed to serve on a jury. Since this case has zero to do with that, it is obviously not a disqualifier. The case is weak, and it involves a nobody. Clinton/Brennan/Clapper/Comey/Holder/Obama and whoever else they believe is involved in the scheme to keep Trump from exposing their child sex ring aren't even in play.

    Sorry loser.

Similar Threads

  1. WOW!!! Black Chauvin juror admits he lied to judge to "spark some change."
    By Text Drivers are Killers in forum Current Events Forum
    Replies: 91
    Last Post: 05-07-2021, 12:04 PM
  2. KANGAROO COURT DEMTHUG "IMPEACHMENT" SHAM: A JUROR IS THE JUDGE
    By Grokmaster in forum Current Events Forum
    Replies: 51
    Last Post: 02-10-2021, 04:59 PM
  3. Stern: "Trump actually hates his own supporters".
    By Tacomaman in forum General Politics Forum
    Replies: 145
    Last Post: 06-03-2020, 02:13 AM
  4. trump hates "fly over country"
    By Walt in forum Current Events Forum
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 02-03-2020, 06:55 AM
  5. Replies: 14
    Last Post: 01-11-2020, 08:19 AM

Bookmarks

Posting Rules

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •