Page 1 of 4 1234 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 56

Thread: several Clinton donors are jurist in Sussman trial

  1. #1 | Top
    Join Date
    Jul 2017
    Posts
    42,899
    Thanks
    12,356
    Thanked 23,488 Times in 16,375 Posts
    Groans
    247
    Groaned 1,617 Times in 1,527 Posts

    Default several Clinton donors are jurist in Sussman trial

    This jury pool is a nightmare for the prosecutors. There are three Clinton donors on the jury. In the last 24 hours, the judge turned down a motion to dismiss a juror whose daughter is actually playing on the same team with the daughter of Sussmann. So I think for the prosecutors, it seems like the only thing that is missing on the jury is Chelsea Clinton. A jury of your peers is not supposed to mean other Clinton people.
    And so, I think that the prosecutors have quite a challenge with this pool.
    https://www.foxnews.com/media/turley...re-prosecutors

  2. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to dukkha For This Post:

    Earl (05-21-2022), PostmodernProphet (05-20-2022)

  3. #2 | Top
    Join Date
    Jul 2017
    Posts
    42,899
    Thanks
    12,356
    Thanked 23,488 Times in 16,375 Posts
    Groans
    247
    Groaned 1,617 Times in 1,527 Posts

    Default

    Baker testimony blew up Sussmans claims -yet he'll walk because of a tainted jury

    Must be nice to be a DC bigwig.you do what you want and you never pay the piper

  4. The Following User Says Thank You to dukkha For This Post:

    Earl (05-21-2022)

  5. #3 | Top
    Join Date
    Jul 2017
    Posts
    42,899
    Thanks
    12,356
    Thanked 23,488 Times in 16,375 Posts
    Groans
    247
    Groaned 1,617 Times in 1,527 Posts

    Default

    Baker wouldn't have met with Sussmann if he admitted he was representing Clinton
    https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/n...enting-clinton

  6. #4 | Top
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    157,796
    Thanks
    53,644
    Thanked 28,072 Times in 21,609 Posts
    Groans
    28
    Groaned 19,033 Times in 17,642 Posts
    Blog Entries
    10

  7. #5 | Top
    Join Date
    Dec 2018
    Posts
    5,805
    Thanks
    4
    Thanked 2,603 Times in 1,779 Posts
    Groans
    0
    Groaned 310 Times in 287 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by dukkha View Post
    This jury pool is a nightmare for the prosecutors. There are three Clinton donors on the jury. In the last 24 hours, the judge turned down a motion to dismiss a juror whose daughter is actually playing on the same team with the daughter of Sussmann. So I think for the prosecutors, it seems like the only thing that is missing on the jury is Chelsea Clinton. A jury of your peers is not supposed to mean other Clinton people.
    And so, I think that the prosecutors have quite a challenge with this pool.
    https://www.foxnews.com/media/turley...re-prosecutors
    Neither Clinton or Trump are on trial. Sussmann is charged with lying to the FBI.
    All this frother BS about Clinton people being on the jury is just an attempt to hide the fact that Durham has no case.
    Pardoning the Bad, is injuring the Good.

  8. The Following 2 Users Groan At Poor Richard Saunders For This Awful Post:

    Earl (05-21-2022), Primavera (05-20-2022)

  9. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Poor Richard Saunders For This Post:

    Althea (05-20-2022), evince (05-20-2022), Phantasmal (05-20-2022)

  10. #6 | Top
    Join Date
    Oct 2017
    Location
    Living in rural America, "clinging to guns and religion"
    Posts
    35,282
    Thanks
    6,017
    Thanked 18,439 Times in 13,900 Posts
    Groans
    131
    Groaned 381 Times in 365 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by evince View Post
    Democrats are allowed on juries fuck lips
    Not when they have opinions or ties to the case they don't. And it works both ways.

    That said, I don't trust the DOJ. Both prosecution and defense have the same right to pick or reject each member of the jury. They must both agree on each of the number of jurors needed and alternates.
    Common sense is not a gift, it's a punishment because you have to deal with everyone who doesn't have it.

  11. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to RB 60 For This Post:

    Earl (05-21-2022), Primavera (05-20-2022)

  12. #7 | Top
    Join Date
    Dec 2018
    Posts
    5,805
    Thanks
    4
    Thanked 2,603 Times in 1,779 Posts
    Groans
    0
    Groaned 310 Times in 287 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by dukkha View Post
    Baker testimony blew up Sussmans claims -yet he'll walk because of a tainted jury

    Must be nice to be a DC bigwig.you do what you want and you never pay the piper
    The defense got to ask Baker about all the other times he testified differently while under oath. Somehow I don't think Baker is a reliable witness since he now remembers clearly something that happened over 6 years ago but doesn't remember what happened the day after when they talked on the phone.

    Baker was also under investigation by Durham so has every reason to lie for Durham to prevent being prosecuted. It's amazing how you don't know any of the facts in this case.
    Pardoning the Bad, is injuring the Good.

  13. The Following 2 Users Groan At Poor Richard Saunders For This Awful Post:

    Earl (05-21-2022), Primavera (05-20-2022)

  14. The Following User Says Thank You to Poor Richard Saunders For This Post:

    Phantasmal (05-20-2022)

  15. #8 | Top
    Join Date
    Dec 2018
    Posts
    5,805
    Thanks
    4
    Thanked 2,603 Times in 1,779 Posts
    Groans
    0
    Groaned 310 Times in 287 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by RB 60 View Post
    Not when they have opinions or ties to the case they don't. And it works both ways.

    That said, I don't trust the DOJ. Both prosecution and defense have the same right to pick or reject each member of the jury. They must both agree on each of the number of jurors needed and alternates.
    Nope. That's not the way it works. They both don't have to agree on jurors. If the juror says they can be impartial and the judge sees no reason to not believe them then neither side can remove them unless they use one of their limited peremptory strikes.
    Pardoning the Bad, is injuring the Good.

  16. The Following 2 Users Groan At Poor Richard Saunders For This Awful Post:

    Earl (05-21-2022), Primavera (05-20-2022)

  17. The Following User Says Thank You to Poor Richard Saunders For This Post:

    Phantasmal (05-20-2022)

  18. #9 | Top
    Join Date
    Oct 2017
    Location
    Living in rural America, "clinging to guns and religion"
    Posts
    35,282
    Thanks
    6,017
    Thanked 18,439 Times in 13,900 Posts
    Groans
    131
    Groaned 381 Times in 365 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Poor Richard Saunders View Post
    Nope. That's not the way it works. They both don't have to agree on jurors. If the juror says they can be impartial and the judge sees no reason to not believe them then neither side can remove them unless they use one of their limited peremptory strikes.
    That's exactly how it works. I was the foreman on a Federal case some years ago.
    Common sense is not a gift, it's a punishment because you have to deal with everyone who doesn't have it.

  19. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to RB 60 For This Post:

    Earl (05-21-2022), Primavera (05-20-2022)

  20. #10 | Top
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    157,796
    Thanks
    53,644
    Thanked 28,072 Times in 21,609 Posts
    Groans
    28
    Groaned 19,033 Times in 17,642 Posts
    Blog Entries
    10

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by RB 60 View Post
    Not when they have opinions or ties to the case they don't. And it works both ways.

    That said, I don't trust the DOJ. Both prosecution and defense have the same right to pick or reject each member of the jury. They must both agree on each of the number of jurors needed and alternates.
    You hate everything American


    RUBEpublican

  21. #11 | Top
    Join Date
    Jul 2017
    Posts
    42,899
    Thanks
    12,356
    Thanked 23,488 Times in 16,375 Posts
    Groans
    247
    Groaned 1,617 Times in 1,527 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Poor Richard Saunders View Post
    Neither Clinton or Trump are on trial. Sussmann is charged with lying to the FBI.
    All this frother BS about Clinton people being on the jury is just an attempt to hide the fact that Durham has no case.
    you can say that -although bakers testimony blew that up
    . But it doesn't mean judge should accept a DONOR to DEMs juror. thats an advocate juror
    I don't know how you were diverted / You were perverted too
    I don't know how you were inverted / No one alerted you

  22. The Following User Says Thank You to dukkha For This Post:

    Earl (05-21-2022)

  23. #12 | Top
    Join Date
    Apr 2020
    Posts
    15,572
    Thanks
    974
    Thanked 9,262 Times in 5,731 Posts
    Groans
    100
    Groaned 1,505 Times in 1,424 Posts
    Blog Entries
    4

    Default

    I'm pretty sure political contributions don't disqualify you for jury duty. Anatta continues to be one of the whiniest, lamest, dumbest posters here.

  24. The Following User Groans At Concart For This Awful Post:

    Earl (05-21-2022)

  25. The Following User Says Thank You to Concart For This Post:

    Althea (05-20-2022)

  26. #13 | Top
    Join Date
    Dec 2018
    Posts
    5,805
    Thanks
    4
    Thanked 2,603 Times in 1,779 Posts
    Groans
    0
    Groaned 310 Times in 287 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by RB 60 View Post
    That's exactly how it works. I was the foreman on a Federal case some years ago.
    As a foreman on the jury you weren't privy to the process that every juror was selected.

    The transcript from the day of jury selection clearly shows the judge asking jurors if they can be impartial, and after they say, "yes." telling the prosecution they can use a peremptory strike if they don't like the juror.
    Pardoning the Bad, is injuring the Good.

  27. #14 | Top
    Join Date
    Dec 2018
    Posts
    5,805
    Thanks
    4
    Thanked 2,603 Times in 1,779 Posts
    Groans
    0
    Groaned 310 Times in 287 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by dukkha View Post
    you can say that -although bakers testimony blew that up
    . But it doesn't mean judge should accept a DONOR to DEMs juror. thats an advocate juror
    The judge also accepted a donor to GOP so your argument is Bullshit.
    Pardoning the Bad, is injuring the Good.

  28. The Following User Says Thank You to Poor Richard Saunders For This Post:

    Phantasmal (05-20-2022)

  29. #15 | Top
    Join Date
    Jul 2017
    Posts
    42,899
    Thanks
    12,356
    Thanked 23,488 Times in 16,375 Posts
    Groans
    247
    Groaned 1,617 Times in 1,527 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Poor Richard Saunders View Post
    The defense got to ask Baker about all the other times he testified differently while under oath. Somehow I don't think Baker is a reliable witness since he now remembers clearly something that happened over 6 years ago but doesn't remember what happened the day after when they talked on the phone.

    Baker was also under investigation by Durham so has every reason to lie for Durham to prevent being prosecuted. It's amazing how you don't know any of the facts in this case.
    True Baker is a crooked Swamp Critter
    But the text backs him up as well.. I dont study the minutia - no point.
    Durham sniffed out Clinton bought and paid for the Steele dossier and misrepresented it to the FBI while Nellie Ohr was backdooring it

    Then the whole fake FISA and a special counsel appointed while page testified they had no evidence of Russian collusion
    I ertainly dont expect any justice - this is the Swamp. More light on the cockroaches is the most I expect

  30. The Following User Says Thank You to dukkha For This Post:

    Earl (05-21-2022)

Similar Threads

  1. because no one else did.......the Sussman trial.....
    By PostmodernProphet in forum Current Events Forum
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 05-19-2022, 06:29 AM
  2. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 09-21-2021, 07:31 AM
  3. Clinton Donors Charged in Massive Campaign-Finance Scheme
    By Grokmaster in forum Current Events Forum
    Replies: 16
    Last Post: 12-05-2019, 11:29 PM
  4. Many Donors to Clinton Foundation met with her at State
    By anatta in forum Current Events Forum
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 08-23-2016, 06:06 PM
  5. Deep-Pocket Clinton Donors Return to the Fore
    By anatta in forum General Politics Forum
    Replies: 38
    Last Post: 07-29-2016, 11:16 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
  •