Durham juror (Sussman case) "hates Trump"

[ExpressLane]

Why didn't Durham charge him with lying about Trump then? Certainly if he had lied about Trump that would be a much more relevant lie to charge.

Once again, you prove you are a complete idiot.

Your reading comprehension sucks.

 

[anatta]

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.

minor point not worth discussing. nothing changes. I've learned not to take DC trials seriously
much less lack of indictments

 

[Geeko Sportivo]

Nope

Dope- in your case!

 

[Poor Richard Saunders]

seated the jury today - DC court
1. juror said he "hates trump"
2. other juror is "big contributior" to DNC
3. both are government workers

so they feed lies, cover up their identity, alter Emails, hide the money flow
and when Durham FINALLY gets an indictment - the jurors are heavily biased against Trump

(Fox 6 PM news)

U.S. District Judge Christopher Cooper asked several jurors what initial thoughts popped into their head about the trial, and many had the same answer: the 2016 presidential election.

But the Obama-appointed judge repeatedly reminded them that Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton are not on trial — Sussmann is.

https://www.courthousenews.com/jury...inst-democrat-linked-lawyer-michael-sussmann/

 

[anatta]

Both attorneys have to agree on every jurist!

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

 

[anatta]

https://www.courthousenews.com/jury...inst-democrat-linked-lawyer-michael-sussmann/

the "2016 presidential election" is way too vague to disqualify

 

[ExpressLane]

Dope- in your case!

Yes you are a DOPE!

 

[Geeko Sportivo]

Yes you are a DOPE!

Yes, you are on DOPE!

 

[anatta]

https://www.courthousenews.com/jury...inst-democrat-linked-lawyer-michael-sussmann/

if i read this correct many were dismissed, and while it doesnt say it looks like the judge only disqualified juror based on
"several people were dismissed for stating that their personal views on politics could sway their judgment."

 

[ExpressLane]

Yes, you are on DOPE!

Nope that is something stupid musicians do.

 

[Poor Richard Saunders]

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?

 

[Geeko Sportivo]

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!

 

[ExpressLane]

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.

 

[anatta]

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

 

[anatta]

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

 

[ExpressLane]

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

 

[Geeko Sportivo]

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.

 

[ExpressLane]

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.

 

[Concart]

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.