NOT GUILTY: Trump’s Special Counsel John Durham loses his biggest case.

T. A. Gardner said:
I think this says more about the level of corruption and nepotism in Dirty City than anything else...
Click to expand...

Is Durham related to Barr or Trump? Or just corrupt for bringing a case there was no way he was going to win.

This is what one juror said about the case afterward:
“The government had the job of proving beyond a reasonable doubt,” she said, declining to give her name. “We broke it down…as a jury. It didn’t pan out in the government’s favor.”

Asked if she thought the prosecution was worthwhile, the foreperson said: “Personally, I don’t think it should have been prosecuted because I think we have better time or resources to use or spend to other things that affect the nation as a whole than a possible lie to the FBI. We could spend that time more wisely.”
Click to expand...

The case was bullshit from the start. The only witness to the told 3 different versions of the meeting under oath and only became 100% certain when threatened with prosecution if he didn't suddenly remember it exactly the way Durham demanded. And that was one of 3 witnesses for Durham that changed their story after being threatened. I agree that Durham is certainly acting like a corrupt prosecutor. The jury could easily see that as well.
 
PostmodernProphet said:
an interesting conclusion....
yes, what he said to Baker in an email message was not true...
yes, Baker testified that with 100% certainty Sussman made the same statement orally during the meeting.....
but, because he didn't write that in his notes of the meeting the prosecution did not prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he lied to Baker......
sometimes there is no accounting for the way juries reach their conclusions.......
Click to expand...

Baker testified to 3 other versions under oath. He only became 100% sure 6 years later when threatened with prosecution by Durham. Baker couldn't remember one thing about what was said on the phone call with Sussmann on Sept 20, the day after the meeting but he managed to remember word for word what was said on Sept 19th for that one statement only.
Baker didn't take any notes from the meeting so he had no notes to refer to.
Sussmann did not say anything false in an email. It was a text. Durham didn't charge Sussmann with what was said in the text sent on Sept 18 because Durham failed to do any investigation prior to charging Sussmann. The text doesn't prove anything about what was said at the meeting. It is just as likely Sussmann didn't say it at the meeting since he had already said it in a text.

It's pretty easy to see how the jury reached its verdict. Innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. There are a lot of reasons to doubt Baker's sudden memory restoration.
 
T. A. Gardner said:
I think this says more about the level of corruption and nepotism in Dirty City than anything else...
Click to expand...

It was all about creating innuendo for the right wing media to echo, keep the Trump as martyr fabrication alive, Durham had nothing, and even if he had won this case, he still had nothing
 
Earl said:
The jury pool in DC.


Politics & Voting in Washington, District of Columbia

The Political Climate in Washington, DC is Very liberal.

District of Columbia County, DC is Very liberal. In District of Columbia County, DC 92.1% of the people voted Democrat in the last presidential election, 5.4% voted for the Republican Party, and the remaining 2.5% voted Independent.

In the last Presidential election, District of Columbia county remained overwhelmingly Democratic, 92.1% to 5.4%.
District of Columbia county voted Democratic in every Presidential election since 2000
Click to expand...

Then why didn’t Durham ask for a change of venue? He approved of all the jurors, and it was an unanimous decision, duh, Turley is lying to you “earl,” stop swallowing the bullshit
 
Poor Richard Saunders said:
Baker testified to 3 other versions under oath. He only became 100% sure 6 years later when threatened with prosecution by Durham. Baker couldn't remember one thing about what was said on the phone call with Sussmann on Sept 20, the day after the meeting but he managed to remember word for word what was said on Sept 19th for that one statement only.
Baker didn't take any notes from the meeting so he had no notes to refer to.
Sussmann did not say anything false in an email. It was a text. Durham didn't charge Sussmann with what was said in the text sent on Sept 18 because Durham failed to do any investigation prior to charging Sussmann. The text doesn't prove anything about what was said at the meeting. It is just as likely Sussmann didn't say it at the meeting since he had already said it in a text.

It's pretty easy to see how the jury reached its verdict. Innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. There are a lot of reasons to doubt Baker's sudden memory restoration.
Click to expand...

and it doesn't matter to you that Sussman did in fact state the lie in writing?......why was it the judge wouldn't allow the text/email/whatever to be seen by the jury.....reading the lie might have led the jury to beyond the point of reasonable doubt......

did he lie?.....without question.....was the jury allowed to see it?......no.......
 
PostmodernProphet said:
and it doesn't matter to you that Sussman did in fact state the lie in writing?......why was it the judge wouldn't allow the text/email/whatever to be seen by the jury.....reading the lie might have led the jury to beyond the point of reasonable doubt......

did he lie?.....without question.....was the jury allowed to see it?......no.......
Click to expand...

So if you rob a bank on the 12th and the prosecutor charges you a bank on the 15th, you think you should be found guilty?

The problem is Durham didn't charge the lie on the 18th. He charged the alleged lie on the 19th. The jury instructions clearly said that the lie they were to decide was the one on the 19th. Did you want the jury to ignore the instructions Durham agreed to?
 
PostmodernProphet said:
and it doesn't matter to you that Sussman did in fact state the lie in writing?......why was it the judge wouldn't allow the text/email/whatever to be seen by the jury.....reading the lie might have led the jury to beyond the point of reasonable doubt......

did he lie?.....without question.....was the jury allowed to see it?......no.......
Click to expand...

Lets face it, you dont know shit.
 
PostmodernProphet said:
of robbing a bank?......absolutely.....do you think the day you do the date of the stealing makes a difference......lol....
Click to expand...

It does in the indictment. A jury isn't going to convict you of robbing a bank on the 15th if you didn't rob a bank on the 15th because the evidence of you being in the bank on the 15th wouldn't exist.
Are you sure you are a lawyer? Or is the Alzheimer's so bad for you that you have forgotten how facts work to gain a conviction?

The prosecutor could correct their error and change the indictment to say the robbery was the 12th if that is when the robbery occurred.
The problem for Durham is by the time he found the text the statute of limitations had run out so he could no longer charge that as a crime. That's on him.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top