several Clinton donors are jurist in Sussman trial

D

dukkha

Verified User
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. :palm:
And so, I think that the prosecutors have quite a challenge with this pool.
https://www.foxnews.com/media/turley-jury-pool-michael-sussmann-trial-nightmare-prosecutors
 
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
 
dukkha said:
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. :palm:
And so, I think that the prosecutors have quite a challenge with this pool.
https://www.foxnews.com/media/turley-jury-pool-michael-sussmann-trial-nightmare-prosecutors
Click to expand...

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.
 
evince said:
Democrats are allowed on juries fuck lips
Click to expand...

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.
 
dukkha said:
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
Click to expand...

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.
 
RB 60 said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Poor Richard Saunders said:
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.
Click to expand...

That's exactly how it works. I was the foreman on a Federal case some years ago.
 
RB 60 said:
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.
Click to expand...

You hate everything American


RUBEpublican
 
Poor Richard Saunders said:
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.
Click to expand...
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'm pretty sure political contributions don't disqualify you for jury duty. Anatta continues to be one of the whiniest, lamest, dumbest posters here.
 
RB 60 said:
That's exactly how it works. I was the foreman on a Federal case some years ago.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Poor Richard Saunders said:
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.
Click to expand...
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
 
RB 60 said:
That's exactly how it works. I was the foreman on a Federal case some years ago.
Click to expand...

No it isn't. Being a foreman on a jury doesn't make you an expert. That's obvious in your case. The size of juries is determined by the type of charge. And jurors can be struck for no reason by either side, but they are limited in the number of strikes they are allowed. Only a judge can determine bias. But that point is moot. This case has nothing, NOTHING to do with Hillary Clinton. The fact that dukkha and you think it does shows just how ignorant you are.
 
Concart said:
No it isn't. Being a foreman on a jury doesn't make you an expert. That's obvious in your case. The size of juries is determined by the type of charge. And jurors can be struck for no reason by either side, but they are limited in the number of strikes they are allowed. Only a judge can determine bias. But that point is moot. This case has nothing, NOTHING to do with Hillary Clinton. The fact that dukkha and you think it does shows just how ignorant you are.
Click to expand...
it has everything to do with the Clinton campaign
 
dukkha said:
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
Click to expand...

The text doesn't necessarily back him up. It shows he could be remembering the text and not the meeting. Doubt is required for acquittal.
You can't be convicted for robbing a bank on Oct 6 just because there is evidence of you robbing the bank on Oct 5.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top