Pressure builds for Durham to ditch Russia probe

NCHawk5

HR Heisman
Gold Member
Aug 7, 2019
7,581
5,479
113
Must be lovely as a defendant to get a jury like that. All voted for your boss, several gave $ to you, and one even has a daughter on your daughters team.
 

theiacowtipper

HR Legend
Gold Member
Feb 17, 2004
14,339
12,518
113
Must be lovely as a defendant to get a jury like that. All voted for your boss, several gave $ to you, and one even has a daughter on your daughters team.
Do you think a fair jury would be comprised solely of Trump supporters? What does daughter on your daughters team even mean?
 

Kenneth Griffin

HR Legend
Jan 13, 2012
11,606
16,973
113
Lol it was a worthless case.


Even some supporters of Durham’s probe said Sussmann’s fast acquittal indicated that the long-time prosecutor misjudged the case.

“Everything just kind of fell apart,” former federal prosecutor Andrew McCarthy said in a podcast recorded near the end of the trial. “The further we get into the trial, the more I can’t understand why Durham brought this case. ... I’m just really surprised especially with everything riding on his investigation and his final report that he would take a chance like this with a case like this. ... I just wonder if it was worth it.”

A National Review editorial called the prosecution “unwisely brought” and expressed concern that the courtroom defeat would distract from Durham’s broader findings about actions Democrats took to publicize the Trump-Russia allegations and about the FBI’s handling of those claims.
 

ihhawk

HR Legend
Gold Member
Feb 4, 2004
21,300
17,659
113
Fort Lauderdale
The biggest challenge is that what the Clinton campaign and potentially some of FBI folks did on this Russia hoax isn’t actually illegal. Dirty politics and maybe even a scandal but it may not be illegal.

The information that he does discover won’t get air time so it won’t effect any politics.
 

St. Louis Hawk

HR Legend
Gold Member
Feb 5, 2003
27,797
50,982
113
1. The biggest challenge is that what the Clinton campaign and potentially some of FBI folks did on this Russia hoax isn’t actually illegal. Dirty politics and maybe even a scandal but it may not be illegal.

2. The information that he does discover won’t get air time so it won’t effect any politics.

1. If what they did wasn’t illegal … there shouldn’t be a criminal prosecution.

2. Unless he casually drops it in an unrelated pleading during the middle of the case to whip up the Fox crowd.

Durham is coming. Durham is coming.
 
  • Like
Reactions: lucas80

ihhawk

HR Legend
Gold Member
Feb 4, 2004
21,300
17,659
113
Fort Lauderdale
1. If what they did wasn’t illegal … there shouldn’t be a criminal prosecution.

2. Unless he casually drops it in an unrelated pleading during the middle of the case to whip up the Fox crowd.

Durham is coming. Durham is coming.

To highlight #1. The only charge he brought was lying to the FBI. The details brought forth in the testimony describes a political campaign trying to start a fake news story to help them in the election. That is not illegal.

If the FBI was involved with helping pushing the story….well that won’t be illegal either.

It will make people “look bad” but honestly no one on the left gives a shit. Just like how the GOP didn’t give a crap about a trumps chaos.
 

St. Louis Hawk

HR Legend
Gold Member
Feb 5, 2003
27,797
50,982
113
To highlight #1. The only charge he brought was lying to the FBI. The details brought forth in the testimony describes a political campaign trying to start a fake news story to help them in the election. That is not illegal.

If the FBI was involved with helping pushing the story….well that won’t be illegal either.

It will make people “look bad” but honestly no one on the left gives a shit. Just like how the GOP didn’t give a crap about a trumps chaos.

You don’t prosecute actions that are not crimes. You don’t bring prosecutions unless you have evidence that you can prove a crime beyond a reasonable doubt.

Barr admitted this week that the Durham trial was essentially for the publicity, not the conviction.

That’s not right and Bob Barr knows better.
 

ihhawk

HR Legend
Gold Member
Feb 4, 2004
21,300
17,659
113
Fort Lauderdale
You don’t prosecute actions that are not crimes. You don’t bring prosecutions unless you have evidence that you can prove a crime beyond a reasonable doubt.

Barr admitted this week that the Durham trial was essentially for the publicity, not the conviction.

That’s not right and Bob Barr knows better.
On the evidence part. They had the hilling records, the testimony from Baker, and the text saying he wasn’t working for anyone.

It’s not like they didn’t have anything. The text wasn’t allowed as evidence
 

BioHawk

HR Legend
Sep 21, 2005
38,921
40,007
113
A prosecution of a Democrat in D.C. and/or with a jury with Clinton supporters is a tall task.
Especially when there wasn't any crime committed. To be fair, I think that's half the issue with prosecuting Trump and his administration. As it turns out, many of the things we thought were illegal because it looks and smells like a crime, actually aren't codified in writing as a law that can be broken.
 

St. Louis Hawk

HR Legend
Gold Member
Feb 5, 2003
27,797
50,982
113
On the evidence part. They had the hilling records, the testimony from Baker, and the text saying he wasn’t working for anyone.

It’s not like they didn’t have anything. The text wasn’t allowed as evidence

Baker who took no notes of the meeting and who testified under oath to the contrary to Congress but suddenly clearly remembered years later?

The inadmissible text?

The sparse billing entries where some are billed to general campaign matter and some billed to a Perkins Coie business development account?

No reasonable prosecutor believes he can prove the charge beyond a reasonable doubt on THAT evidence. Barr essentially admitted this week, it was for the publicity, not the conviction.

A stunt prosecution. And if you can’t see how dangerous that is, well …
 

ihhawk

HR Legend
Gold Member
Feb 4, 2004
21,300
17,659
113
Fort Lauderdale
Baker who took no notes of the meeting and who testified under oath to the contrary to Congress but suddenly clearly remembered years later?

The inadmissible text?

The sparse billing entries where some are billed to general campaign matter and some billed to a Perkins Coie business development account?

No reasonable prosecutor believes he can prove the charge beyond a reasonable doubt on THAT evidence. Barr essentially admitted this week, it was for the publicity, not the conviction.

A stunt prosecution. And if you can’t see how dangerous that is, well …
It’s almost like when the two FBI agents interviewed a guy and said that he was telling the truth….but later the DOJ went after him for lying.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Tfxchawk

lucas80

HR King
Gold Member
Jan 30, 2008
95,334
122,960
113
A prosecution of a Democrat in D.C. and/or with a jury with Clinton supporters is a tall task.
Where do you think the trial should have been held to get a “fair jury”? At a card table in the commons building of your trailer park? It was a terrible case. It lost bigly.
 

St. Louis Hawk

HR Legend
Gold Member
Feb 5, 2003
27,797
50,982
113
Sussman had a ton more money than Flynn did. It broke Flynn and they threatened to go after his son.

If Flynn had money like Sussman there is zero chance he pleas.

Maybe, he pleaded guilty because he was guilty. As he admitted in his guilty plea and allocution. Unless you think he lied in that, which would be perjury.

But good to see you think we should provide better paid public defenders. I agree. Why prosecutors always get better salaries and lower case loads pisses me off.
 

ihhawk

HR Legend
Gold Member
Feb 4, 2004
21,300
17,659
113
Fort Lauderdale
Maybe, he pleaded guilty because he was guilty. As he admitted in his guilty plea and allocution. Unless you think he lied in that, which would be perjury.

But good to see you think we should provide better paid public defenders. I agree. Why prosecutors always get better salaries and lower case loads pisses me off.
Part of his later defense strategy when he got money was to retract his guilty plea. It was quite public.
 

ThorneStockton

HR Legend
Oct 2, 2009
24,653
35,047
113
Maybe, he pleaded guilty because he was guilty. As he admitted in his guilty plea and allocution. Unless you think he lied in that, which would be perjury.

But good to see you think we should provide better paid public defenders. I agree. Why prosecutors always get better salaries and lower case loads pisses me off.

He never admitted guilt. That was just fake news from the Deep State that the MSM spread to lib lemmings. Patriots like Flynn don't admit guilt. You Clinton lovers will believe anything. Zero chance you'll admit to falling for it though.

I do enjoy watching ihhawk totally own you though.
 
  • Like
Reactions: CarolinaHawkeye

Latest posts