Pressure builds for Durham to ditch Russia probe
But the Department of Justice seems unlikely to pull the plug on investigation despite Sussmann acquittal.
www.politico.com
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Do you think a fair jury would be comprised solely of Trump supporters? What does daughter on your daughters team even mean?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.
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.
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.
On the evidence part. They had the hilling records, the testimony from Baker, and the text saying he wasn’t working for anyone.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.
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.A prosecution of a Democrat in D.C. and/or with a jury with Clinton supporters is a tall task.
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
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.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.
I think it means a jurors daughter plays on the same soccer team as the defendants daughter. Implying they know each other or are close acquaintances to some level.What does daughter on your daughters team even mean?
It’s his schtick.Sussman pleaded guilty like Flynn?
Now you’re just being silly.
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.A prosecution of a Democrat in D.C. and/or with a jury with Clinton supporters is a tall task.
Sussman had a ton more money than Flynn did. It broke Flynn and they threatened to go after his son.Sussman pleaded guilty like Flynn?
Now you’re just being silly.
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.
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.
Part of his later defense strategy when he got money was to retract his guilty plea. It was quite public.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.
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.
So you want a jury composed of fatties in jorts, and brown people?At an Iowa state park.