Jury to Durham, Fuck Off!!!

[jaF0]

Special Counsel Durham fails first courtroom test in his three-year probe​

https://external-content.duckduckgo.com/ip3/www.npr.org.icoNPR|13 minutes ago
Michael Sussmann was acquitted of one charge of lying to the FBI in the first verdict rendered during the probe by a special counsel appointed by the Trump administration.

 

[ll74]

They've already preempted this with their "the jury is the deep state" narrative.

 

[Rightguide]

Overwhelming evidence of guilt but a conflicted Democrat jury protected it's own. Two or three Jurors were Clinton donors, the wife of the judge representing Lisa Page, another Juror's daughter on the same sports team as Sussman's daughter. What are the odds of this kind of a nexus in a city wide Jury trial. We saw this coming but hoped for justice to prevail. Meanwhile another Hillary Clinton conspirator goes free.

__________________

 

[pecksniff]

Overwhelming evidence of guilt but a conflicted Democrat jury protected it's own. Two or three Jurors were Clinton donors, the wife of the judge representing Lisa Page, another Juror's daughter on the same sports team as Sussman's daughter. What are the odds of this kind of a nexus in a city wide Jury trial. We saw this coming but hoped for justice to prevail. Meanwhile another Hillary Clinton conspirator goes free.

__________________

It's DC. The jury pool is limited. Durham did have the chance to object to any prospective juror at voir dire.

 

[butters]

But the case Mr. Durham and his team used to float their broad insinuations was thin — one count of making a false statement in a meeting with no other witnesses or contemporaneous notes. The evidence and arguments the lead prosecutor, Andrew DeFilippis, and his colleagues marshaled fell flat with the 12 jurors, who voted unanimously to find Mr. Sussmann not guilty.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/poli...pc=U531&cvid=4ca89e65a7b84c62aebd7a373cacf83b

 

[pecksniff]

Face it: Durham's investigations will never lead to anything that incriminates Hillary's campaign or exonerates Trump's.

 

[phrodeau]

Overwhelming evidence of guilt but a conflicted Democrat jury protected it's own. Two or three Jurors were Clinton donors, the wife of the judge representing Lisa Page, another Juror's daughter on the same sports team as Sussman's daughter. What are the odds of this kind of a nexus in a city wide Jury trial. We saw this coming but hoped for justice to prevail. Meanwhile another Hillary Clinton conspirator goes free.

__________________

From the Senate testimony:

Baker: in that first interaction, I don’t remember him specifically saying that he was acting on behalf of a particular client.

Jordan: Did you know at the time that he was representing the DNC in the Clinton campaign?

Baker: I can’t remember. I have learned that at some point. I don’t—as I think I said last time, I don’t specifically remember when I learned that. So I don’t know that I had that in my head when he showed up in my office. I just can’t remember.

Jordan: Did you learn that shortly thereafter if you didn’t know it at the time?

Baker: I wish I could give you a better answer. I just don’t remember.

How is that overwhelming evidence of guilt?

 

[butters]

This hasn't been a good week for Donald Trump-appointed special counsel John Durham as he attempts to go after his only real prosecutions around the Russia probe. Trump had appointed Durham to "investigate the investigators," claiming that former special counsel Robert Mueller was corrupt in his handling of the Russia investigation.

While that hasn't worked out, Durham has been relegated to search for lower-level crimes he can prosecute for like lying to the FBI. Such is the case with this week's trial for longtime confidential informant for the FBI, Igor Danchenko.

judge tosses 5 of the charges being leveled against Danchenko, after durham's own witness and Auten's lawyers dissolved some of durham's claims:

Auten previously called Danchenko “truthful” and “assisted” when it came to his work with the Russia probe. He said having Danchenko as an FBI source was “one of the best things that came out of” the Russia probe.

It was such a blow to Durham that he re-directed his own witness and asked that the court declare him a "hostile witness." One of the frequently quoted adages from legal experts is that you never ask questions to your witness that you don't know the answer to.

On Friday, the judge tossed out five counts that Durham brought against Danchenko, NBC News reported.
“The government has failed to introduce that requisite evidence,” said Judge Anthony Trenga.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/crim...pc=U531&cvid=b7a06d6b310f4e5ea7c56c8ab2450ccb

 

[jaF0]

Not at all unexpected, but hilarious none the same .....

Igor Danchenko, primary source of Steele dossier, acquitted on charges of lying to the FBI​

https://external-content.duckduckgo.com/ip3/www.washingtontimes.com.icoWashington Times|37 minutes ago
Special counsel John Durham's likely final trial ended in another defeat Tuesday as a federal jury acquitted Igor Danchenko, a Russian analyst who was the primary source of the anti-Trump Steele dossier,


And note the source. I never read that site, but it comes up in my searches sometimes.

 

[AlexBailey]

Overwhelming evidence of guilt but a conflicted Democrat jury protected it's own. Two or three Jurors were Clinton donors, the wife of the judge representing Lisa Page, another Juror's daughter on the same sports team as Sussman's daughter. What are the odds of this kind of a nexus in a city wide Jury trial. We saw this coming but hoped for justice to prevail. Meanwhile another Hillary Clinton conspirator goes free.

__________________

You don’t believe in the legal process, you don’t believe in elections….

Buddy, you don’t believe in America.

 

[KeithD]

You don’t believe in the legal process, you don’t believe in elections….

Buddy, you don’t believe in America.

Well, when your paycheck for screwing around on social media comes from Russia . . .

 

[colddiesel]

Two questions:

1. How much has John Durham been paid for this farce and who is approving the (continued?) payments?

2. Do US courts have a concept of malicious prosecution, to prevent groundless accusations being made without credible evidence? Some jurisdictions leave that to the judges of such cases.

 

[phrodeau]

Two questions:

1. How much has John Durham been paid for this farce and who is approving the (continued?) payments?

2. Do US courts have a concept of malicious prosecution, to prevent groundless accusations being made without credible evidence? Some jurisdictions leave that to the judges of such cases.

I believe that disbarment is the usual remedy, with contempt charges for more extreme cases.