This is why I have ZERO confidence that we'll see accountability for the Russia collusion hoax. How can we trust a jury from D.C. when 76% of D.C. residents are leftists? When Sussman jurors donate to Dems, "strongly dislike" Trump, a juror's kid plays sports with Sussman's kid?
8 comments
...and all rightards are liars, therefore we have LESS than zero confidence in your 'Opinions', Lizziepoos.
Things have changed of late since RT - thus Putain - were denied their right to spew their 'Opinions' that were nothing but lies.
“How can we trust a jury from D.C. when 76% of D.C. residents are leftists?"
You CAN file to change the venue of your trial if you’re able to convince the court that the whole pool of possible jurors has been biased against you. By, say, local muckraking, local gossip, local activists.
I don’t think you can change venue when the biggest problem with your case is that it’s entirely made up shit. And before that, ou have to start with a lawyer actually going in front of a judge and saying the campaign-collusion charge was a hoax. They won’t like to do that. Same reason none, NONE of Trump’s lawyers actually said ‘election fraud’ in court. That malpractice thing is a bitch.
<@JeanP > #129395
In this case, weak is an understatement. This case was literally Bill Barr and John Durham starting from a conclusion they made (“Trump had no connections with the Russians; it was actually the Clinton campaign that fed that story to the media and the FBI hoping to damage Trump with the revelation that the FBI was investigating him”) and working backwards, tossing or ignoring evidence that didn’t fit this conclusion and calling in people they harassed for years to threaten into changing their stories to match the conspiracy theory. Durham’s team was warned REPEATEDLY by the judge to stop treating hearsay and assumptions they pulled out of their asses as facts, and they kept ignoring him, until he tossed a bunch of their evidence as tainted.
Ultimately, this weak as shit case came down to a simple question; “Was Michael Sussman acting as an agent of the Clinton campaign when he brought information about the Alfa-Bank Trump connection to the FBI in 2016?” Durham’s argument is that as an agent of the Clinton campaign, EVERYTHING Sussman did automatically counted as acting as an agent. Sussman’s argument is that none of the actions he took to bring the information to the FBI were billed to the Clinton campaign (he paid for everything himself, including the cab fare) and he made it clear repeatedly to the FBI that although he was a Clinton campaign lawyer, he was bringing the information to them as citizen of the US, concerned about the potential of Trump’s connections to Russia if he were to win. In fact, some of the emails and messages his lawyers brought into court show that the campiagn asked him NOT to go to the FBI with the information, because they were worried that the media might not look as closely at it if the FBI was. And this failure causes the entire conspiracy theory to fall apart. Not to mention that the whole thing lies on the assumption that the FBI started looking into Trump BECAUSE of Sussman’s actions. That assumption is wrong; the FBI started looking into Trump’s Russia connections when they caught Papaolodos blabbing about Russia helping the Trump campaign.
Confused?
So were we! You can find all of this, and more, on Fundies Say the Darndest Things!
To post a comment, you'll need to Sign in or Register . Making an account also allows you to claim credit for submitting quotes, and to vote on quotes and comments. You don't even need to give us your email address.
