Michael Sussmann found not guilty of charges brought by Special Prosecutor John Durham. Yep. The Obama Judge and the 4 jurors who donated to Hillary must have done their job. Hillary must be doing a Hitler Jig this morning. We hope John Durham appeals this. In our opinion the fix was in.
This post was last modified on May 31, 2022
View Comments (10)
Not surprised this was a legit witch hunt
Sadly many of those who watch Fox News all day won’t realize it
Another stupid troll.
Why can't they bother someone else?
The fact that he lied about not representing Hillary is a proven fact. He even texted as much to provide permanent evidence. The only thing the jury refused to feel was proven was that he lied to the FBI's face during his interview. And since the corrupt FBI does not record interviews, there was no way to prove he repeated the lie to the FBI's face. It was the FBI agent's word against an admitted liar and the jury decided it needed more evidence. So clearly it was not a witch hunt. Sussman was a liar, selling tall tales at the behest of his client, Evil Hillary, everybody knows that, even the jury, even Sussman himself.
SHOCKER!!
Judge Chris Cooper (Sussman trial) is married to Amy Jeffries, Lisa Page's lawyer!
Merrick Garland officiated the marriage!
Can this trial be any more rigged?
The trial in a nutshell.
It looks to me like this is yet one more case of the FBI not recording interviews and the practice coming back to bite them in the ass. Remember, it is protocol at the FBI to NOT record interviews. Instead they take handwritten notes like it's the 1800s. That way they can lie about what was said and railroad people. And as if that SOP isn't bad enough, in this case Baker was all alone with Sussman and didn't even bother to take notes! What an idiot! So when Sussman claims he never said what Baker claims he said, what proof does Baker have? It's he said, he said. SOP is for agents is to sit down at a desk after an interview and fill out a form summarizing what was said, but Baker apparently felt he was too high and mighty to actually do agent grunt work, so he wrote no notes whatsoever. Pure laziness. If a detective in a local police department was this sloppy and lazy, he would be called on the carpet and suspended or fired.
So when the jury decided to speak up, one of the women stated that they used their biases to make the ruling. They felt that Sussman had indeed lied to the
F
B
I but that they weren't going to convict him of it. What a shit show.
Yeah, I guess Sussman actually texted Baker the day before and said he wasn't representing anybody. So I don't have any doubt that he lied. But the crux came down to what was said in that meeting, and Sussman claims he never said he was not representing anybody during that actual meeting... which technically, in a narrow sense, means he never lied to the FBI. All Baker had to do was make a couple of informal notes afterward and that would have been enough to sway jurors the other way. Just one hastily scribbled handwritten note saying that Sussman overtly claimed to be there on his own, not representing anybody, and that would have been enough. He was too lazy to do even that. This is the essence of the FBI: lazy, arrogant, and incompetent.
I saw Jonathan Turley on FoxNews one night and he said a conviction was going to be tough with the rigged environment in DC. (my choice of words, not his)
https://www.newsweek.com/deep-state-allies-play-judge-jury-perhaps-executioner-against-durham-opinion-1710197
It is exactly why the case was tried in Alexandria. Home of the DC overflow dumbasses.