At least 3 jurors were Hillary supporters who gave to her campaign. With overwhelming evidence the jurors still decided to IGNORE the law and find this creep "not guilty" Democrats simply cannot be trusted to serve on any jury, period.
Considered by legal observers to have been proven guilty, given the testimony of FBI agents and a text message that suggested he claimed to be acting as a concerned citizen rather than a Clinton campaign lawyer when he tipped off the agency about supposed collusion between then-candidate Donald Trump and the Russian government via Alfa Bank — a claim that was later debunked.
However, as former White House national security official Kas
h Patel warned on Breitbart News Daily on SiriusXM Patriot 125 last week, there could be “jury nullification,” in which the jury simply decided not to convict, regardless of the evidence.
https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2022/...ng-to-fbi/
(06-01-2022, 02:17 PM)Ronster Wrote: [ -> ]At least 3 jurors were Hillary supporters who gave to her campaign. With overwhelming evidence the jurors still decided to IGNORE the law and find this creep "not guilty" Democrats simply cannot be trusted to serve on any jury, period.
Considered by legal observers to have been proven guilty, given the testimony of FBI agents and a text message that suggested he claimed to be acting as a concerned citizen rather than a Clinton campaign lawyer when he tipped off the agency about supposed collusion between then-candidate Donald Trump and the Russian government via Alfa Bank — a claim that was later debunked.
However, as former White House national security official Kash Patel warned on Breitbart News Daily on SiriusXM Patriot 125 last week, there could be “jury nullification,” in which the jury simply decided not to convict, regardless of the evidence.
https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2022/...ng-to-fbi/
I happen to think Trump has broken multiple laws. That's just my suspicion, I'm not trying to prove it to anyone. But I also think that even if there was undeniable, overwhelming evidence (as there was in the Sussman case, they had his lie in writing!) you would never be able to select 12 people and not have at least one Trump sympathizer who would never ever vote to convict.
That's the system we have.
I saw a pundit saying that lying to the FBI is only criminal if the lie is "material" and Sussman's lawyers argued that the FBI would have investigated the case the same way if they knew Sussman worked for Clinton, therefore the lie was immaterial. I don't believe that. The lie was material.
(06-01-2022, 03:42 PM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ]I saw a pundit saying that lying to the FBI is only criminal if the lie is "material" and Sussman's lawyers argued that the FBI would have investigated the case the same way if they knew Sussman worked for Clinton, therefore the lie was immaterial. I don't believe that. The lie was material.
That's what they are claiming to try and get out of the fact that the jury didn't follow the instructions given to them.
Here's the other side to this:
If he wasn't guilty, then that means the FBI knew he was working for Clinton and knew it wasn't the truth. We also have a bunch of people on record saying everyone knew it was fake and knew it was from Clinton. They now can't change stories when they are charged later.
If the plan was to go after the big fish, him being guilty gives them an out to say he did it on his own. If he is not guilty, then that shows a larger conspiracy and RICO case can happen.
Now I won't believe the swamp will be charged and cleaned out until it actually happens but it is a believable way to get there.
Sent from my SM-S901U using Tapatalk