During a Fox News interview, Professor Jonathan Turley repeated some of the damning evidence against Clinton’s campaign attorney Michael Sussman revealed during his trial today. Turley mentioned the jury is a “nightmare” for the prosecutors. He explained that there are three Clinton donors and one juror’s daughter is on a team with Sussman’s daughter. The professor noted that the only thing missing on the jury is Chelsea Clinton.
Watch:
Professor Turley wrote about the jury on his blog:
[Prosecutor] Shaw told the jury that the FBI “should not be used as a political tool for anyone – not Republicans. Not Democrats. Not anyone.” She then added that the jurors themselves should not use this trial for their own political judgments.
Looking at the jury box, one can understand Shaw’s unease. During jury selection, one juror admitted he was a Clinton donor and could only promise to “strive for impartiality as best I can.” Prosecutors objected to his being seated, but Judge Christopher Cooper overruled them.
In another exchange, a former bartender and donor to far-left Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) was told by a Sussmann defense lawyer that neither Clinton nor Trump were on trial and then asked if she could be impartial. She responded, “Yes, knowing that” — which might suggest she would not be impartial if the campaigns were part of the trial.
Other jurors include a woman who said she thought she was a Clinton donor but could not remember; a juror whose husband worked for the Clinton 2008 campaign; and a juror who believes the legal system is racist and police departments should be defunded.
To be sure, D.C. voters chose Clinton over Trump in 2016 by a breathtaking margin: 90.9 percent to 4.1 percent. While liberal and Democratic jurors still can be fair and impartial, Judge Cooper has seated a couple jurors who seemed to struggle with the concept of impartiality.
It only takes one juror to bolt for a hung jury. It probably is best to hope the details of the coup get out into the public sphere regardless of the jury verdict.
If this judge is starting out this way it sounds like a mistrial is not long in coming.
There can be no “fair” political trial in DC. Every trial in DC is a political trial
Apparently, the fix is in on this case.
It’s sho nuf obvious now why Obama wanted to stack those courts. People fine with election theft lack the integrity to sit on juries.
I knew the ‘fix was in’ when Durham charged in DC.
No one on the right can get a ‘fair trial in DC while no one on the left could ever be held responsible there.
That reality makes the special council effort a ‘show trial’.
Have the trial in Wyoming and everyone involved goes to jail.
How any “Judge” can allow a jury of such make up to be seated is beyond belief! A jury is supposed to be impartial! Change of venue is the only way this trial can proceed. Even the Judge in this case is corrupt and should be removed from the bench! I have spent over 29 years in law enforcement and have never in my career seen anything of this magnitude! Corruption at its finest!
All white jurors for Shemarra?
The media would describe that jury as the most fair in USA history just as they said the 2020 election was the most secure.
Durham doesn’t care about getting convictions. His whole investigation is about redirectinh blame and protecting the deep state FBI and DOJ.
This is just more evidence supporting my contention which is what I’ve been saying since deep state Bushy lover Barr picked Durham. Barr could have picked a competent attorney from a red State but he chose to pick a Democrat from CT.
We know lots of the details of the coup and will certainly learn no more from Durham. This is one of the fallacies of the gullible, that the crimes are still under investigation, with revelations forthcoming. In reality, the entire story of the government conspiracy to frame Trump are known, proper legal action is absent. The idea that we will get or need more revelations is part of the coverup, to distract from the completely irresponsible actions of the DOJ.
The only things missing from this prosecution are an honest prosecutor and judge.
Hey, they rig elections why not a jury? Maybe Durham should have asked for a change of venue.
It’s a show. Durham may get a minor conviction in this rigged case, then retire a RINO acclaimed hero, while the real crooks run free. Durham has gone into contortions to make a case not involving any DOJ people. This is his final product and it is junk.
What difference, at this point, does it make?
With the random selection of jurors among thousands of citizens in the district how is it that Clinton close friends found there way onto the jury in this case?
I wonder that, also.
Exclude ALL demoKKKrats, they’re ALL liars. Duh!
One law for thee and one for me…just ask any ‘so called’ judge…
Comments are closed.