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.
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.