Falsehoods Unchallenged Only Fester and Grow
https://thefogbow.com/forum/
which kinda makes you wonder if this wasn’t actually a US intel operation.Reality Check wrote: ↑Tue May 31, 2022 4:26 pm FBI Investigation of the Alfa Bank matter in a nutshell:
FBI: "Dear Alfa Bank, may we see your server logs?"
Alfa Bank: "We don't need no stinkin' server logs!"
FBI: "Thank you. Investigation closed."
Barr: I’m a little tired of voices saying these people belong in jail
Barr: I’m very proud of Durham and I do take responsibility for his appointment.
I thought that the right wing nutjobs believe that jury nullification is a GOOD thing.raison de arizona wrote: ↑Wed Jun 01, 2022 8:07 pm Bongino claims you can determine the outcome of a federal trial by looking at who appointed the judge. Also, he claims the Durham failure was due to jury nullification, since they had Sussmann dead to rights.
noblepa wrote: ↑Thu Jun 02, 2022 9:50 amI thought that the right wing nutjobs believe that jury nullification is a GOOD thing.raison de arizona wrote: ↑Wed Jun 01, 2022 8:07 pm Bongino claims you can determine the outcome of a federal trial by looking at who appointed the judge. Also, he claims the Durham failure was due to jury nullification, since they had Sussmann dead to rights.
https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/michael ... ump-russiaMichael Sussmann acquitted by a jury of Hillary Clinton's peers
Sussmann trial defense hinged on a biased jury of Washington, DC, liberals
By Gregg Jarrett | Fox News
In Washington, D.C. there is no such thing as a jury of peers. There is only a jury of Hillary Clinton supporters. On Tuesday, the twelve people who acquitted Hillary’s consigliere, Michael Sussmann, proved it.
The evidence of the defendant’s guilt was obvious and overwhelming. Special counsel John Durham’s prosecutors presented incontrovertible evidence that Clinton’s campaign lawyer knowingly peddled phony Trump-Russia collusion information to the FBI and lied about whom he was representing.
Sussmann offered no real or credible defense to the charge against him. How could he? It’s impossible to explain the inexplicable or to defend the indefensible. That’s why he did not take the witness stand. He would have been eviscerated on cross-examination or might have otherwise exposed himself to another charge of perjury if he lied.
If the defendant were tried in a neutral and fair venue, he’d be toast. Slap on the cuffs and send him off to the hoosegow already. That’s how strong the evidence was against him. But as I stated on air at the outset of the trial, Sussmann was relying on the concept of "jury nullification" where the triers of fact perversely ignore the evidence and repudiate the rule of law to acquit a plainly guilty man. Indeed, that’s what happened. No surprise.
Notable that the former attorney general says revealing information about Hillary Clinton's campaign was "far m ore important" for the special counsel he appointed than obtaining a conviction.
So he's saying Durham used the court and the proceedings as a way to get his message out?Notable that the former attorney general says revealing information about Hillary Clinton's campaign was "far m ore important" for the special counsel he appointed than obtaining a conviction.
The usual suspects are reporting that soon RWNJ juries will be employing jury nullification to imprison liberals. Not sure how that is going to work exactly, but openly saying that the plan is to convict without evidence via jury nullification is...disturbing.northland10 wrote: ↑Thu Jun 02, 2022 2:33 pm My thinking is the best he would have gotten even in Virginia would have been a hung jury. Good thing this was just a show for their right-wing base.
Acquittals are what we tend to talk about, but convicting someone you know is innocent is another form of jury nullification... it was quite popular in the jim crow south.northland10 wrote: ↑Thu Jun 02, 2022 2:45 pm That does not even make sense because jury nullification only works on acquittals, or at least hung juries, because a conviction must be unanimous. However, with these folks, they will make it work by removing anybody from the jury who won't vote to convict. The courts are for vengeance, not justice, in their mind.
I would quibble calling a wrongful conviction a form of "nullification," but, yes, convictions (and civil verdicts) without sufficient evidence sometimes occur. Fortunately courts these days are more open to reversing jury verdicts that relied on insufficient evidence.neeneko wrote: ↑Thu Jun 02, 2022 3:21 pmAcquittals are what we tend to talk about, but convicting someone you know is innocent is another form of jury nullification... it was quite popular in the jim crow south.northland10 wrote: ↑Thu Jun 02, 2022 2:45 pm That does not even make sense because jury nullification only works on acquittals, or at least hung juries, because a conviction must be unanimous. However, with these folks, they will make it work by removing anybody from the jury who won't vote to convict. The courts are for vengeance, not justice, in their mind.
After John Durham wasted 3 years and $40 million to end up with a huge defeat in the Sussman trial last week, one man is not giving up hope that someday, somehow, Durham will prosecute Hillary.
Which would be a fitting end to his illustrious career.
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news ... le-dossierDurham requests 30 subpoenas for testimony in trial against Steele source Igor Danchenko
Special counsel John Durham requested a federal court to issue 30 subpoenas for testimony in the trial against Igor Danchenko, British ex-spy Christopher Steele’s alleged main source for his discredited dossier.
Danchenko was charged with five counts of making false statements to the FBI, which Durham says he made about the information he provided to Steele for the dossier. His trial is scheduled for October. The DOJ’s watchdog said FBI interviews with Danchenko “raised significant questions about the reliability of the Steele election reporting” and concluded Danchenko “contradicted the allegations of a ‘well-developed conspiracy’ in” Steele’s dossier. He has pleaded not guilty.
Durham’s brief court filing on Wednesday requested the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia to issue “thirty subpoenas” for an “appearance before said Court at Alexandria, Virginia,” starting on Oct. 11 “to testify on behalf of the United States.” The potential witnesses are not named, but a copy of the blank subpoena reads that “YOU ARE COMMANDED to appear.”
Typical Washington Examiner. The dossier was never really discredited, and who exactly alleged that Danchenko was Steele's main source?Igor Danchenko, British ex-spy Christopher Steele’s alleged main source for his discredited dossier.
As a reminder, the Danchenko indictment charges the former Christopher Steele source with telling five lies to the FBI in interviews in which they tried to vet the Steele dossier:
One alleged lie on June 15, 2017 about whether he had spoken with Chuck Dolan “about any material contained in the” dossier.
Four alleged lies, told in interviews on March 16, May 18, October 24, and November 16, 2017, that he spoke to Sergei Millian in late July 2016 when Danchenko knew (variably in 2016 or in the interviews in 2017) that he had never spoken with him; one charged lie accuses Danchenko of wittingly lying about speaking to Millian more than once.
Durham will have to prove that these five statements were intentional lies and that they were material to the FBI’s operations.