dChan
Anonymous ID: 0e2431 June 1, 2022, 10:57 a.m. No.16380930   🗄️.is 🔗kun

They barely read but what’s worse is their cognizing and logic sucks

 

https://twitter.com/ClaremontInst/status/1532017535587078146?s=20&t=_tNoqvpdxc0Y9OPDPlCX8Q

Anonymous ID: 0e2431 June 1, 2022, 11:11 a.m. No.16380988   🗄️.is 🔗kun   >>1042 >>1157 >>1297

Corrupt Media Suddenly Covers Michael Sussmann’s Acquittal After Ignoring His Criminal Trial For Weeks

Jordan Boyd @jordanboydtx More Articles

June 01, 2022

(The media will regret they did this, now they are all under the Durham microscope)

After largely ignoring charges against Michael Sussmann, which alleged that the former Hillary Clinton campaign lawyer lied to the FBI, the corrupt corporate media finally decided to cover the trial results when they realized Sussmann would walk away with an acquittal.

 

The Sussmann trial first began in mid-May as Special Counsel John Durham’s probe into the Russia collusion hoax picked up steam. The same media outlets that peddled the Clinton campaign’s Russia lies, however, deliberately ignored Sussmann’s role.

 

ABC News, NBC News, CBS News, and MSNBC stayed completely silent on the matter despite their history of obsessing over the debunked Steele dossier.

 

CNN briefly mentioned the trial but spent less than 10 minutes of coverage on it over the course of five days. As Fox News noted, “none of CNN’s coverage has come during primetime” when CNN sees a significant spike in viewership.

 

Even Tesla CEO and Twitter takeover hopeful Elon Musk noticed the media’s absence as key information about the Clinton campaign’s role in targeting Donald Trump’s presidential run became even more clear than before.

 

“Why is @abcnews ignoring this story?” he tweeted.

 

Now that a D.C.-based jury and judge with connections to Sussmann and the Clintonshave let the Democrat off the hook, the same corporate media mouthpieces who were predictably quiet when the trial began have spoken up about why they think the decision to acquit was the right one.

 

“Sussmann not guilty,” Harry Litman, a legal affairs columnist for the Los Angeles Times and former Department of Justice official, tweeted. “Extremely fast verdict. more or less total humiliation for Durham. Jury presumably recognized the picayune pettiness of the case.”

 

Many of them used the verdict to claim the Durham investigation is a Trump-orchestrated failure and downplay their own roles in peddling the Russia collusion hoax.

 

After Sussmann was found not guilty, one Washington Post opinion column labeled the trial “A clever effort to try to de-Putinize Trump.”

 

Despite the media’s attempts to retroactively paint Sussmann’s trial as a nothingburger, Durham’s criminal charges against the lawyer provided the public with crucial evidence proving Clinton’s interference in the lead-up to the 2016 election.

 

As Federalist Senior Legal Correspondent Margot Cleveland wrote in her analysis of the trial, “United States v. Sussmann exposed that Hillary Clinton holds full responsibility for the Russia collusion hoax.”

 

https://thefederalist.com/2022/06/01/corrupt-media-suddenly-covers-michael-sussmanns-acquittal-after-ignoring-his-criminal-trial-for-weeks/

Anonymous ID: 0e2431 June 1, 2022, 1:02 p.m. No.16381550   🗄️.is 🔗kun   >>1556 >>1620

Sussman takeaway: It’s OK to lie to the FBI if you’re from the privileged political faction.

 

I've sat on a DC jury. Two members made up their minds because of defendant's ethnicity. A wealthy white woman who served under Hillary at USAID didn't like guns and wouldn't view the evidence. The judge's instructions required reading the law, but he forbade us to read the law.

 

It was a felony handgun case. DC prosecutors got caliber of weapon wrong. One prosecutor waved the weapon at the jury. Judge required us to determine if defendant was guilty of "possession" & illegal "carrying" of firearm but would not permit us to read laws defining the terms.

 

Defendant was obviously guilty. But police & prosecution work was sloppy & judge wouldn't let jury know the law. I had already read the laws enacted after Heller & was the only juror who knew. Judge wanted jury to legislate. I couldn't vote to convict under those circumstances.

 

In sum: It was a real case. Sloppy prosecution & bad evidence. Judge saw it as an easy handgun conviction to 1) set precedent for weak evidence, 2) undermine Heller, 3) broaden how DC law defines possession & carrying. To get it, he needed to keep jury ignorant of the law.

 

How legal dictatorships begin: Police collect poor evidence. Prosecution presents clear falsehoods as fact. Judge requires jury to issue verdict based on legal terms without permitting jury to know what those terms mean. Conviction thus sets legal precedent. Happens every day.

 

My DC jury experience was different from the federal case in the DC circuit, but the jury pool is identical.

 

Juries are the citizens' last line of defense against abusive government. If the jury pool is prejudiced or biased to the point of being unjust, we are all in trouble.

 

The Sussman case (OK to lie to FBI if you are of proper political faction) shows that if you are are of the wrong faction and are approached by the FBI for help, you MUST NOT SPEAK TO THEM without an attorney present. There's a chance they will trip you up to bust you as a liar.

 

It makes me feel sick even to write this, as I worked with the FBI for many years. The Bureau is diseased inside. Even if you are completely innocent and have a patriotic duty,DO NOT SPEAK TO THEM WITHOUT A LAWYER. That is still your constitutional right.

 

The FBI can't twist your words or trip you up if you keep your right to remain silent. And not even corrupt prosecutors can hold your silence against you.

 

The FBI is losing a lot of sources because of the situation it has created. A lot of good people have walked away.

 

https://twitter.com/JMichaelWaller/status/1531756818636148737?s=20&t=_tNoqvpdxc0Y9OPDPlCX8Q

 

https://twitter.com/JMichaelWaller/status/1531756818636148737?s=20&t=_tNoqvpdxc0Y9OPDPlCX8Q