Durham's CRIMINAL investigation zeroing in on the Clinton Campaign
- Thread starter GhostOfMatchesMalone
- Start date
Apparently defense exhibits have already been entered and Durham's closing arguments about to begin
Appears to me Sussmann is doing the old Barry Sanders spin-move on this court trial. Still though, it's an admission of his own guilt.
I think the same guy said the judge has already said he's leaving at 2:30 pm tomorrow,, so my guess is they do closing arguments then judge decides whether or not to let jury deliberate or just call it a week and come back on Monday.
Probably Tuesday. Memorial Day weekend.
Going to make an initial 100% guess/prediction on what happens with this case.
There are quite a few pretty smart people on the right that are lawyers that feel this is strong enough to easily get a conviction even with a DC jury bit I am just not seeing it being easy myself even if this case was in Wyoming. Maybe this case will show me why they are the experts and not myself but here is how I see it regardless of closing arguments.
The prosecution has thrown a lot of stuff in there (billed hours that day and house testimony etc.) that points to Sussmann clearly being guilty but I don't think they ever had the hammer pound the nail all the way in to where reasonable doubt would surely be overcome with all the jurors. My guess is a few jurors will have a problem with the billing not specifically saying it was for that Baker FBI meeting that day.
The defense has been able to show the FBI witnesses can't keep their stories straight and more importantly imo that they knew Sussmann was working for the Dems at the time even if he supposedly never told Baker that so that stuff about it affecting how they would have handled that case probably won't fly with a few jurors.
I also think a few jurors might have a problem with there not being a recording of this meeting considering what people have read about the FBI in recent years and that you are bringing a felony against this guy.
Non - DC jury 49% chance for a conviction, DC jury 25% chance for a conviction
Having said all that he will probably be found guilty. lol...
There are quite a few pretty smart people on the right that are lawyers that feel this is strong enough to easily get a conviction even with a DC jury bit I am just not seeing it being easy myself even if this case was in Wyoming. Maybe this case will show me why they are the experts and not myself but here is how I see it regardless of closing arguments.
The prosecution has thrown a lot of stuff in there (billed hours that day and house testimony etc.) that points to Sussmann clearly being guilty but I don't think they ever had the hammer pound the nail all the way in to where reasonable doubt would surely be overcome with all the jurors. My guess is a few jurors will have a problem with the billing not specifically saying it was for that Baker FBI meeting that day.
The defense has been able to show the FBI witnesses can't keep their stories straight and more importantly imo that they knew Sussmann was working for the Dems at the time even if he supposedly never told Baker that so that stuff about it affecting how they would have handled that case probably won't fly with a few jurors.
I also think a few jurors might have a problem with there not being a recording of this meeting considering what people have read about the FBI in recent years and that you are bringing a felony against this guy.
Non - DC jury 49% chance for a conviction, DC jury 25% chance for a conviction
Having said all that he will probably be found guilty. lol...
Last edited:
The deck was stacked from the beginning.
JONATHAN TURLEY: Durham faces a lot of challenges in this trial. The judge in the trial has hit the prosecution with limiting orders. This jury pool is a nightmare for the prosecutors. There are three Clinton donors on the jury. In the last 24 hours, the judge turned down a motion to dismiss a juror whose daughter is actually playing on the same team with the daughter of Sussmann. So I think for the prosecutors, it seems like the only thing that is missing on the jury is Chelsea Clinton. A jury of your peers is not supposed to mean other Clinton people. And so, I think that the prosecutors have quite a challenge with this pool.
I think most judges probably let the donors on there since Hillary herself is not on trial but I think most would have allowed the prosecution to drop that lady with the daughter which was found out later.
Did Durham run out of strikes at selection? Hard to get a fair trial in the viper pit in DC.
Did he ask for change of venue? (probably denied if so). 
This case was decided before it even started...just EXACTLY like the 2020 presidential election, where Biden KNEW the outcome...because it was going to be rigged.
You guys dont want to hear this, but even if Sussmann is found guilty, he's likely to get a slap on the wrist sentence. The charge just doesn't justify much.
The value in this case was getting people on the stand and on the record. I think to that end, Durham got more than he was expecting, thanks to the defense trying to bury the FBI.
I think the trial is already a win for Durham regardless of verdict. Now a not guilty verdict absolutely hurts him, but some of the sting will be explained away with the jury. And I don't know why Durham didn't strike the donors or if he could. I'm sure he has a strategy.
The value in this case was getting people on the stand and on the record. I think to that end, Durham got more than he was expecting, thanks to the defense trying to bury the FBI.
I think the trial is already a win for Durham regardless of verdict. Now a not guilty verdict absolutely hurts him, but some of the sting will be explained away with the jury. And I don't know why Durham didn't strike the donors or if he could. I'm sure he has a strategy.
I don't see it that way. If the jury decides to let him off it puts much more pressure on for this to come to an end in the coming months. And the next case up for trial in October is just like this case. A case where the defendant will have prosecution witnesses where they were way bigger crooks than him and kept running with the case. Durham himself I think is gone before the next congress is seated if he loses either this case or the Danchenko case.
Maybe he can drag this out until after midterms, hoping both the House and Senate flips. He may get some traction at that point with their help.
Pubs aren't gonna help him with anything. They will pound their fists and grab a soundbite they can use in their next campaign ad, but they will do nothing of consequence to help Durham.
What have they done so far?
About as much as January 2021. But at least they can silence the likes of Schumer, Pelosi, and Schiff.
No one is even covering this Nationally...even FNC has very little
Closing arguments happening right now. Barricades have been placed outside the courthouse in case we get a verdict today, although returning on Tuesday is more likely.
If Sussmann is found not guilty, watch how it's suddenly covered by ebbbbbbberybody.
Sussmann defense, in closing argument, slams Durham case as 'misdirection'
Michael Sussmann's defense attorneys in theirtheir closing argument Friday cast Special Prosecutor John Durham's case against their client as weak and one of “misdirection."
Sussmann defense attorney Sean Berkowitz opened his closing by comparing Special Counsel John Durham’s case against his client to a famous illusion by magician David Copperfield where he made the Statue of Liberty "disappear" by moving the audience’s attention elsewhere.
"The special counsel’s office bought a snow-making machine and blew that over the lawn, and they want you to think it snowed," Berkowitz said.
Berkowitz went on to say that Sussmann "provided the data to a Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist at the New York Times," and said the New York Times "vetted" the data and "decided to run the story."
But Berkowitz, instead, pointed to different billing records for different meetings in which Sussmann actually "wrote the words FBI." Berkowitz stressed that Sussmann "did not write FBI" when he billed the Clinton campaign for the work on Sept. 19, 2016.
---------------------------------------
Going to be interesting to see what the jury does here but I still think a few jurors might have a problem with the billing not saying it was for the FBI meeting.
Whoa! Yahoo News makes it sound like the defense brilliantly defused Durham's weak argument! I could see Durham packing it in and closing shop after hearing Yahoo News tell me what's happening with the defense's brilliant closing!
Sussmann defense, in closing argument, slams Durham case as 'misdirection'
Michael Sussmann's defense attorneys in theirtheir closing argument Friday cast Special Prosecutor John Durham's case against their client as weak and one of “misdirection."news.yahoo.com
Sussmann defense attorney Sean Berkowitz opened his closing by comparing Special Counsel John Durham’s case against his client to a famous illusion by magician David Copperfield where he made the Statue of Liberty "disappear" by moving the audience’s attention elsewhere.
"The special counsel’s office bought a snow-making machine and blew that over the lawn, and they want you to think it snowed," Berkowitz said.
Berkowitz went on to say that Sussmann "provided the data to a Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist at the New York Times," and said the New York Times "vetted" the data and "decided to run the story."
But Berkowitz, instead, pointed to different billing records for different meetings in which Sussmann actually "wrote the words FBI." Berkowitz stressed that Sussmann "did not write FBI" when he billed the Clinton campaign for the work on Sept. 19, 2016.
---------------------------------------
Going to be interesting to see what the jury does here but I still think a few jurors might have a problem with the billing not saying it was for the FBI meeting.
Oh, well......nevermind.
They may have reached a verdict already but I doubt it. Come Tuesday I would say a quick verdict prior to the afternoon is most likely not guilty but if they have to come back on Wednesday I think there is a good chance Durham gets a conviction.
I would think the opposite. They clearly proved he lied to the FBI, which was the basis for the indictment. So jury comes back soon, likely guilty. Jury has to deliberate, and you've got some hillary supporters in jury arguing "Yeah I know he lied, but.....'
If they returned a verdict that quick I think it's not guilty even though the general thinking is it usually means a guilty verdict is more likely.
I will probably be wrong though.
Dim wits are NEVER held accountable. This would totally surprise me if this was the first time!
No verdict yet, jury has requested the taxi cab receipt which was NOT billed to hillary and has absolutely nothing to do with the case.
Not a good sign for guilty verdict.
Not a good sign for guilty verdict.
Even If The Jury Doesn’t Convict Sussmann, John Durham Has Won
Measuring Special Counsel John Durham’s performance by the outcome in United States v. Sussmann would be a mistake.
thefederalist.com
I will VERY GLADLY eat crow...however, I have been there, done that with this BS...and all I ever got was this lousy T Shirt
Durham will likely disappear before Jan 2023 as a joke just like his joke investigation which has a goal of protecting the biggest crooks in the FBI.
