Posted on 05/26/2022 7:48:47 AM PDT by gattaca
As the trial of 2016 Hillary Clinton campaign lawyer Michael Sussmann draws to a close, his legal team has yet to decide whether to let him testify — an option that may be less risky due to a Washington, D.C. jury apt to be favorably predisposed toward a Democratic defendant in a case enmeshed in politics.
Sussmann is charged with lying to the FBI in a September 2016 meeting by allegedly claiming that he was not representing any clients in pitching a now-debunked allegation of a Donald Trump back channel to the Kremlin via a secret communications link with Russia's Alfa Bank.
Special Counsel John Durham has presented evidence that Sussmann, also a former federal prosecutor and Democratic National Committee lawyer, was at the time representing the Clinton campaign and tech firm executive Rodney Joffe.
At least three Clinton campaign donors made it into the jury pool, in addition to supporters of Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) and a supporter of defunding the police, according to the New York Post. One juror's daughter is on the same high school crew team as Sussmann's daughter.
The trial is taking place in U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, which means that the jury pool is made up of residents of heavily liberal Washington, D.C. The judge overseeing the trial, Judge Christopher Cooper, was appointed by former President Barack Obama, and his wife represents ex-FBI lawyer Lisa Page, a key figure in the now-discredited Trump-Russia collusion probe.
On Wednesday, the eighth day of the trial, one of Sussmann's lawyers, Sean Berkowitz, told the court that his team is still deciding on whether to let the defendant take the stand.
"I doubt that Sussmann's counsel could even contemplate putting him on the stand without such a favorable jury," George Washington University law professor Jonathan Turley told Just the News on Wednesday. "It would be a swing for the fences when a defendant is ordinarily focusing on getting on base."
D.C. juries are typically far tougher audiences for Republican defendants.
Like Sussmann, Roger Stone, longtime political adviser to former President Donald Trump, was tried in federal District Court for the District of Columbia. In a show of federal law enforcement muscle, heavily armed FBI agents took the 67-year-old political gadfly into custody during a predawn raid on his South Florida home in January 2019.
In 2020, Stone was sentenced to 40 months in prison after being found guilty by a D.C. jury on five counts of lying to Congress, one count of witness tampering, and one count of obstructing a congressional committee probe of alleged Trump-Russia collusion.
Turley noted recently in an opinion piece that Judge Amy Berman Jackson, a colleague of Cooper, refused to grant Stone a new trial "despite disturbing reports of juror bias."
Trump commuted Stone's sentence in July 2020, just days before it was to begin, before pardoning him later that year.
The bias should be documented and allow such trials be held in another venue.
Durham knows there are at least 3 rat activists on the Jury and the Judge is very conflicted but he acts like all is fine.
Durham knows there are at least 3 rat activists on the Jury and the Judge is very conflicted but he acts like all is fine.
Doesn't matter how strong the evidence is.
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.
(a) For Prejudice. Upon the defendant’s motion, the court must transfer the proceeding against that defendant to another district if the court is satisfied that so great a prejudice against the defendant exists in the transferring district that the defendant cannot obtain a fair and impartial trial there.
(b) For Convenience. Upon the defendant’s motion, the court may transfer the proceeding, or one or more counts, against that defendant to another district for the convenience of the parties, any victim, and the witnesses, and in the interest of justice.
(c) Proceedings on Transfer. When the court orders a transfer, the clerk must send to the transferee district the file, or a certified copy, and any bail taken. The prosecution will then continue in the transferee district.
(d) Time to File a Motion to Transfer. A motion to transfer may be made at or before arraignment or at any other time the court or these rules prescribe.
The rule provides for a change of venue only on defendant’s motion and does not extend the same right to the prosecution, since the defendant has a constitutional right to a trial in the district where the offense was committed. Constitution of the United States, Article III, Sec. 2, Par. 3; Amendment VI. By making a motion for a change of venue, however, the defendant waives this constitutional right.
D.C. jury = not guilty.
I don’t expect any guilty verdict in this trial. I do expect a lot of useful evidence coming out of it for the next one.
A Democrat defendant will NEVER be found guilty by a DC jury.
They make up for the difference with the Republican defendants.
“Voir dire is the process by which potential jurors are chosen from a pre-selected jury pool. During this phase of jury selection, the attorneys for each party, as well as the judge, ask questions of each potential juror to determine whether he or she has any bias regarding the case, or other reason he or she should not be chosen. This French term literally means “to speak the truth,” and is used in the U.S. to determine the truth of whether jurors are able to fairly judge a legal case”.
Why did the prosecution allow Clinton donors and overt Clinton supporters to sit on the jury?
Sussman won’t be testifying
In the closing arguments, expect the defense attorney to ask the jury if they have ever considered suicide (aka Arkanside).
Excellent write up, thanks!
The bias should be documented and allow such trials be held in another venue.
“A Democrat defendant will NEVER be found guilty by a DC jury.
Doesn’t matter how strong the evidence is.”
There is no Justice in the United States. Without Justice the country will fall.
Conviction probability...
Close to zero.
95% of the Washington D.C. jury pool voted against Donald Trump.
Which is precisely why Durham brought the charges IMO! He just wants it to come to light and trap people like Elias and Priestap in lies!
.
I have implicit and unwavering faith that any jury convened in Washington D.C. will be as impartial as any jury from California, or Chicago.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.