All errors should be reported to

Monday, May 30, 2022

Durham case goes to jury. Press yawns

John Durham did something Saint Mueller never did. He actually brought to trial someone over Russiagate. The media has downplayed this actual criminal case while spending nearly two years promoting Mueller's every move.

Many were the times the media assured us THE WALLS ARE CLOSING IN ON TRUMP.

It never happened because President Donald John Trump was as innocent as a newborn lamb. Hillary and Obama on the other hand are guilty as sin. They lied and had the FBI lie to spy on Trump. The media ignore the evidence.

The media spent the last month on the civil trial which will determine who is crazier, Amber Heard or Johnny Depp. My guess is he is because he squandered a fortune on booze and drugs while she is just evil. Extraordinarily evil, but no more crazy than a fox.

Closing arguments in both trials were made on Friday and tomorrow the respective juries will really begin deliberations. The media made a big deal about Heard-Depp while begrudgingly mentioning Durham's first prosecution coming to an end.

NBC said, "Jury deliberations began Friday in the case of Michael Sussmann, a former lawyer for Hillary Clinton's campaign who is charged with lying to the FBI in hopes of orchestrating an October Surprise against Donald Trump during the 2016 election.

"The two-week trial in Washington, D.C., is the first arising from special counsel John Durham’s investigation into the origins of the Trump-Russia investigation.

"An acquittal would be likely to hasten questions about the Durham probe’s purpose and cost to taxpayers, while a guilty verdict could energize Trump supporters who have long looked to Durham to expose what they see as biased mistreatment of the former president. The special counsel's probe began during the Trump administration.

"In closing arguments Friday, Assistant U.S. Attorney Jonathan Algor told jurors Sussmann 'used his privilege as a high-powered Washington lawyer, as a former DOJ prosecutor, and as a friend bypass normal channels and to expedite a meeting with the FBI’s [now former] general counsel' James Baker.

"Sussmann, a cybersecurity lawyer, provided Baker with obscure internet data indicating a possible communications channel between computer servers associated with the Trump Organization and Alfa Bank, Russia’s largest commercial financial institution. The FBI later determined Sussmann’s concerns were unfounded." 

Let us break that down paragraph by paragraph.

First paragraph: Hillary did not seek an October Surprise. The Billy Bush-Donald Trump pussy-grabbing tape was. The purpose of Russiagate was to give the FBI cover to spy on a political opponent on behalf of Obama.

Second paragraph: I have no complaint.

Third paragraph: NBC made an issue of the cost of Durham's actual prosecution versus never questioning the cost of Mueller's imaginary probe. NBC and the rest of the media ignored that this trial showed the FBI had determined that Russiagate was false before Mueller investigated but allowed Mueller to proceed.

Fourth paragraph: No mention was made that Sussman was working for Hillary at the time he met with Baker.

Fifth paragraph: Should have been Paragraph 2.

In its report, Fox was hilariously off center, and not in a conservative manner.

Fox said, "U.S. District Judge Christopher Cooper sent jurors into deliberations Friday, but said he will not 'take a verdict' in the trial of Michael Sussmann until next week.

"Cooper, earlier this week, told the jury and attorneys from Special Counsel John Durham’s team and defense attorneys for Sussmann that he would need to leave U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia by around 2:00 p.m. Friday—the start of Memorial Day Weekend. 'We’re not going to take any verdict today,' Cooper said.

"Cooper had projected the trial would last two weeks."

No mention was made in the first three paragraphs of what Sussman was on trial for. That was buried in Paragraph 7. Most people read only the first three paragraphs of a news story.

Compare the headlines:

CNN: "Jury to resume deliberations Tuesday in trial of former Hillary Clinton lawyer Michael Sussmann."

NBC: "Jury begins deliberations for Clinton campaign lawyer charged with lying to FBI.

"Prosecutors contend Michael Sussmann misled the FBI by not revealing he was working for Clinton's 2016 campaign when he passed on suspicious information about Donald Trump."

Fox: "Sussmann-Durham trial: Jury deliberating, judge says verdict to come next week.

"Sussmann is charged with one count of making a false statement to the FBI."

One of these things is not like the other. Two mention who Sussmann worked for while Fox just threw his name in there like everyone knows who he is as if he starred in the Pirates of the Caribbean films.

CNN actually did a good job. 

It reported, "The jury in the trial of Michael Sussmann, the Hillary Clinton campaign lawyer charged by special counsel John Durham as part of his inquiry into the origins of the FBI’s Trump-Russia probe, will resume deliberations on Tuesday.

"Sussmann is charged with one felony count of making a false statement to the FBI. The 12-member jury, made up of seven women and five men, and contains five people of color, deliberated for roughly four hours Friday before leaving for the three-day weekend.

"Special counsel prosecutors said during closing arguments that there is 'overwhelming' evidence that Sussmann 'concealed' his Clinton campaign ties and cloaked his work under the guise of cybersecurity to peddle an unfounded Trump-Russia tip to the FBI."

I can find no fault in it.


The question is not whether Sussmann is guilty but whether Durham can get a conviction from a jury drawn from a highly politically charged national capital where more than 90% of the voters voted for Hillary.

NYT predicted a verdict as quickly as Tuesday -- the first full day of deliberations. Sounds like the fix is in. We shall see, won't we?

An acquittal may turn this story into The Next Media Infatuation. I doubt a conviction would.

UPDATE: Took the jury an hour to acquit him because the city is Washington DNC.


  1. Don: Not sure what The Next Big Thing is. Is it your contention that if there is an acquittal, the public outcry of 'the fix was in' will result on a deeper look at Hillary and company?

    1. No, I meant the next media infatuation. I shall fix

  2. If Sussmann is acquitted, I look for Trump to bring civil proceedings. 1. He is justifiably angry, 2. he can bring his action in his home state of Florida where juries aren't as biased, and 3. the legal standards in civil proceedings are the preponderance of evidence rather than guilt beyond reasonable doubt and that he suffered actual damages. Let's see how this plays out.

    1. I am creating an honest wage from home 1900 Dollars/week , that is wonderful, below a year agone i used to be unemployed during a atrocious economy. I convey God on a daily basis i used to be endowed these directions and currently it's my duty to pay it forward and share it with everybody, Here is I started.....
      :) AND GOOD LUCK.:)

  3. Jury nullification. The jury is also on trial in the court of public opinion. Will they aid and abet Hillary? We'll see.

    1. I think they will. All they need is one holdout.

    2. I am creating an honest wage from home 1900 Dollars/week , that is wonderful, below a year agone i used to be unemployed during a atrocious economy. I convey God on a daily basis i used to be endowed these directions and currently it's my duty to pay it forward and share it with everybody, Here is I started.....
      :) AND GOOD LUCK.:)

  4. Personally I think this is "Throw Hilliary under the Bus." time the Obama's would gladly sacrifice her to keep the spotlight from them.

    1. That's what I think too. IIRC Clinton was called to the White House @2 months and met with Harris. Everyone guessed that it was to ask Clinton if she would accept the VP nom for 2024. I think it was to inform her that O decided that she's the fall guy and will be shamed publicly, since it's not a crime to lie to the media.

    2. I hope y’all are right. I would love to see her taken down.

  5. I am reminded of an incident which took place in Broward County Florida about 40 years ago. A illegal alien from Jamaica was going to trial for possession of large quantities of illegal drugs. His attorney argued that he was entitled to a trial by a jury of his peers, so the jury would need to be comprised of 12 illegal Jamaicans. Since it was impossible to impanel 12 illegal Jamaicans, the attorney moved for dismissal.

    To have a more biased jury in the Sussmann trial, they would have had to have gone to DNC headquarters and requested volunteers. There will be a total acquittal.

    1. why not the defense lawyer could have asked Judge to legalize his client so he would be on peer with a local jury?

  6. Don, I don’t give a shite. The perps are, as you say, “guilty as sin” in God’s eyes, and that’s what matters.

  7. The fact this is in the public record is a step forward. How many righteous lawsuits over the election were thrown out by a bought-and-paid-for Democrat judge on the grounds there was no standing?

    And the fact Fake News mentions it is another step forward. Like all the convictions on illegal ballot harvesting, this stuff is supposed to be suppressed. could be there's lots worse to come and the Demos want to be able to call it old news.

  8. I find it hard to believe a guilty verdict is possible with that jury (hint, it slants heavy to the left). I hope I am plesantly surprised.


Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.