Q&A of the Day – Was the Jury Rigged in Michael Sussman’s Trial?
Each day I feature a listener question sent by one of these methods.
Gettr, Parler & Twitter: @brianmuddradio
iHeartRadio: Use the Talkback feature – the microphone button on our station’s page in the iHeart app.
Today’s entry: How the hell did Durham's team let three Hillary donors on the jury?
Am I missing something?🤷♂️
Bottom Line: With the Jury in the trial of Michael Sussman rendering a not guilty verdict in the first case brought by special Prosecutor John Durham (in the investigation as to what led to the most pervasive conspiracy in American history – the bogus Trump-Russia collusion hoax), increased attention is on the Jury itself. In the US Constitution under Article III Sec. 2, states that all crimes except impeachment shall be by Jury and such Trial shall be held in the State where the said crimes shall have been committed. The Sixth Amendment to the Constitution then defined the Jury as being one of “peers”. This takes us to the situation in the Michael Sussman trial. Given that any defendant is to be judged by a jury of peers where they live and/or where the alleged offense took place, this case was to be decided in Washington, D.C. - this as Michael Sussman is on trial for allegedly having lied to the FBI in peddling the fraudulent Steel Dosier which was the basis for the Trump-Russia collusion hoax. Before diving into the specifics of the Jury in the Sussman trial – it's worth looking into who the “peers” are in D.C.
There is not another city in the country as left leaning as the national Capitol. In the 2016 election, which is the one in question, Washington D.C. voted for Hillary Clinton with 91% of the vote – compared to only 4% for Donald Trump. By way of comparison, San Fransico was more than twice as conservative with Trump pulling 9% of the vote there. The odds of a Washington D.C. based jury of peers being anything other than one which had a preference for Clinton – is statically implausible. In other words, in the most liberal city in the country, the legal playing field starts with a serious homefield advantage for those on the left. That colors the rest of the conversation and it takes us to the jury selection process.
During the jury selection process the judge, defense and prosecution question jurors. Both the defense and the prosecution can then reject potential jurors during the selection process. In a federal criminal trial, which the Sussman trial was, the peremptory challenges total ten for the defense and six for the prosecution. So, at the onset, team Durham, playing on a field dominated by 91% who voted for Hillary Clinton, was only able to reject six potential jurors. In addressing your question about how three Hillary Clinton donors could end up on the jury...? The first place to start is with Durham’s effectiveness during the jury selection process. Jury selection questioning is an art. At many top litigation firms there are specialists who go about the questioning and the selecting of those they want to excuse. Did team Durham effectively question the original jury pool sufficiently to identify these jurors during the selection process? It’s possible they did, and in a land of so many leftists, these Clinton donors were the best of bad options for team Durham by the time the defense were able to excuse their ten (which likely would have included potential jurors the Durham team wanted). In the event they didn’t, that would be a failure by the prosecution. Once the jury selection process has been completed, there’s still an opportunity prior to trial for potential conflicts to be challenged. That happened in this case – twice.
One of the Clinton donor jurors identified prior to the start of the trial by team Durham (seemingly suggesting they were diligent in their questioning), was challenged before the judge for exclusion. The juror’s response to the challenge was he’d “strive for impartiality as best I can”. That response was deemed sufficient by the judge for inclusion on the jury. The next challenge came when a female juror realized she had a child who played a sport with Michael Sussman’s child. The judge likewise determined that wasn’t disqualifying. And that takes us to the next piece of the prosecution’s uphill battle in this case. The judge himself.
The federal judge overseeing the Sussman trial was Christopher Copper. Appointed to his current post by President Obama, he’d once worked within the Clinton administration in the 90’s. He opted not to recuse himself and thus officiated the process and trial. By most accounts of court observers during the trial, he appeared neutral, but of course his decision to stay with the two jurors flagged by the prosecution potentially loomed large here. Many on the right have become leery of what appears to be a stacked legal system with two sets of standards. One for the left and one for the right. The outcome in this case won’t change that narrative. What can’t be disputed, as was testified to by a defense witness under oath, is that Hillary Clinton personally authorized the use of the fraudulent Steel Dosier to create the Trump-Russia collusion hoax. There remains a question as to whether anyone will be held accountable, however. Durham’s not done, the next trial for his next indictment is in October.