Elite Democrats on jury for Sussman trial

rightnow909

Diamond Member
Oct 5, 2021
4,789
2,700
1,908

omg omg

we're shocked!

I am still reading through this but as we can see (for something like the 1000th time), the dims get away with everything...

(correction: I guess it is Dim donors, who may be "elite" or not)
 
I doubt this will be carried on the major news channels, other than FOX. I bet the Dims don’t have a clue.
 

omg omg

we're shocked!

I am still reading through this but as we can see (for something like the 1000th time), the dims get away with everything...

(correction: I guess it is Dim donors, who may be "elite" or not)
Um, I'm confused. Are you either ignorant or try to bamboozle the readers?

A trial jury decides innocent or guilty, a Grand Jury only decides on an indictment or no sufficient evidence to have a trial.

So what is it? Are you dishonest, or are you ignorant? Or both?
 
I would double-check the story. Having been on jury duty myself I can tell you they won't accept anyone who even remotely has contact with anyone connected to the trial.
 
I doubt this will be carried on the major news channels, other than FOX. I bet the Dims don’t have a clue.
what?

what dims? what clues do they not have?

they do seem to have a clue about how to be corrupt, that is indisputable
 
I would double-check the story. Having been on jury duty myself I can tell you they won't accept anyone who even remotely has contact with anyone connected to the trial.
ha ha... u poor, naive thing

you just don't get it about DC and how only $$ talks there... and how the dims can do all kinds of criminal things... u know.. like steal elections... and nothing is ever done...
 
Um, I'm confused. Are you either ignorant or try to bamboozle the readers?

A trial jury decides innocent or guilty, a Grand Jury only decides on an indictment or no sufficient evidence to have a trial.

So what is it? Are you dishonest, or are you ignorant? Or both?
um, I'm confused. Are you either ignorant (sic) or try to bambooze the readers?

It says in the article TRIAL

moron
 
um, I'm confused. Are you either ignorant (sic) or try to bambooze the readers?

It says in the article TRIAL

moron
Mea culpa, I was ignorant. The trial commenced with jury's voir dire on May 16th, I should have researched.
 
Mea culpa, I was ignorant. The trial commenced with jury's voir dire on May 16th, I should have researched.
The whole case looks very flimsy...

They are trying to say he was lying about who he was representing... No recordings, no real notes... Definitely nothing signed...

There was only Sussman and Baker in the room and Baker has stated a few different versions since... Baker clearly didn't think it was a big deal... Actually there might have been assumptions by Baker without asking the actual question...

Baker stated, "I don’t remember [Sussmann] specifically saying that he was acting on behalf of a particular client," ....

By not saying something you are not lying...

Durham needs something and this is the best he got, which looks like not much..
 

Forum List

Back
Top