Open/Close Menu وکیل | مشاوره رایگان | وکالت | وکیل آنلاین

The acquittal of Michael Sussman, Clinton’s campaign lawyer, has been the subject of heated debate among politicians and experts. Some have argued that the case failed due to lack of evidence, while others claimed that prosecutors faced it as biased judges and juries. Sasman, in turn, claimed that the jury found that “I told the truth.” The truth is more complicated and few people think that this sentence is based on Sassman’s truth. However, a statement from a jury immediately after the verdict sparked speculation about the impact of the jury’s bias. The jury was reported, according to Jeff Murdoch of the Washington Times said “I do not think it should have been prosecuted. There are bigger things that affect the country than the possible lies of the FBI. If this statement had been made during the voir dire, the jury would probably have objected.

Before the verdict was issued, some of us pointed out unfavorable factors for the prosecutor. Few honestly ask that trying to be a Clinton campaign lawyer in a city where more than 90 percent voted for Clinton is not an advantage in defense. The same is true of some cases that are tried in conservative areas. In this case, prosecutors challenged some of the jury but were rejected by Judge Christopher Cooper. I believe the court was wrong about one of these rulings. In the end, the prosecutor was confronted with a jury that included three Clinton donors, an AOC donor, and a woman whose daughter played on Sussman’s daughter’s team. As I said before, this does not mean that a jury cannot be impartial.

Prosecutors also faced a series of negative rulings by the judge that limited the scope of the evidence and investigations. This deprived the prosecutor of the ability to demonstrate how the campaign deliberately made unsubstantiated allegations.

However, I did note at the outset that “This is not an easy case to prove“I think there was a lot of evidence that Sussman lied to cover up his work with the Clinton campaign. However, defending against elements like materialism did a good job of how these false statements affected the FBI.

The jury’s statement is not something that is likely to be heard in court. The jury could still make an impartial decision, even though it knew the prosecutor as much as it did nothing. If such a statement had been made during the voir dire, it would have seemed as serious as a preconceived notion that it could affect the impartiality of the jury.

In the end, there is no evidence that the jury was overturned. While the evidence for lying may seem overwhelming to some of us, there are intermediate questions about how lying affects research. However, I believe that the court has undermined prosecution in a number of its rulings. In addition, there are legal concerns about how This trial was conducted in contrast to the trial of figures such as Michael Flynn In the same court

The more important issue after this ruling is whether Special Inspector John Durham is allowed to publish a public report on his findings. Democrats have previously requested such a report from Special Rapporteur Robert Mueller. Some even demanded unedited publication, including jury content. Finally, a report with a relatively small number of edits was published. It should be the same with Durham. This trial led to the release of new information, but it is clear that Durham was severely limited in the cases he could disclose in court. Public opinion, as after Müller’s research, has a legitimate interest in fully reporting these findings.

Write a comment:


Your email address will not be published.