Not-so-special counsel John Durham’s epic faceplant in court today really deserves a thread of its own. If you have little exposure to wingnut media, you might be saying Dur-who? But for Trumpers, Durham has loomed large for three years or so as the walrus-mustachioed avatar of justice who was going to perp walk Hillary Clinton, Obama, Biden, etc., and vindicate Citrus Beelzebub from the stain of RussiaGate.
Durham not only did NOT find evidence of the original justification for the probe, i.e., that the FBI started an investigation into Trump’s ties to Russia improperly. Instead, Durham was reduced to filing an extremely thin case that a lawyer who worked for Hillary Clinton lied to the FBI. It was such a shitty case that the jury acquitted the accused on the first day of deliberations before lunch.
This is a humiliating, catastrophic outcome for Trump sycophants, which means they will lie about it. They’ll claim the jury is biased and say they knew the fix was in. Deep State, herp-de-derp, blah blah blah. But don’t doubt for a moment that they’re secretly enraged and screaming into their pillows. They believed in this ridiculous trash heap of a case, and it’s just come crashing down on their heads.
Open thread.
Baud
Good news. And you know if there had been a conviction, the media would have been all over it. Thank God for reasonable jurors.
Deputinize Eurasia from the Kuriles to St Petersburg
Over in wingnut world, Turley has been working overtime to provide reasons “from the mainstream”:
So according to Turley, donating to AOC would be a valid challenge for cause. Having maybe donated to Clinton is a challenge for cause. Not knowing Sussman or Sussman’s daughter while having a Senior who played on a team while not knowing Sussman or Sussman’s daughter is a challenge for cause. While you may want to use peremptories for those jurors to strike, that’s not what Turley says – Turley has ordinary political support as a challenge for cause.
He’s actually going further with this in poking at the jurors as we speak.
MisterForkbeard
You know what’s really sad? First, from an article I read (will have to find the link) the jurors thought the whole damn thing was a joke:
Secondly, Trump has flipped the fuck out over on whats-his-twitter. Almost psychotic break bad. I’d forgotten how puerile and insane he actually was.
Jerzy Russian
What a maroon.
debbie
Baud
@Deputinize Eurasia from the Kuriles to St Petersburg:
His peers are not our peers.
Geoduck
You can learn the latest Right-Wing garbage-spew in thirty seconds by reading Ben Garrison’s latest cartoons. He just posted one how Durham is/was relentlessly closing in on nailing Hillary herself. So of course Durham immediately comes up with nothing.
rikyrah
I have missed posts like this :)
daize
Just had to see that one more time….
Benw
Nelson Muntz: HA HA!
David ☘The Establishment☘ Koch
They believe JFK faked his own assassination and is still alive at age 105 and secretly helping Dump
jonas
@Deputinize Eurasia from the Kuriles to St Petersburg: So according to Turley, we have to make sure to keep any and all Republicans and/or Trump voters and donors off any juries that hear any of Trump’s cases. Roger that!
RandomMonster
And still is!
Ken
“We watch wingnuts so you don’t have to.”
(Seems appropriate that the original “so you don’t have to” ad was for a product that removed scum from bathroom tiles.)
debbie
@debbie:
The video in the tweet I embedded has some Fox guy saying that the verdict was no surprise because TFG only got 5.4% of the vote in Washington, D.C. This is despicable.
Mike in NC
I might need to steal that. The other day “Tangerine Baal” was also a keeper.
Baud
@debbie:
No, that’s a compliment. He’s saying that a man would have been falsely found guilty in Trump country.
West of the Cascades
My god – what jury acquits before lunch? At least string out “deliberations” to get a free meal.
Villago Delenda Est
Any second now, Hillary is going to be indicted then immediately locked up! It’s just around the corner. We swear on a stack of benjamins!
Deputinize Eurasia from the Kuriles to St Petersburg
@Baud:
Ken Paxton is lining up an Amarillo jury for a redo on this as we speak……
Deputinize Eurasia from the Kuriles to St Petersburg
@jonas: No, those are fine – they’re more likely to be unbiased.
OzarkHillbilly
FTR, I read that the jury deliberated for about 4 hours on Friday in addition to 2 hours this AM. It came from a reporter at the court house. Sorry, I forget who.
WaterGirl
@West of the Cascades: You have obviously never been served “lunch” while participating in a jury trial.
MisterForkbeard
@jonas: Turley (and Republicans) actually believe this. That voting for a Democrat makes you unable to be a juror on a case that involves Democrats or Republicans. Only Republicans are allowed to sit in judgment of Democrats. Only Republicans are allowed to sit in judgment of Republicans. They’ve been pretty open about it.
Not to mention that Trump has also said that any Republican who investigates him is also a secret Democrat. Because that’s nice.
Ruckus
To me a faceplant is falling down face first without catching yourself. To me it looks like Durham ran face first into either a corner of a wall or a high voltage line pole. Similar result but running face first into something can be a bit more catastrophic than falling down from stupidity.
Jerzy Russian
@David ☘The Establishment☘ Koch: The mother of that clan lived to be on the order of 100 years (I can’t be bothered to look up the exact figure), so JFK has the long-life genes.
Lapassionara
We’ll see what the post trial motions bring. In a sane world, this would be the end of Durham’s quest, but we are no longer in a sane world.
I read earlier that the jury asked to see some exhibits, and one was a taxi receipt to and from the FBI building that showed Sussman did not bill the Clinton campaign for the ride.
debbie
Baud
@MisterForkbeard:
Yes, just like Republican voters are people, and Democratic voters are special interests.
OzarkHillbilly
@Ruckus: Having executed both maneuvers, I have to disagree. Falling down face first caused me to tear my rotator cuff. Walking face first into a street sign post because I couldn’t take my eyes of the very lovely senorita across the street only embarrassed me. Especially when my wife gave me the dagger eyes.
Steeplejack
I’m glad about the verdict, but a conviction was optional for the wingnuts. They had, what, two or three years to chew-toy the “narrative,” so it’s out there and it’s set. And that segues right into “Deep state fix is in!”
Baud
@Lapassionara:
???
There’s no getting around an aquittal.
MisterForkbeard
@OzarkHillbilly: What I read (maybe even here?) is that the jury asked for copy of a receipt on Friday, got it on Monday and pretty much immediately moved to acquit right after.
But basically? It looks like a really clear case of “this case was bullshit and Durham is a corrupt fool”.
West of the Cascades
@WaterGirl: A fair (and correct) point. I guess by coming back for a couple of hours, they got another day off work and another day of jury pay (probably enough to buy a sandwich and bag of chips at a good deli?).
debbie
Baud
@debbie:
Good, because you know Ginni is going to do it again.
sab
So what is the point of javimg gramd juries? It doesn’t seem like Durham even presented them with a ham sandwich of a case.
Baud
@sab:
They are mostly a relic, although a few years ago a grand jury famously refused to indict one of the people on the Mueller task force in another sham prosecution case brought by conservatives.
AliceBlue
@WaterGirl: I’m reminded of the time many years ago when I was on a jury in Atlanta. Right before we broke for lunch on the first day, the judge said something about us getting to eat in the fine courthouse cafeteria. He was joking, although we didn’t realize it yet. I don’t remember what I had–it wasn’t just bad, it was inedible. I ended up eating packets of crackers out of a machine that day and the next. Fortunately the trial lasted only two days.
NotMax
‘@MisterForkbeard
Bull Durham?
//
Ruckus
@OzarkHillbilly:
There are exceptions to every stupidity……..
Dorothy A. Winsor
@Baud: My son was on a grand jury for the county he lives in. As I recall, he had to report one day a week for a month. They indicted in every case but one.
debbie
For all you naysayers:
David ☘The Establishment☘ Koch
@Baud:
do you mean when the grand jury refused to indict Andy McCabe
Major Major Major Major
This case was a complete joke, it’s no surprise the turnaround was quick (but it was about six hours over two days, wasn’t it?). I flipped through the comments on the NYPost article and people kept saying “we don’t know how many Democrats made it onto the jury, but it only takes one”, so you can add “jury decisions must be unanimous” to the list of things conservatives don’t know.
Villago Delenda Est
@NotMax: Bullshit Durham.
David ☘The Establishment☘ Koch
Lincoln Project begins to carpet bomb JD Vance (video)
Barbara
@Lapassionara: Jury acquittal cannot be reversed. No idea what kind of post-trial motions could be considered. Sanctions? Request for an apology? I’m joking of course, but even jury tampering isn’t a slam dunk for redoing a criminal charge and I doubt if the defendant pulled a John Gotti.
lowtechcyclist
@OzarkHillbilly: Good thing looks can’t kill, huh? ;-)
Baud
@David ☘The Establishment☘ Koch:
Possibly. Can’t remember the names.
debbie
@David ☘The Establishment☘ Koch:
Good ad.
debbie
@David ☘The Establishment☘ Koch:
Did you see the ad I linked to in the earlier thread? It’s the best, most direct thing I’ve seen in some time.
Deputinize Eurasia from the Kuriles to St Petersburg
@Baud:
According to the galaxy brains on Twitter (including some claiming to being lawyers), there are.
Deputinize Eurasia from the Kuriles to St Petersburg
@West of the Cascades:
Jury pay rarely even covers parking around here.
Goku (aka Amerikan Baka)
@Major Major Major Major:
LOL! It’s only capital crime trials that need unanimous verdicts, right?
debbie
Hope this is something meaningful that hurts the TX Junta:
lowtechcyclist
@MisterForkbeard:
I’d been picking up bits and pieces of the case from people like Laura Rozen and (I think) Marcy Wheeler, and it sure looked like a case of an obsessed prosecutor who knew there had to be someone guilty.
IMHO, the guy should be disbarred for taking this case to trial.
Which is something that should happen more often, if you ask me: putting a citizen in jeopardy of prison is serious business, and if you take a case to trial that had no business going that far, you should lose both your job and your law license.
Baud
@Deputinize Eurasia from the Kuriles to St Petersburg:
Huh. What are they saying?
WaterGirl
@AliceBlue: On the federal jury, we walked across the street to the local diner. For the local jury, we got adjourned and just had to come back after lunch. For the other one, the food was abysmal.
lowtechcyclist
@debbie: Had to sort my way through what amounted to triple negatives there (accompanied in my head by Sam the Sham singing “oh, that’s good, no, that’s bad”) to figure out that that was a good thing.
JPL
@AliceBlue: I had an apple. It wasn’t bad.
Lapassionara
@Baud: You are right, of course. But I never say “cannot be done” with this group until the time has elapsed.
JPL
I’m sick that they lied about the teacher not shutting the door. It might be time for Justice to not only look into mistakes but charge them with lying. I’m sick. You just don’t ruin another teacher’s reputation for sport. There should be consequences.
JPL
Shocking news
The Uvalde Police Department and the Uvalde ISD police force are no longer cooperating with the @TxDPS investigation into the massacre at Robb Elementary and the state’s review of police response, multiple law enforcement sources told @ABC w/ @JoshMargolin
zhena gogolia
@rikyrah: Me too!
Deputinize Eurasia from the Kuriles to St Petersburg
@Baud:
“Bad jurors, bad venue”.
Gary K
@sab:
Try moving your desk chair to the left by about a half-inch.
OzarkHillbilly
@MisterForkbeard: I read that about the receipts, but don’t recall the details of when asked, when received.
Baud
@Deputinize Eurasia from the Kuriles to St Petersburg:
What are people other than Giuliani saying?
debbie
@lowtechcyclist:
Heh, Alito at his best, I guess!
Kay
OzarkHillbilly
@Ruckus: And I’m it!
Major Major Major Major
@Goku (aka Amerikan Baka):
N… no? All crime. A couple states allowed 1-2 dissenters but those were ruled unconstitutional a couple years ago.
debbie
@Kay:
Any idea who’s scapegoating who?
OzarkHillbilly
@lowtechcyclist: I’d have died the death of a thousand cuts. Fortunately my wife is a forgiving person. Sucker….
Barbara
@JPL: Wait — they actually have the choice of not cooperating? That is some serious BS if a local government isn’t required to cooperate with a state agency. Subpoenas for everyone.
Deputinize Eurasia from the Kuriles to St Petersburg
@Baud:
LOL – It’s a lot of stupid to wade through, but it all really circles back to Turley’s inspirations of doubt.
Baud
@Deputinize Eurasia from the Kuriles to St Petersburg:
Turley is the Joe Rogan of attorneys.
OzarkHillbilly
@JPL: I am shocked, shocked I tell you!
Deputinize Eurasia from the Kuriles to St Petersburg
@Barbara:
Louisville Metro has a provision in the collective bargaining agreement with the FOP that gives a 72 hour (iirc) period before any member can be compelled to give a statement to investigators.
Deputinize Eurasia from the Kuriles to St Petersburg
@Baud:
Quit insulting Rogan. His stupidity comes naturally. Turley has been working hard to develop his.
West of the Rockies
Can Durham now be fired for incompetence?
P.S. So happy to have BJ back!
Barbara
@Deputinize Eurasia from the Kuriles to St Petersburg: Going out on a limb here, but I highly doubt there is a CBA at issue in Uvalde.
OzarkHillbilly
@Barbara: Everybody has 5th amendment rights.
SpaceUnit
Not a lawyer but I believe the precise legal term for this verdict is “laughed out of court”.
Barbara
@OzarkHillbilly: People do, yes, but it would be a stretch to apply those to the public agency itself.
New Deal democrat
@debbie: “this time is different”
I hope he is right.
I saw a news blurb earlier today that said Biden is frustrated because he doesn’t know what Democrats should run on in the midterms, and I thought, “You’ve got to be kidding me!”
88% of Americans want gun violence taken care of. The problem is, they have never made it a top priority. If I were Biden, would be running ads telling people to circle November 8 on their calendars and write the single word “guns,” because on the day if they give Democrats real majorities in both Houses of Congress, Democrats will pass XYZ legislation, and I would be real specific, e.g., reinstate the assault weapons ban that was allowed to expire in 2014.
New Deal democrat
@debbie:
“this time is different”
I hope he is right.
I saw a news blurb earlier today that said Biden is frustrated because he doesn’t know what Democrats should run on in the midterms, and I thought, “You’ve got to be kidding me!”
88% of Americans want gun violence taken care of. The problem is, they have never made it a top priority. If I were Biden, would be running ads telling people to circle November 8 on their calendars and write the single word “guns,” because on the day if they give Democrats real majorities in both Houses of Congress, Democrats will pass XYZ legislation, and I would be real specific, e.g., reinstate the assault weapons ban that was allowed to expire in 2014.
lowtechcyclist
@Barbara:
Depends on what the Texas Constitution says about home rule, but if it says nothing, I don’t think they have that choice.
Mind you, IANAL, so I’m open to correction from those who are.
OzarkHillbilly
@Barbara: The public agency doesn’t have 5th amendment rights, but the people working there do. It’s an easy enough fix. Give qualified immunity to a few folks and listen to them sing an aria.
Cacti
@Deputinize Eurasia from the Kuriles to St Petersburg:
This is my shocked face that “liberal civil rights lawyer” Jonathan Turley is whining that the prosecution wasn’t able to stack the jury box with Republicans.
lowtechcyclist
@Deputinize Eurasia from the Kuriles to St Petersburg:
Obviously a different state we’re talking about here, but if the state isn’t a party to that agreement, how would they be bound by it?
But don’t those rights have to be exercised by individuals? Also, unless they can be charged with a criminal offense in conjunction with their conduct, I don’t think it applies: “nor shall [any person] be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself.”
VOR
@Kay: They must have screwed this up even worse than was reported. A few possible theories:
Goku (aka Amerikan Baka)
@Major Major Major Major:
Oh. Well I feel silly now
Steeplejack
@OzarkHillbilly:
Kay
@VOR:
I don’t think it neccesarily means that. I blame them for a lot but I don’t blame them for being cautious with investigators from a state police agency who were humiliated and are going to be looking for a scapegoat.
I don’t believe the basic premise of the story- that they did not know those kids were in danger. That doesn’t make any sense. They made some other error that is contained within that weird opaque cop language- where the shooter was not “active” but instead was “barricaded subject”. To find out an investigator will have to force them to stop relying on those terms and simply have them describe what happened, in ordinary language. Police use what are really terms of art- questions to them will have to break that down. They had some reason to reach for that phrase, that category- “barricaded suspect”. What was that reason? That’s the error.
different-church-lady
The great thing about conspiracy theories is it’s impossible to prove them wrong.
danielx
@lowtechcyclist:
Given what the Texas Legislature has said about home rule in regard to local control of drilling, fracking, etc., within municipal boundaries….local agencies refusing to cooperate with state agencies might not be in the cards. On the other hand it’s Texas, so logical consistency is not a given.
Roger Moore
@NotMax:
Kirk Spencer
@Kay:
Simplistically, a barricaded subject is one who no longer has hostages but has put themself into a strong defensive position. So what he’s saying is “hey, the guy was in a position where he couldn’t kill any more kids, but could kill anyone assaulting his position. So why waste more lives?”
something else I ran across. Allegedly the town has a noticeable division between hispanics and whites, with significant gerrymandering. That’s given by the person I was reading as the explanation for the entire elected city government being white in a majority latino town, while all the ‘working council’ positions (chief of police being an example) are not white.
In other words there may be undercurrents here of which we casual observers are unaware. For example given another allegation that some of the city council was on scene I’m wondering who really made the call about “barricaded”.
debbie
@Steeplejack:
Good god, $28.00? Durham’s probably the only human being to surpass Ken Starr’s pettiness.
Kay
@Kirk Spencer:
But they haven’t explained why, specifically, they believed this. Media sort of provided the explanation- that the kids in that room or rooms were dead. I don’t think that’s it, or better, I don’t know because the answer was supplied. How did they get to “barricaded suspect”? That’s the error and it could be an error rather than some… concept of cowardice. They would have been better off explaining- “we saw THIS so believed THAT”.
I think it’s tied to the adjoining rooms. One of the student survivors says the teacher could not reach “the middle door” to lock it. They made some assumption about those rooms.
Roger Moore
@debbie:
This isn’t about reimbursing Sussmann for his expenses. This is about Sussmann not charging the Clinton campaign for his taxi ride to see the FBI. He claimed, and apparently the jury agreed, this was exculpatory evidence, since it showed he was not acting on behalf of the Clinton campaign when he talked to the FBI. The prosecutor is required to note any exculpatory evidence they see and forward it to the defense. That they didn’t do so with this evidence the defense knew about was an indication they probably weren’t doing it for evidence the defense didn’t know about. That’s serious prosecutorial misconduct and should be seen as a general indication of the ethics of Durham’s office.
Steeplejack
@debbie:
It was not the amount but more the allegation that the receipt, presumably billed to a client, would be proof that Sussman was working for the Clinton campaign. Legal Twitter is guffawing that the (unbilled) receipt conclusively proves Sussman’s innocence, because lawyers bill everything possible, no matter how small, to the client. For Durham to withhold this was reprehensible.
ETA: Also what Roger Moore said.
debbie
@Roger Moore:
Thanks. I thought it was about his hiding that he was working for the campaign. Any chance this misconduct will end whatever other investigations Durham’s conducting?
debbie
@Steeplejack:
Thanks.
Barbara
@Kay: Also, the ongoing 911 calls would seem to refute the idea that kids were out of danger. Who knew about those calls is going to loom large in the investigation.
Kent
@debbie: What happened to separation of powers? Can’t SCOTUS regulate itself?
Barbara
@Roger Moore: Yep. Grounds for mistrial at the very least.
Roger Moore
@debbie:
It should, but it won’t. Biden and Garland won’t shut it down because they rightly believe they would be roasted in the media if they tried. And Durham doesn’t have the ethics to shut himself down. It sucks for the people he’s aiming at, but if this is the best he can do it isn’t much.
debbie
@Roger Moore:
Probably best to stand back and let him make a fool of himself.
Mai Naem mobile
@debbie: i wonder what happens when they find out Ginni Thomas or some GOP justice’s clerk is the leaker?
The way this case was reported it sounded like there are more people Durham is going to prosecute. I do hope Garland shuts Durham down completely by November. I do not want this turning into a Whitewater which went on for years and years.
debbie
@Mai Naem mobile:
I’m not sure they’re even going to look at Ginni. I think they’ll stick to the clerks and figure out how to blame one of them.
sab
@Gary K: Lol. That would make me hit different wrong keys. I need more pointy fingers, or the discipline to proof read before I post.
David ☘The Establishment☘ Koch
@debbie:
That’s great
Wapiti
@OzarkHillbilly: Wow, that brings a flashback: me, at 5 or 6, at a “carnival” in the local supermarket parking lot. I’m walking along, eating my cotton candy, and walk right into :smack: an I-beam holding up the store awning. I didn’t know any cuss words at the time.
Jay
@Wapiti:
in Kamloops, teens at the time, my brother walked backwards towards a telephone pole, snickering, only to pirouette at the last moment, around it, right into a steel “no parking” sign.
I still laugh.
randy khan
Apparently the Wall Street Journal editorial board believes that the Sussman trial was a good thing because now more people know about the Clinton campaign’s dirty tricks. This is an impressive level of fantasizing.
Rudi666
From another site, republicans are already comping on the bit to investigate Brandon.
https://themoderatevoice.com/republicans-held-secret-meetings-in-may-with-right-wing-think-tanks-to-plan-2023-biden-investigations/
Bill
@Major Major Major Major: so do acquittals need to be unanimous as well ?
Bokonon
Honestly? I wish I could feel better about this. But the damage is done.
I think that Durham winning his case was just a secondary goal. He kept this ridiculous investigation and prosecution going for YEARS … and all that time, he supplied the right wing with the counter-narrative that they needed that it was really the Democrats were corrupt, and Donald Trump was the real victim. And that succeeded. It will continue to succeed. If you doubt it, check out the Wall Street Journal’s smug, smirking editorial brushing aside the verdict, chuckling how USEFUL the CASE was.
As a postscript … I had Jonathan Turley as my law professor back in the 1990’s, and I don’t know what the hell happened to him. He has turned into something sinister and unrecognizable.