Judge Throws Out Trump’s RICO Lawsuit Against Hillary Clinton:...Hyperbole...no legal merit

Yes. Otherwise, it wasn't a frivolous and baseless claim at all!

 

She said specifically the case should never have been brought in the first place because it wasn't a serious crime.


"The jury forewoman, who declined to provide her name, told media she believed the case was essentially a waste of time.

"I don’t think it should have been prosecuted," she said, the Washington Times reported. "There are bigger things that affect the nation than a possible lie to the FBI."

Confusingly, the forewoman also claimed the government "succeeded in some ways and not in others" in proving its case, although she did not elaborate on what she meant.

Matthew Whitaker, a former federal prosecutor and acting U.S. attorney general, told Fox News on Wednesday the jury forewoman's comments demonstrate to him a case of "jury nullification."

"My biggest concern is the jury foreman came out and really gave up what the jury was discussing, which is that they thought this case should have never been brought to their attention in the first place," Whitaker explained.

"And that's a little concerning because this looks more like a jury nullification, where even though the evidence was overwhelming, even though they, the government, proved their case, that the jury just decided that this wasn't a case worth pursuing," he added. "So this case, to me, factually and legally was a slam-dunk case. But as I had said earlier, leading up to this jury verdict, this jury was going to be very difficult for Durham and his team to get a conviction."

Meanwhile, constitutional lawyer Jonathan Turley described the forewoman's comment as "the type of statement that would have drawn a likely challenge from prosecutors during voir dire."

"Telling a lie to the FBI was the entire basis for the prosecution. It was the jury's job to determine the fact of such a lie and its materiality," Turley added. "Of course, this statement can be a simple criticism of the underlying charge without admitting to bias in weighing the elements. Yet it would have prompted a challenge in the courtroom if expressed during jury selection."

Last week, Turley expressed concern over the partiality of the jury.

"[Sussmann] is facing a jury that has three Clinton donors, an AOC donor, and a woman whose daughter is on the same sports team with Sussmann’s daughter. With the exception of randomly selecting people out of the DNC headquarters, you could not come up with a worse jury," he said."
https://www.theblaze.com/news/jury-forewoman-michael-sussmann-case-speaks-out

This trial was a minor trial in the overall case and in fact proved that the Clinton campaign knowingly took false information to the FBI urging them to start an investigation based on that false information, and the FBI did even when their own analysis insisted that the information was unverified and likely false.

 

You claim without any factual support that Hillary gave it to the FBI. You're just making **** up again.

 

"Jury nullification"? *LOL*

Her comments indicated that the government didn't prove its case. Oh, but you keep rambling on about tinfoil hat conspiracies, because that makes so much sense.

 

You left out part of what i said as usual.. Hell its part of your own thread title.. Hilary Clinton was a major person in the lawsuit..

So your 2nd sentence is your own assumptions and lack of debate skills..

Have a nice day.. Maybe someone on here will believe you are a lawyer...

 

In dozens of my posts, I have prefaced legal statements with "Caveat: IANAL" because I've never made such a claim. If you were at all familiar with my comments, on the whole, you'd know that. You should know that given that you've been here for a long time, so I can only conclude you are not paying attention.



As for the rest, nothing you have written counter argues and thus refutes the comment to which you replied.

I truncated your post because I only addressed the part that I didn't truncate, which was a stand alone claim about Clinton, thus the rest wasn't needed for my point.

Therefore, my comment stands.

 

I tire of your games.. You leave out what people post on purpose and then play your stupid games like the above post..

Yes your comment stands in a pile of bullshit..

 

A judge throwing out a Trump case?
NEVER EVER HAS THIS HAPPENED!
In other news, its hot outside in the summer time

 

Incompetent rebuttal; vacuous claims are not an argument.

Truncation of parts of an argument not addressed in a rebuttal is common on this forum, get over it.