Fierce Patriots

Conservative Political News

  • Subscribe

<![CDATA[judge]]>

John Durham Faces New Challenges After Jury Selection in Sussmann Case

by Leave a Comment

The trial of Michael Sussmann, a Hillary Clinton apparatchik who spread false conspiracy theories about Donald Trump to the FBI, begins on Tuesday. That follows the selection of the jury, which is presenting new challenges for John Durham’s first major prosecution in his investigation of the Russian collusion hoax.

Sussmann’s prior attempts to get the case dismissed failed miserably after Durham expertly responded to the contradictory arguments presented. Going forward, though, the final decision will be in the hands of a jury that includes a Hillary Clinton donor and a woman who claims she can’t be impartial regarding Donald Trump.

Many of the members of the broader jury pool, as well as some selected for the jury itself, expressed strong disdain for former President Donald Trump and/or support for Clinton. Most said they hadn’t heard of the Sussmann case until the judge told them about it last week.

“I remembered that the 2016 election was kind of a mess and that there were a lot of shenanigans,” one of the selected jurors told the court. She said she “strongly” disliked Trump and that she didn’t think she could be impartial if the case was about someone on his team but noted that “if it’s not directly about Trump,” then she could be impartial.

The obvious problem here is that the case is about Donald Trump. No, it’s not a Trump associate on trial, but the entire basis of the case is that Sussmann went to the FBI and lied to them about the Alfa Bank conspiracy theory, which asserted that the former president had a secret server communicating with the Russians.

On what planet can a juror who outright says they have a strong animus against Trump be impartial in judging someone who’s on trial for actively trying to destroy Trump with falsities? It’s absolutely insane that this woman made it into the final jury pool.

She’s not the only one, though. Other jurors also revealed that they donated to Hillary Clinton in 2016 and/or donated to Joe Biden in 2020. Given that most people never donate to any political campaign for president, it seems unreasonable that doing so wouldn’t be disqualifying. There are plenty of other possible jurors to choose from who aren’t overtly political to the point where they gave money to Clinton.

Further, the jury pool itself is comprised of 11 women and only five men. Why does that matter? Because women, specifically liberal women like you’d find in Washington, DC, represent one of the strongest demographics for the Democrat Party.

Unfortunately, this is the problem with holding criminal trials against those involved in corruption at the federal level in the nation’s capital. DC is the most liberal city in the country, voting 92.5 percent for Biden in the last presidential election. The bias among possible jurors there is unbelievable. Past that, the judge that allowed the above jurors into the pool is also an Obama appointee. Make of that what you will.

There is one sliver of good news, though. Usually, when a prosecution is brought, the case is so air-tight that a conviction is all but assured.

Regardless, color me skeptical those stats apply in the Sussmann trial. Most cases that go to trial in federal court are inherently non-political. What Durham is doing is relatively rare, and whether he can get a fair shake in prosecution is certainly a concern. Besides, I’m a natural cynic on this stuff given the lack of justice handed down in the past.

Still, we can assume that if Durham chose to go to trial, he’s got an open and shut case. Whether the jury will see it that way? That’s another question.

Court-Ordered New York Redistricting Map Is Lights out for Democrats

by Leave a Comment

While it’s been clear for a few weeks that Republicans have come out on top regarding redistricting for the coming mid-terms, there was one final piece of the puzzle left. That piece has now fallen into place.

A court-ordered map in New York has been adopted, and it’s lights out for Democrats heading into November. While the original Democrat map, which was struck down by the state’s Supreme Court, had a likely outcome of 22 D-seats to 4-R seats, the new map puts as many as 12 seats in play for the GOP.

Republicans were looking at a modest 1-3 seat gain via redistricting after Ron DeSantis worked his magic in Florida (there’s a single district there under dispute, but nothing that can change the game). Now, you could be talking about a 5-8 seat gain just by virtue of the lines that have been drawn across the nation. Democrats who were celebrating a month ago at some earlier court victories have had their hopes of stemming the tide crushed.

One of the things the New York map fixed was an illegal gerrymander in New York City that diluted the voting power of Orthodox Jews, a demographic that leans heavily Republican. That’s left Rep. Jerry Nadler, who would retire if he had any sense given his age and health concerns, in the same district as another Democrat. Elsewhere, Republicans are set up to make headway in what should be a wave year for them.

In the end, the dynamics of the coming election don’t change much, but if 2020 taught us anything, it’s that every seat counts in future elections. Democrats went from a large majority to only holding the house by five seats in a single cycle. So while Republicans are going to gain a lot of seats this year, having more room for error in 2024 and 2026 could be the difference between keeping control and losing it.

Anyway, let the rage ensue. Democrats are already throwing a fit on social media over the New York map, and there’s a lot of crying left to do.

Marjorie Taylor Greene Gets the Last Laugh Over Liberals Accusing Her of 'Insurrection'

by Leave a Comment

Marjorie Taylor Greene has been caught up in a ridiculous sideshow the last few months, with liberal activists suing to try to get her removed from the ballot before November’s election.

According to their arguments, Greene is ineligible to run because she helped foment an “insurrection” on January 6th. The evidence provided? Clips from the movie “Independence Day” — and the fact that she used the term “1776.” That and a text message in which she pointedly does not call for martial law.

The scenes from the courtroom were hilarious, if not grating, with Greene having to answer questions about alien invasions and QAnon. Now, a decision has been made, and the Georgia Congresswoman has been ruled eligible to run for reelection.

That this moronic exercise even made it this far is a blight on our system. While the judge ultimately made the correct decision, there was no reason for him to allow this carnival to happen in the first place. Similar lawsuits were thrown out against other Republicans because they clearly lacked merit.

It is not an “insurrection” to discuss legal avenues to challenge an election. It is also not an “insurrection” for a congressional member to object to the certification of said election. If it were, multiple Democrats would be in jail and would have been barred from the ballot following the 2004 and 2016 elections. Greene’s detractors are perfectly welcome to criticize her attitude about the 2020 election. That does not make it illegal or dispositive that she committed “insurrection” and is therefore constitutionally disqualified.

While the left constantly cries wolf about the downfall of our “democracy,” do you know what is an actual threat to our “democracy”? Democrat Party hacks trying to kick Republicans off of ballots because they got their feelings hurt and can’t win elections fair and square. These ploys are a direct attempt to influence the coming election and overturn the results by default. If Georgians in Greene’s district don’t want her to represent them, they can vote her out of office.

The point is that it’s their choice, not the choice of some far-left funded beltway lawyers acting on behalf of Democrats. Greene’s victory here is important because it hopefully puts a stop to this lunacy going forward.