Especially, if you’re a lawyer….

The first courtroom test for Special Counsel John Durham ended in defeat Tuesday as a federal jury found a Democratic attorney not guilty of making a false statement to the FBI about allegations of computer links between Donald Trump and Russia. The jury deliberated for about six hours before acquitting Michael Sussmann, 57, on the single felony charge he faced: that he lied when he allegedly denied he was acting on behalf of any client in alerting the FBI to claims that a secret server linked Trump and a Moscow bank with ties to Russian President Vladimir Putin.
— Politico, 5/31/22

Since the early days of the Donald Trump campaign, transition, and term in office, we’ve all seen one constant when it comes to the Democrat Party, federal officials and employees, their activists, and their media: they lie and get away with it.

In the Sussmann case, we had an Obama-appointed judge, jurors who managed to be seated despite clear conflicts of interest, and we were all supposed to take their word that they’d be fair and impartial.

Yeah, right.

As many as three Hillary Clinton donors — including one who also supported US Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez — are among the prospective jurors for former Clinton campaign lawyer Michael Sussmann’s trial. Special counsel John Durham’s team objected to putting one Clinton contributor on the panel after the man said he would “strive for impartiality as best I can.”

But the prosecution was overruled by Washington, DC, federal Judge Christopher Cooper, who said the man — who works in public policy for Amazon and appeared to be in his 40s — “expressed a high degree of confidence” that he could be impartial. Cooper, nominated by former President Barack Obama, also said Durham’s prosecutors could use one of its peremptory challenges to strike him from the panel for the trial, the first to result from his three-year probe into the government’s investigations of purported ties between former President Donald Trump and Russia.
— New York Post, 5/16/22

Again having to replay that stupid scenario, what if this were a trial against a Republican defendant in a red state, the judge was appointed by President Donald Trump and prospective jurors were found to have donated to his campaign. First off The Washington Post, New York Times, CNN and MSNBC would have prefaced their coverage with “conflict of interest” shrieks and demands to begin with a change of venue and dismissal of obvious biased jury members. But the legacy media most hid the partisan nature of the court proceedings so the trial result would appear on the up-and-up.

A Clinton supporter, a former bartender who appeared to be in her 20s, said she’d also donated to progressive firebrand Ocasio-Cortez (D-The Bronx, Queens) but was put on the panel after a Sussmann defense lawyer told her that neither Clinton nor former President Donald Trump were on trial and asked if she could be impartial.

“Yes, knowing that,” she said.

Yes, even though we’re talking about a culture where 51 intelligence “experts” can knowingly lie with impunity to the public, take their word for it.

Another woman, who appeared to be in her 40s, said she likely donated to Clinton’s 2016 campaign but wasn’t entirely sure.

Who could forget that?

Although the woman told prosecutor Michael Keilty that she had “a strong preference of one candidate over the other” in the election, she insisted she could be impartial.

Take her word for it.

A prospective juror who works at an engineering firm and appeared to be in her 30s said that her husband worked for Clinton’s 2008 presidential campaign but was allowed to remain on the panel after saying it wouldn’t affect her ability to be impartial

Take her word for it.

Another prospective juror who works for the Sierra Club and appeared to be in her 30s was questioned by Keilty about saying on a pre-screening questionnaire that she thought the criminal justice system was racist and “the police should be defunded.”

But her ideology wouldn’t have any effect during possible deliberations in a trial involving a Democrat. And we all know the wall-to-wall second-guessing that would occur during the evening opinion shows on CNN and MSNBC had a pro-Trump juror been a parent whose child hung out with the defendant’s child.

But the reverse was allowed to happen here.

A federal judge in the criminal trial of Hillary Clinton campaign attorney Michael Sussmann denied a prosecution request Thursday to remove a juror whose daughter plays on the same high school sports team as the defendant’s daughter.

A woman, identified as Juror #5, came forward Thursday morning to tell the court that she only recently discovered that her daughter and Mr. Sussmann’s daughter play on the same high school crew team.
— Washington Times, 5/19/22

Americans should have a reasonable expectation to a fair trial and should not have to be wary of the appearance of a clearly rigged system that favors one ideology over another, and there are takeaways we should never forget going forward….

Federal officials and employees (the deep state) lie and will get away with it.

Lawyers lie and will get away with it. On the rare occasions they’re busted, they will be sentenced with genuine leniency.

Jurors lie so they can determine preferable, partisan outcomes.

I don’t think it should have been prosecuted. There are bigger things that affect the nation than a possible lie to the FBI. It was the government’s job to prove it, and they succeeded in some ways and not in others. We broke it down, and it did not pan out in the government’s favor.
— Jury Forewoman

And Hillary Clinton remains legally unscathed but some of the stink will stick.

Hillary Clinton personally approved her campaign’s plans in fall 2016 to share information with a reporter about an uncorroborated alleged server backchannel between Donald Trump and a top Russian bank, her former campaign manager testified Friday in federal court.
— CNN, 5/20/22

As we can’t recall one instance where it’s been proven that conservative Republicans in those positions have done the same, it can rightly be concluded that liberal Democrats willfully lie in government and the legal system.

There’s your “threat to democracy”.