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”.

Steve Bannon, a former chief White House strategist, is charged with one count of conspiracy to commit wire fraud and one count of conspiracy to commit money laundering, each of which carries a maximum penalty of 20 years in prison.

Trump’s former campaign chairman Paul Manafort was sentenced to a combined 7.5 years in prison, but he was released to home confinement in May because of the health risks posed by the coronavirus pandemic in federal prison.

Roger Stone, a longtime Republican political operative who advised Trump during the campaign, was convicted of lying to Congress and obstructing its investigation into Russian election meddling and sentenced to three years in prison. Last month, Trump commuted the sentence of his longtime confidant, just days before Stone was set to report to prison.

Michael Flynn, Trump’s former national security adviser pleaded guilty in December 2017 to lying to investigators about meetings with Russians while in the White House. He cooperated with Mueller under a plea agreement.

George Papadopoulos, a foreign policy adviser to the Trump campaign, served 14 days in prison and was ordered to pay a $9,500 fine and complete 200 hours of community service.
— USA Today, 8/20/20

We know that some of these people were set up by federal law enforcement and in at least one case, documents that could have exonerated one was altered and submitted to give a false impression of guilt. The person who committed that breach of trust and federal crime is now asking for leniency so he doesn’t have to go to prison.

Kevin Clinesmith made a grievous mistake. By altering a colleague’s email, he cut a corner in a job that required far better of him. He failed to live up to the FBI’s and his own high standards of conduct. And he committed a crime. Kevin pled guilty and accepts full responsibility. He deeply regrets his conduct and apologizes to all those who have been affected—including his former colleagues, the FBI, the DOJ, the Court, the public, and his family.

Not specifically to Carter Page; the man he tried to have imprisoned by his “grievous mistake”. Now, cue the violins….

Since the inception of the government’s investigation, Kevin has been devastated personally and professionally. And the financial and emotional costs of this ordeal have had a profound impact on him and his family.

As a result of his conduct, Kevin has lost his career and professional identity. He no longer works for the FBI and his conviction likely precludes him from ever working for the federal government again, let alone in his chosen field of law enforcement and intelligence, which was his true passion since college. Moreover, Kevin has lost his livelihood. His non-attorney job prospects are also bleak. For one thing, he will likely be unable to qualify for a security clearance, which will significantly hinder his ability to obtain a private sector role relating to national security, where his skills and competencies lie. Indeed, since leaving the FBI, despite his best efforts Kevin has been unable to find work. As a result, he and his family have and will continue to suffer financially, as evidenced by their negative monthly cash flow.

Michael Flynn would probably ask Clinesmith how it feels?

A sentence that includes incarceration is therefore unnecessarily harsh because it would expose Kevin to a greater risk of severe illness caused by COVID-19. On the other hand, a sentence of probation—which would be the most appropriate sentence even if there were no pandemic—would limit the risks that COVID-19 presents to Kevin as well as prison inmates and staff.
— Sentencing memo for Kevin Clinesmith, 12/3/20

When Clinesmith altered a federal document intent on framing Carter Page, did he consider the potential prison time he be sentencing an innocent man to serve? With all the lawyering-up and the costs associated with having to defend himself, did Clinesmith consider Page had suffered enough? Did Clinesmith consider Page’s life being “devastated” and his reputation ruined?

Obviously not, as Clinesmith’s action dictated. These actions, along with the persecution of those in the Trump orbit, show that those involved with the attempted sabotage of his 2016 campaign and presidency had no inhibitions when it came to ruining the livlihoods of those they sought to attack and showed no restraint when it came to their ability to deprive the politically innocent of their freedom.

People like Peter Strzok, Andrew McCabe, John Brennan, James Clapper, and especially Robert Mueller (who has a documented record of intentionally sending the innocent to prison), are horrible human beings. They have no problem sleeping at night after knowing they can weaponize their personal politics and use the power of federal law enforcement to financially ruin their accused but also technically sentence some to death in prison just because they can.

Clinesmith deserves no leniency because deliberate failure to upload the laws and Constitution of the United States should be considered the callous breaking of a blood oath. Should the day ever come where the #resistance coup-plotters ever face long-overdue justice, they should be sentenced harshly, without mercy, and to the fullest extent of the law.

UPDATE

The two-tier justice system strikes again.

Former FBI attorney Kevin Clinesmith, 38, received the sentence of 12 months probation (and 400 hours community service) from U.S. District Court Judge James Boasberg Friday during a video hearing.

Clinesmith admitted that in June 2017 he sent an altered email to an FBI agent that indicated a target of court-ordered FBI surveillance, former Trump campaign adviser Carter Page, was “not a source” for the Central Intelligence Agency. The statement, passed along as the FBI was applying for a third extension of surveillance of Page, made Page’s actions seem more suspicious by downplaying his past cooperation with the CIA.

The sentencing hearing featured an impassioned speech from Page, in which the energy industry analyst complained that his life was turned upside down by the media firestorm that followed public disclosure of the fact that he was a focus of the FBI probe into potential Russian influence on the Trump campaign.
— Politico, 1/29/21

They can make the lives of Americans hell but we can’t make their lives any more uncomfortable than necessary.

Rep. Devin Nunes and other Republicans blasted the probation sentence with no prison time for ex-FBI lawyer Kevin Clinesmith, who pleaded guilty to fraudulently altering a CIA email during the FBI’s flawed pursuit of surveillance against former Trump campaign associate Carter Page.

Nunes, the former chairman of the House Intelligence Committee who unearthed a host of problems with the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act process in the Trump-Russia investigation, told the Washington Examiner that “once again, we see a two-tiered system of justice where average Americans get investigated and imprisoned based on fake media narratives like ‘Russian collusion’ while government officials who perpetuated these abuses get off scot-free.” He added: “The FBI, DOJ, and judicial system need to regain Americans’ trust, and this absurd sentencing won’t help.”. 

Other Republicans also expressed outrage at the judge’s decision.

“This sentence is absolutely despicable,” Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, told the Examiner.

“An FBI agent falsified evidence in one of the Bureau’s most important investigations ever and a slap on the wrist isn’t going to cut it,” Sen. Ben Sasse, R-Neb., said in a statement.

Sasse added, “this isn’t traffic court” and argued, “America only works if the truth matters, if lying has consequences, and if public servants are held accountable for breaking the laws.”
— Washington Examiner, 1/29/21

See how it works?