Updated: May 23
Conservatives and those independents who are simply interested in good government and the rule of law have long-noticed a trend in DC political corruption trials – Democrats are almost never convicted, and in those rare instances where they are a mere slap on the wrist is the only punishment they receive from the deeply Democrat judges and juries.
The contrast between the trial and punishment of FBI liar and forger Kevin Clinesmith and those of General Mike Flynn and Roger Stone being among the more salient examples of this phenomenon. For lying and forging a document in the Carter Page FISA matter Clinesmith received probation and the restoration of his license to practice law, whereas Flynn and Stone were hounded by judges and prosecutors alike and were only saved from lengthy prison sentences by pardons from President Trump.
As we survey the environment Special Counsel Durham is facing here are a few of the things he is up against we culled from conservative media reports and court watchers.
First of all, there is the breadth of the relationships behind the conspiracy.
As the Federalist’s Sean Davis reported, at the same time that Hillary’s campaign, Obama’s campaign organization, and the DNC were simultaneously paying Perkins Coie, [CHQ note: around $10 million all told] the spouse of one of Fusion GPS’s key employees was working directly for Obama in the West Wing. Shailagh Murray, a former Washington Post reporter-turned-political operative, was serving as a top communications adviser to Obama while the Obama administration was reportedly using information from the dossier to justify secret surveillance of Trump campaign staff. Murray is married to Neil King, a former Wall Street Journal reporter who was hired by Fusion GPS in December of 2016. While at the Wall Street Journal, King worked alongside Fusion GPS’s core team, even sharing bylines with Glenn Simpson, the Fusion GPS executive who personally hired Steele to probe Trump’s alleged Russia connections.
Translation: The relationships between the political operatives and campaigns, lawyers, journalists and government officials involved was so close on a personal level as to blur if not completely erase the ethical and communications lines between the various entities that put the conspiracy against Trump in motion.
Regarding the trial, the Conservative Treehouse noted early on that Judge Christopher Cooper is married to Amy Jeffries, disgraced FBI lawyer Lisa Page’s attorney. Additionally, Judge Cooper and defendant Michael Sussmann both worked in the DOJ together. Ms. Jeffries has donated thousands of dollars to Hillary Clinton’s campaign and other Democrats.
Flash Update: Between the two of them it looks like Cooper and Jeffries gave over $50,000 to Democrats zero to Republicans.
Cooper, an Obama-appointee, and Jeffress, a former top aide to Attorney General Eric Holder, are well connected in the Democratic party. Current Attorney General Merrick Garland even presided over their 1999 wedding reported the Conservative Treehouse’s Sundance.
Fox News reported Cooper was also part of the Obama administration transition team for hiring Justice Department personnel.
The Epoch Times reported the judge (Cooper) overseeing Michael Sussmann’s trial on May 19 denied a request from prosecutors with special counsel John Durham’s team to remove a juror who revealed having ties to Sussmann.
Juror #5 told U.S. District Judge Christopher Cooper, an Obama appointee, that her daughter and Sussmann’s daughter are on the same crew team.
And that’s not the only irregularity in the jury. As Prof. Jonathan Turley noted in an article for The Hill, the judge has cleared a jury that includes three Clinton campaign donors. “During jury selection, one juror admitted he was a Clinton donor and could only promise to “strive for impartiality as best I can.” Prosecutors objected to his being seated, but Judge Christopher Cooper overruled them.
“In another exchange, a former bartender and donor to far-left Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) was told by a Sussmann defense lawyer that neither Clinton nor Trump were on trial and then asked if she could be impartial. She responded, “Yes, knowing that” — which might suggest she would not be impartial if the campaigns were part of the trial.
“Other jurors include a woman who said she thought she was a Clinton donor but could not remember; a juror whose husband worked for the Clinton 2008 campaign; and a juror who believes the legal system is racist and police departments should be defunded.”
Prof. Turley also noted Judge Cooper has stressed that this trial cannot be about the Clinton campaign per se, but the specific lie that was told. He specifically barred Durham from arguing that there was a “joint venture” in deception with the Clinton campaign. The judge sharply limited the evidence that Durham can present which, in the words of Politico, “spares the Clinton campaign and the Democratic National Committee … potential embarrassment.”
John Durham investigation
Charles Dolan Jr.
Primary Sub-Source (PSS)
lying to FBI agents
Perkins-Coie law firm
Fusion GPS PR firm