Like the Media Research Center, WorldNetDaily and CNSNews.com, Newsmax didn'dt take it well when its beloved biased special counsel John Durham's prosecution of Democratic lawyer Michael Sussman failed with him receiving a quick acquittal. A May 31 article by Eric Mack repeated Jonathan Turley's conspiracy theory that the jury was too liberal because the trial was held in Washington, D.C., as well as rantings from the MRC's Curtis Houck:
Special counsel John Durham thanked the Michael Sussmann jury for their service, but critics are blasting the Washington, D.C., judge and jury for the verdict Tuesday.
Constitutional law expert Jonathan Turley denounced a stacked jury that delivered the verdict, including admitted donors to Hillary Clinton, Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-N.Y., and even a woman whose daughter plays sports with the Sussmann's daughter.
"I mean, he 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," Turley said in a video posted to Twitter. "With the exception of randomly selecting people out of the DNC [Democratic National Committee] headquarters, you could not come up with a worse jury."
"Breaking: Ultra-liberal D.C. jury acquits their friend and former Hillary Clinton attorney for having concocted collusion between Donald Trump and Russia," Newsbusters Managing Editor Curtis Houck tweeted Tuesday.
Former federal prosecutor Brett Tolman said Americans should not be surprised a D.C. judge and jury followed the politics instead of the law.
As with his fellow ConWeb outlets, Mack did not mention that Durham had the opportunity to remove jurors he thought were biased during jury selection, and he also had the option to attempt to move the trial to a jurisdiction he thought could be more favorable to his prosecution.
An article by Sandy Fitzgerald turned to a Republican congresswoman to complain about the verdict:
Rep. Nancy Mace, speaking to Newsmax after a Washington, D.C., court's verdict that former Hillary Clinton-connected attorney Michael Sussmann was found not guilty of lying to the FBI, said she does not feel that special counsel John Durham or his prosecutors got their fair day in court, and that "no one is ever held accountable" for breaking laws.
"No one is ever held accountable in this country for breaking the law, particularly in the highest echelons of campaigns and the federal government," the South Carolina Republican said on Newsmax's "John Bachman Now." "It's inexcusable, really, and the frustration of the American people I'm sure will be palpable with this verdict. We just want someone, anyone, to be held accountable for the laws that they're breaking."
Speaking of politicians who haven't been held accountable for the laws they broke, Jay Clemons gave Donald Trump an article to rant about the verdict and other stuff. Clemons made no attempt to fact-check anything Trump said.
Dick Morris called in from bad take-ville for a June 1 column:
The acquittal of attorney Michael Sussmann by a Washington D.C. jury effectively means that no Democrat can ever be convicted of any crime involving corruption as long as the crime has political implications and the trial is before a D.C. jury.
We now have one-party justice in America.
Despite overwhelming evidence that he lied to the FBI, Sussmann was found not guilty by a jury filled with Democrats.
Hillary Clinton got 91% of the votes of the residents of Washington D.C. in 2016.
Biden got 95%, proving that the jury pools are so highly partisan there that they're incapable of judging the facts and acting impartially in a criminal case involving political charges against prominent Democrats.
Since the Department of Justice (DOJ) is located in the nation's capital, this effectively means there is no way to hold Democrats responsible for their corrupt activities.
Morris went on to huff that "Defense attorneys must be allowed to successfully pursue motions to change venue" -- which ignores the rfact that Durham was the prosecutor, not the defense, and he apparently made no effort to seek a change of venue. He went on to ignore Sussmann's actual defense to assert that "The case against Sussmann was overwhelming" and "His perjury could not be more obvious."
Larry Bell used his June 3 column to rant about the purportedly biased jury, then praise Durham for advancing right-wing narratives:
Durham must have recognized slim odds in a Washington, D.C., court venue where 91% of the electorate voted for Hillary; presided over by an Obama-appointed judge whose attorney wife has represented related scandal compromised former FBI attorney Lisa Page; and with a jury with one member whose daughter is on a high school rowing team with Sussmann’s daughter and as many as three were Hillary Clinton donors — including one who also supported U.S. Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez.
Whereas a small rodent was set free, we can safely bet that Durham’s larger plan was always to use the trial as means to release information already in his possession as bait to bag much larger game in upcoming indictments and hearings.
Horace Cooper sung from the same choirbook as his Newsmax compadres in his June 4 column:
The evidence presented at trial was overwhelming.
By many accounts, Michael Sussman had indeed lied to the FBI about his reasons for meeting with FBI general counsel James Baker.
He did so to cover up his part in an elaborate role to weaponize the FBI against candidate Donald Trump.
On the other hand, the trial, to use G. Gordon Liddy’s term, was "stacked and packed."
Several Clinton campaign donors were seated on the jury and the presiding judge, an Obama appointee, issued rulings that prohibited Durham’s case preventing him from showing how Sussman’s false statement fit in as part of a far larger narrative.
This greatly affected the trial’s outcome.
Jury nullification is a poison that having been unleashed by the left could harm everyone.
Regardless of political sympathies, our legal system works best when all citizens — whether in blue or red states — truly do their duty and not simply follow their political allegiances.
Cooper failed to point out that Durham could have tried to move the trial but apparently did not, and also that Durham could have done a better job of keeping allegedly biased jurors off the jury but also apparently did not.