by Tom Arnold, ©2022
(Jun. 1, 2022) — Why is it a crime to lie to a federal official, but when they lie to the American people, it is not? Why can the FBI and other federal law enforcement officers lie to you during an interrogation (not to mention at any other time they please)? Why do I always have to ask myself after a mass shooting, bank robbery, act of terrorism, political malfeasance, etc., “What did the FBI know, and when did they know it?”
Why did the FBI participate with its lies and silence in what possibly is the greatest cover-up and treasonous act in American history (the unlawful and unconstitutional rise to the US presidency of a communist-mentored, anti-American, Muslim, ethnically Arab-American, CIA- and NWO-sponsored Manchurian Candidate, which, by the way, marked the beginning of the destruction of our sane society and democratic constitutional government)?
In a more general sense, why does it seem that practically all politicians lie? In fact, it almost seems to be a prerequisite for the presidency! Is Joe’s mouth moving? Somehow, I don’t see this behavior and deceit as being good for our country, either at home or abroad, not to mention that it is a bad example for individual American citizens (and millions of immigrants, of course). Have you noticed the moral decline and sacrilege around you? Have you looked in the mirror lately?
In a short and sweet conclusion, one of Hillary Clinton’s lawyers, Michael Sussmann, recently “walked!” Trump 2016 campaign members George Papadopoulos, Lt. Gen Michael Flynn (Ret), and Roger Stone were, shall we say, not so lucky! Actually, Sussmann had the “swamp” on his side. He once was a partner at the infamous Perkins Coie law firm (the law firm of Barack Obama, which miraculously found Obama’s Hawaiian birth certificate, albeit forged, and delivered it to Obama for presentation to the American public!).
Talk about a “two-tiered” justice system. If you are in one of the “tiers,” you can lie through your teeth to government officials and get away with it. If you are in the less-fortunate other tier, the pinocchios and the catch-all law, 18 USC, Section 1001, will get you practically every time!
I wouldn’t lie to you.
Great article. It’s about time someone brings up the hypocrisy of our government permitting a two tiered system. Honesty, integrity, transparency by all public officials is a law we need to enact asap. What a wonderful country this would be ❗️
As the U.S. Supreme Court repeatedly has ruled, the prosecutor always has the burden to prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, every element of the charged crime. The jury foreperson for Sussmann’s said the prosecutor failed to meet that burden.
In contrast, George Papadopoulos and Michael Flynn pleaded guilty. Their guilty pleas were legally sufficient proof that they committed crimes.
If someone believes it should be a crime for federal officials to lie, the first step would be to ask Congress to pass that law.
Legal proceedings for all three were held in Washington DC.
Ever since the people of Washington DC were granted the right to vote in presidential elections (1961) they have voted every time for the Democrat and never by less than 74.1%, by an average of 82.4%, and by 90.6% for Hillary. Democrats currently outnumber Republicans by 76.5% to 5.4%.
The judge for Sussman’s trial was an Obama appointee. During jury selection he overruled a defense challenge to a juror who not only admitted to having contributed to Hillary’s campaign but who also said they would “strive for impartiality as best I can.”. Strive for? As best they could? Really? So a Hillary donor didn’t say they were sure they could be impartial yet the judge overruled the defense’s challenge? Other jurors included 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. The judge did, however, eliminate a potential juror who worked as an accountant and prepared tax returns for a former FBI official, lawyer James Baker, who figured prominently in the case against Sussmann. Fair and impartial? My derrière!
Maybe, just maybe, had either George Papadopoulos or Michael Flynn been accorded similar highly favorable to themselves circumstances, one/both would not have pled guilty.
There is no indication that which president nominated the judge for Sussmann’s trial influenced any ruling. And the Senate unanimously confirmed the judge.
The prosecution sought to excuse the “strive for” juror. It would make no sense for Sussmann to try to excuse that juror.
Regardless, this describes routine challenges to potential jurors. Judges make these kinds of rulings in every jury trial. Judges routinely assess the credibility of potential jurors; it is literally part of a judge’s job. Given that the judge personally observed the demeanor of the potential jurors, the judge’s opinion on this matter carries more weight than those who did not.
The prosecution had the opportunity to exercise peremptory challenges against these jurors, but did not. Which suggests the prosecution was satisfied with these jurors.
Both Flynn and Papadopoulos pleaded guilty before jury selection. But if those defendants were unhappy about the juror pool of that jurisdiction, the obvious solution is not to commit crimes in that jurisdiction.
The prosecution, not the defense, did indeed seek to exclude the “strive” juror. Thank you for pointing that out.
That the prosecution did not challenge any of the other potential jurors who admitted to having donated to/voted for Hillary also suggests the judge’s prior rejection gave them a good idea about what the outcome would be.
As if either Flynn or Papadopoulos had a choice as to which jurisdiction they worked in. As if either of them knew they were being set-up by the FBI and DoJ on behalf of Hillary and her campaign.
SMH
Each party is allotted peremptory challenges that may be used against any prospective juror. Absent circumstances not relevant here, the party using the peremptory challenge doesn’t need the judge’s permission or give an explanation for the challenge. The judge’s prior rulings on the for-cause challenges had no bearing on the peremptory challenges. Which, again, suggests the prosecutor was satisfied with these jurors. Or, perhaps, was incompetent.
Flynn and Papadopoulos both pleaded guilty to lying to the FBI; they admitted they broke the law. They chose to meet with the FBI and they chose to lie to the FBI. Either could have declined or terminated their interviews. But if they were so insistent on breaking the law, they should have requested the interviews take place in different jurisdictions, such as the District of Maryland or the Eastern District of Virginia.