CNN's Eye is on the Sparrow

OK fine. Sussman clearly lied to the FIB. He did this to kneecap the POTUS at the behest of HRC. But how is this not the more serious crime of sedition? Which is defined as follows: " Sedition is overt conduct, such as speech and organization, that tends toward rebellion against the established order. Sedition often includes subversion of a constitution and incitement of discontent toward, or insurrection against, established authority. "

Johnny Depp coverage has probably a better chance of causing a blip in CNN ratings than any of the other propaganda they produce.

Why would Professor Lipson go to CNN for a news article? I can't figure that one out.

Of course if the tainted jury finds Sussman not guilty, CNN (and the other MSM) will blast the news far and wide.

None of this will amount to more than the manure that splashes after the horse has left the barn. The objective WAS sedition, against Trump primarily and America in general. Mission well underway.

Well written, Clarice! (Do you have a date for the prom yet? I can't dance, but I can regale you with stories of campus extremists.) What I am observing with the Sussman trial is a process where guilty people will build bubbles of innocence around themselves, with the exception of Sussman, who may have played his game with George Costanza's grapefruit juice in his eye. (Obscure reference to a Seinfeld episode where Kramer squirts grapefruit juice into George's eye, causing George to blink the eye all day, causing all sorts of trouble because people believe he was saying the opposite with his blinking, than the words he is speaking.) And I suspect Sussman was not the only one blinking. The crew at the FBI had to have known what was going on, up to and including Coward Comey, the Tall Traitor, and the gang at Justice, who saw the blinks as well. The blinking even went up to federal judges, who are generally considered to be sacrosanct. (That's the first time I ever used the word Sacrosanct.) The final cluster of miscreants = Jake Sullivan, who is the governmental feces in the punch bowl, Dementia Jo, Biden, Barack Obola, and someone who has recently become invisible - Susan Rice. Will the bubbles of innocence protect everyone except Sussman? I believe so, especially since the judge in this case has limited evidence and testimony and seated a jury of some biased individuals. Will Sussman be jailed? I don't think so. He will be on probation, if a guilty verdict is returned, although I would predict a hung jury and a plea deal. Will anything happen to Hillary? Of course not! Nothing ever happens to the queen of corruption.

Start a rumor that Sussmann was once a Trump lawyer and they'll bury him under the jail!

The real shame is on people who use CNN as a genuine source of information about the world around them.

OJ may have been acquitted, but the entire world knew he was guilty.

The "fix" is in. Nothing will come of this trial . . . the swamp will see to it. IMHO, of course!

Reading this reminded me of “The Devil and Daniel Webster,” Webster had to defend a farmer (How about we name him Donald Trump here) against a jury of Satan’s most infamous villains of history. And Webster won! Of course, we don’t have Daniel Webster, but kudos to John Durham for giving it the good ‘ole college try.

News Flash: The Sparrow gets more public attention than some political trial re-hashing the '16 election, its flavor of lies and deceit, and Hillary and that draws eyeballs to CNN and other outlets. Sparrow offers sex, violence, and novelty to the viewer, primed by the celebrity publicity machines, deliered by ratings starved television outlets. Sussman's trial can't begin to compare in terms of titillation. Ok, so Hillary was involved...she always is...did you hear what was supposed to have been dropped in Depp's bed?

FTA: "...created the Trump-Alfa allegation, fed it to a credulous press that failed to confirm the allegations but ran with them anyway, then promoted the story as if it was legitimate news. The campaign also delivered the claims to the FBI, giving journalists another excuse to portray the accusations as serious and perhaps true." This is why I pay little attention to the Ken Paxton indictments and the Henry Cuellar "investigation." Same stable, different colored horses.

Second thought. FTA: "Sussman’s judge, Obama appointee Christopher Cooper, refused to strike from the jury pool a woman whose daughter is a teammate of Sussman’s daughter..." As I understand it, they jury pool for these federal trials in Washington in the Washington District, which is a comparatively small pool, full of business associates, relatives and friends of the type of people who find themselves appearing in these federal trials. Also, the various kinds of population stats, of all sorts, for the district are significantly skewed from the national averages. And yet, it is always these people who settle our most important federal cases. Why can't the jury pool for the Washington District not include all of the United States? Sure, it would be a pain in the butt to do this, but it should would increase the chances of getting an impartial (or at least a balanced) jury on our most significant national cases. (And what happens if Washington DC become the 51st state?)