Hillary had mentioned in another email to someone in her campaign that Maggie would "tee up all the news headlines exactly as they require" and basically would do all their bidding.
This shit needs to go beyond the Russiagate collusion and into the full blown takeover of the country utilizing stolen elections, stolen tax money and culprits undergoing public executions if they think this country will not erupt into Civil War in the next decade if they keep pretending this isn't going on.
Hmmm. So if the defense alleges "hearsay evidence" what happens if it is proved at a later date, that the defense knew this evidence is not hearsay?
In other words, if the defense is in possession of evidence that confirms the hearsay evidence as true, but the defense tries to block that evidence by falsely claiming it be "hearsay" would that qualify as obstruction of justice?
For some reason the old Lifesavers jingle just popped into my head .
Tweet tweet twiddle twiddle,
There’s only one,
There’s only one candy with a hole in the middle
So in conspiracy cases, hearsay is allowed? Inquiring minds want verification :D
edit: Didn't spell out anything about conspiracy that I saw (granted I read over it quickly like I did for high school homework for highlights that gave fast a fast A/A- on tests & homework... predictible programmed educators LOL) so I could have missed a detail that didn't pop.
This particular picture is hard to read, but the previous motion was introducing Hillary's tweets as evidence of conspiracy - however the prosecution was not planning to prove that her tweets were correct (in which case it would be heresay) but rather they already knew it was wrong, but the tweets were intended to show that they were co-ordinating.
The defence had filed objection, so I am assuming this one is the reply related to this.
Durham is responding quickly... looks like Q was right again: every scenario planned for.
https://qanon.pub/?#1224
What do they mean when they say they "saw maggie haberman as their pet?"
That they could get her to write positive articles about HRC and the campaign.
Hillary had mentioned in another email to someone in her campaign that Maggie would "tee up all the news headlines exactly as they require" and basically would do all their bidding.
https://theconservativetreehouse.com/blog/2022/04/23/special-prosecutor-filing-outlines-clearest-most-detailed-construct-of-hillary-clinton-joint-venture-conspiracy-to-fabricate-trump-russia-narrative/
Pic is too fuzzy to read on my screen.
The pic in the Twitter screenshot is too fuzzy to read on my 27" screen. Kek.
With that being said, there's enough information to find a direct link to the PDF-
https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/60390583/united-states-v-sussmann/?filed_after=&filed_before=&entry_gte=94&entry_lte=94&order_by=asc
This shit needs to go beyond the Russiagate collusion and into the full blown takeover of the country utilizing stolen elections, stolen tax money and culprits undergoing public executions if they think this country will not erupt into Civil War in the next decade if they keep pretending this isn't going on.
I pray Durham's team succeeds.
Sundance means he doesn't trust Barr or Durham, obviously.
Direct link to the PDF-
https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.dcd.235638/gov.uscourts.dcd.235638.94.0_1.pdf
Hmmm. So if the defense alleges "hearsay evidence" what happens if it is proved at a later date, that the defense knew this evidence is not hearsay?
In other words, if the defense is in possession of evidence that confirms the hearsay evidence as true, but the defense tries to block that evidence by falsely claiming it be "hearsay" would that qualify as obstruction of justice?
For some reason the old Lifesavers jingle just popped into my head . Tweet tweet twiddle twiddle, There’s only one, There’s only one candy with a hole in the middle
I was kind of hoping things had progressed much further along than needing hearsay evidence...
So in conspiracy cases, hearsay is allowed? Inquiring minds want verification :D
edit: Didn't spell out anything about conspiracy that I saw (granted I read over it quickly like I did for high school homework for highlights that gave fast a fast A/A- on tests & homework... predictible programmed educators LOL) so I could have missed a detail that didn't pop.
https://www.stimmel-law.com/en/articles/hearsay-evidence-basics
This particular picture is hard to read, but the previous motion was introducing Hillary's tweets as evidence of conspiracy - however the prosecution was not planning to prove that her tweets were correct (in which case it would be heresay) but rather they already knew it was wrong, but the tweets were intended to show that they were co-ordinating.
The defence had filed objection, so I am assuming this one is the reply related to this.
Thanks for the insight. If we aren't staying on top of it all, it can be easy to miss the direction things are going.
I really am enjoying this show :D