Narcolepsy is hitting hard, so I gotta hit and run.
Durham has a plan.
How do you introduce evidence legally?
He's going after the low-hanging fruit first.
You can't indict Hillary without evidence. You can't get evidence without discovery. You can't get discovery without evidence. That's the game the Court plays, and the primary method crooked Judges use to avoid hearing cases -- hiding behind standing and foundational evidence.
It's a common liberal tactic.
"You can't prove it!"
"HERE! Just read this! It's clear as day evidence that Hillary is guilty!"
"I'm not reading anything until you prove your claims!"
...
So, how do you get around this tactic?
Well, discovery of evidence is valid between courts. If one court finds the evidence credible in their discovery phase, it can transfer over to another court.
So, since we can't find a single honest court to hear evidence against Hillary, we must be like Iron man and introduce seemingly unrelated evidential facts before smaller courts. Then, once they are all laid out together, a greater Conspiracy Framework comes into focus.
Please watch until the end:
https://youtu.be/5Rb9hAHifFA?t=151
Durham is putting it together, in a cave... With only a box of scraps.
Each case is gonna seemingly fizzle out and go nowhere. But each one is going to present small matters of fact that allude to a more in-depth conspiracy, until the foundation is laid and all bricks point towards Hillary and Obama.
How do you build a home? Foundation to structure (layers).
Layers (U1, Iran, Human Traffic, Haiti, Corruption, etc etc).
Q already laid out the checklist.
One leads to the other, like stacking bricks.
First comes corruption in the election.
Which leads to Haiti and their blood harvesting.
Which leads to Human Trafficking worldwide.
Which leads to Iran and Alice in the Bloody Wonderland (Saudi Arabia)
Which leads to the U1 deal to frame Russia and spark WW3
Which leads to... "We're saving Israel for last"
Durham is only getting started.
That's bad news if you expected this to end soon.
If each case is about 2-3 weeks, we're looking at about 4-5 months.
Right in time for October.
The Hunt is On.
Ok…discovery is a civil case thing. It is not what prosecutors do. Prosecutors get warrants or subpoenas for evidence, the standard for getting them is far more stringent and narrow. FRCP Rule 16 governs “discovery” as it applies to criminal cases. While the government has a duty to disclose evidence under Brady, the defendant’s duty is much more limited in scope to things like expert witness reports, medical examinations etc. And a few other document type of classes of evidence IF the defense intends to use them at trial. Subpoenas are served to command witnesses to appear; and also to demand evidence that may be in the possession of third parties. Defendants have the 5th amendment right not to self incriminate, so information you can compel the defendant to produce is severely limited.
In civil cases, you can “discover” anything if you can show even a hint of relevance. Even if the evidence sought is not admissible, the parties have to comply with the discovery request. Which to me is entirely bizarre. If evidence is inadmissible, why the hell should I have to turn it over?
It is not accurate to say that information from other trials are automatically admissible in another trial. ALL evidence is subject to the Federal Rules of Evidence. For example: the prosecution could not take Robby Mook’s statement and use it in their case in chief unless they called him. That would be hearsay. An exception to the rule against hearsay would be if when the statement was made the defendant’s counsel had a chance to cross examine the witness. If not, a prosecutor could likely only use it for impeachment purposes…that is - to impeach the credibility of another witness.
Trial courts do NOT automatically accept the factual findings of other trial courts. Hell even appellate courts are not necessarily bound by the findings of fact by trial courts. If “clearly erroneous” then they are free to reject that fact. But at the trial level, you aren’t going to face conviction for some other case’s fact findings. That would be against due process.
Finally, there is always a catch all in in FRE 403 if the probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of prejudice to the defendant, or for confusing the issues, misleading the jury, undue delay, or needlessly cumulative evidence; the judge can exclude the evidence.
It is still a mystery to me why Durham filed a 27 page complaint for one count of lying to the FBI. With details that seem to suggest much more severe charges should have been brought. Yet we have yet to see such a thing.
Don’t get too far ahead with people who have turned or flipped either. The defense must have any deals made with witnesses at trial disclosed under Giglio. It would be grounds to vacate a conviction if the prosecutor failed to disclose this; it is always a material fact that a witness might be testifying solely because of some benefit to their own problems. Juries have a right to know this and take it into consideration in ascertaining witness credibility.
Durham is a Special Counsel Prosecutor. He has certain tools afforded to him that the normal process doesn't allow in individual cases.
He, by necessity, has to be able to cross-reference findings between cases in order to form his case of a collusive organization and/or conspiracy. RICO-like charges seem inevitable in this situation, which on paper can't use direct evidence to target the lynchpin. Only by getting testimony and utilizing findings from other cases can you pursue RICO charges.
There are even avenues for him to hand off his evidence to the military if he can prove members of the governance were acting as foreign informants and saboteurs of military interests.
The term "Special Counsel" does not imply "special privileges" beyond that which can be exercised by a United States Attorney. Charging power lies within the US Attorney's office. US Attorneys are appointed with the advice and consent of the Senate. As to whether US Attorneys can hand off evidence to the military, probably so. It would not appear that evidence in possession of the government is somehow restricted in application to the individual or office in possession of it. Not that anyone can FOIA it; but if the government wishes to share information, nothing would appear to prevent it beyond standard procedural rules and accounting for any privilege or constitutional protections.
The Special Counsel that Congress has created arguably has traded geographic limitations to his/her prosecutorial powers for wide open forums with a limited scope of investigatory/prosecutorial powers. This scope of the special counsel is defined by the attorney general. If the AG empowers the Special Counsel with too overly broad a scope, arguably the executive has exceeded constitutional boundaries with having a US Attorney operating without the advice and consent of the Senate. We have seen Barr's letter defining the scope of Durham. But as far as I am aware, just a single one. We've not yet seen what Garland has done, if anything. There is no guarantee that the mission scope we know about hasn't changed. Rosenstein altered Mueller's scope several times.
There is never a limitation on cross-jurisdictional inquiries by either the US Attorney's office, or Special Counsel. But a US Attorney is limited to the district in which he/she has been appointed. For example: the US Attorney in SDNY does not have prosecutorial powers in the Eastern District of Texas. On the other hand, if Durham finds something leading him to the Northern District of California, he can go there.
RICO cases are tough; both by design for due process reasons, and because it was created to deal with what the regular crime statutes were inadequate to prosecute. A prosecutor has to show at least 2 predicate offenses occurred within the last 10 years to be able to bring them; which, in this case, would be fairly straight forward. However, pursuing the predicate offenses independent of the underlying conspiracy opens the door to a legitimate violation of double jeopardy. If the same operative facts, upon which a defendant has already been tried for a crime or crimes, are the origin of the subsequent charges, there is high probability, if not certainty, that this violates double jeopardy for that particular defendant.
What this means is that if Durham tries "Jeff Johnson" for a predicate offense (any criminal statute identified in the RICO statute), bringing Jeff Johnson into a RICO case involving the same predicate offenses likely violates double jeopardy. Sussman, on the other hand, has just been charged with lying in one particular instance. Which itself is not a predicate offense under the RICO statute.
For those interested in what counts as a predicate offense under RICO, it can be found in 18 USC § 1961(1).
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1961
Not so.
Independent Counsel is exempt from certain provisions of the Privacy Act, as following the normal protocol to gain access to information could tip off government employees they're under investigation if they have inside sources in those departments, help criminals identify confidential sources, etc.
Exemption of the Office of Independent Counsel's Systems of Records Under the Privacy Act
https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/28/700.31
Here's the link to the main regulations for Independent Counsel-
https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/28/chapter-VI
Does this prove that this guy is full of BS then?
If you read the regulation, the purpose is to exempt the files of the Special Counsel from disclosure to the public, or potentially individuals that might be subject to the actions of the Special Counsel.
"Exemption" - exclusion
"of the Office of Independent Counsel's Systems of Records" - what the SC's office collects/produces
"Under the Privacy Act" - the act which governs the rights of individuals covered.
So this one is not some special ability; rather, this is to prevent disclosure of what he/she is doing in that office to the subjects of the investigation and/or the public.
So... Am I just completely wrong in my assessment?
What overlap is there in being able to use evidence between courts? I have to believe there is some degree of fact finding that is shared, simply due to expedition of cases -- otherwise everyone could just easily hide behind criminal statute of limitations.
In other words, for a collusion case they could just draw out the first leading culprit's case for a dozen years and then the time frame to charge everyone higher up expires. There has to be SOMETHING that can streamline that process, and I thought Durham was it, according to Q posts like these:
https://qalerts.app/?n=3718
https://qalerts.app/?n=3784
https://qalerts.app/?n=4203
https://qalerts.app/?n=4755
That last one is important. Durham isn't working alone. There is another unnamed team working the same angles, but under the table; whereas Durham is overt, they are covert.
https://qalerts.app/?n=4773
These informed my prior post.
Am I really that off base with my analysis if the above posts hold true? How could two separate "Durham"s be able to collaborate if they can't share evidence to expedite their cases?
I'm not saying they can't share evidence, nor am I saying you are way off base. They for sure can collaborate. However, admissibility of evidence is determined by the Federal Rules of Evidence. Just because in one particular case, a certain piece of evidence was deemed admissible does not mean that it will for sure be admissible in a different case.
I will admit that I am 150% clueless about the strategy in play here with Durham; and that comes after many many days and nights pondering. Some things of great benefit in other trials with other defendants to arise out of the Sussman case: (1) witness testimony; and (2) the recovery of some documents that people have asserted privilege over.
Now remember the most important thing in play here when we are talking about the process involved in a criminal prosecution: Judges make findings of law, juries make findings of fact. So let's take a witness's testimony to understand how this works. I used Robby Mook before, so will stick with that.
The entry level rule that all evidence must meet to be admissible is found under FRE 401. It states:
Evidence is relevant if:
(a) it has any tendency to make a fact more or less probable than it would be without the evidence; and
(b) the fact is of consequence in determining the action.
This is not the end of the equation. It is the gateway question that must be answered in the affirmative to even continue applying the rules. Lets say something crazy like Durham as figured out who killed Seth Rich and charges them. Would Robby Mook's testimony about Hillary approving the Alfa Bank stuff be admissible in the prosecution's case in chief? Probably not. We have a relevance problem. Unless some nexus between alfa bank hoax and the seth rich murder can be established by more than just an assertion, this fact would not be of consequence in determining the action - action being the essential elements of homicide.
It would probably bore everyone here into tears to discuss further applications of the Rules of Evidence and the various exceptions. So I'll skip that unless there is some overwhelming interest in discussing them.
It is possible, but unknown, that the recovery of some of these supposedly privileged documents would be useful in acquiring more documents that the defendants and others assert privilege over. But we do not have the contents so we do not have any idea what was in them. Of interesting note is that the judge compelled production in spite of prohibiting the introduction of them into the trial because of the late timing of Durham's request for them. Which is quite puzzling, truth be told. Why he waited so late is odd to me. Personally, I am leaning towards Durham wanting a public battle over privilege in lieu of private legal fighting in a magistrate's court that nobody sees or hears about during a hearing contesting grand jury subpoenas.
Durham can take these docs to a grand jury. Once a court has ruled them not subject to privilege and handed them over, it is very unlikely that a secondary attempt in a different court to assert privilege over them is going to work. Ruling them inadmissible on other grounds, certainly. But once third parties get involved, privilege is over in 99% of circumstances.
Many key material witnesses are locked in with under oath testimony now. This is useful when calling them before a grand jury. If they change their story, it is easy to charge them with perjury. In other trials, if they change their story, perjury is an option but the prior testimony will make for very compelling witness impeachment. "You said this under oath in this trial, and now you are saying the opposite. So that means you either lied then or you are lying now. Which is it?" Which of course would draw an instant objection to being combative with the witness. But you get the point.
So in short, evidence from other cases can be shared, and can be used to varying degrees in subsequent trials. But all of it is subject to the Federal Rules of Evidence. And a corrupt judge has a lot of leeway with evidentiary rulings. They are subject to "abuse of discretion" standard on appeal. Rule 403 allows a judge some circumstances to exclude otherwise relevant evidence. I have seen this done in a corrupt manner; and very unlikely to be disturbed on appeal due to the "abuse of discretion" standard.
If Durham is going for RICO, it won't be to prosecute these people. It will be to prosecute the higher-ups. And the in-court open testimony of these individuals will be part of the basis for those charges of other people.
No double jeopardy.
This is not Durham's first rodeo.
Your point about Garland is important. If Durham is really going after these higher-up criminals, then why is Garland allowing it? Why is he even allowing this case to go to trial?
The trillion dollar question right there. I have no idea. The best I have is wild speculation. And this "theory" has a lot of holes in it. Perhaps you could fill them in where I have been unable.
One thing abundantly obvious at this point is that the Clintons and Obamas don't get along. A variety of things illustrate this. One of the key unique traits that I noticed very early on in the Obama admin was that Obama has to be the boss. His ego is so huge he cannot share power with anyone. While this in itself is not unique, what is unique about this in modern American politics is Obama's purge of what he views as potential rivals to his authority. No matter the stretch, Obama wants loyal apparatchiks at any cost - including competency.
I believe Andrew Cuomo was an Obama purge. He was/is a potential rival to control of the DNC. And he is a Clintonista, not Obama loyalist. As such, they protected and promoted the insane and incompetent imbecile De Blasio over the far more competent Cuomo.
I'm not sure what the general consensus around here is re: Biden, but it is important to remember that Biden is not really an Obama guy. We have seen evidence that Obama was very embarrassed by his gaffs. He doesn't seem to care if it becomes public knowledge. Biden served 2 functions when he became VP pick in 2008: (1) bridge the enormous divide between the Clinton and Obama factions from the bitter primary; and (2) add foreign policy street cred to the Obama campaign - which is what John Kerry blamed for his loss to Bush and was the chief criticism of the inexperienced Obama. Now Biden has been wrong on literally every foreign policy issue to ever exist. But he is "experienced" in this regard. Biden is a Clintonista. It is not of consequence he served in the Obama admin. That was a compromise, nothing more.
This has led me down the road of thinking that it was actually Obama who sabotaged Clinton's election. For reasons that Obama would be rendered second or third fiddle to a standing Clinton presidency. She would control the DNC at this point. He couldn't have that; he would be sailing away into irrelevance.
My thoughts are that Obama, who ALWAYS bites off more than he can chew, somehow undermined the Clinton election by preventing the full implementation of fraud. Be it machine fraud, insufficient ballot stuffing, or whatever the case may be. And we know he told Hillary to immediately concede and not contest this.
Then Obama, being the over-estimator-in-chief of his own abilities, likely thought that Trump would be an easy takedown with this Russia Collusion hoax. They'd simply undermine him from within, dispose of him quickly, and he'd get to pick his preferred candidate in 2020 while rendering the Clintons obsolete. This obviously failed miserably. As a desperation Hail Mary, they rig the primary against Bernie and stick Biden in for lack of another option that Obama can control - Kamala failed to gain any traction. The benefit of Biden is that he's also senile; which adds a level of cover to the sabotage of the country. It looks less like malfeasance and more like just an idiot. And unlikely to have a blast radius carrying over to other Democrats - so they thought at the time.
Now we have a battle between rival factions playing out. Biden knows that if he does not maintain power, Obama WILL purge him, his family, and his son. Which is why I contend the US Attorney's office in Delaware has a case open against Hunter. Also, the Clintons know that if Obama boots Biden, he will purge them too. So they have to prop up Biden. But the special counsel is targeting Clinton. Obama can't get rid of the SC because that would remove his leverage over Clinton. And restore Clinton to viability within the party for control.
Evidence of the Clintons propping up Biden: Assigning Kamala to border duty, and the continued ridiculing of her to lower her favorability rating. If Hillary had her way, she'd drive Kamala out of office. And since she's got 0 interest in losing a third election, she wants a sure thing - nomination to the office of Vice President. Which she would then immediately 25th Biden and become president without ever having won a single vote.
This obviously has holes in it. But is the best theory I could come up with. Would be interested in your thoughts/hole fill-ins.
While I hope there is a conviction, I don’t really care if Sussman does any time. A conviction maintains momentum.
I have been managing my own expectations that an acquittal is a strong possibility but stay positive because there’s still value coming out of this trial with threads to Killary and Comey
Great handshake and handle man… 👍🏻
This is a wonderfully informative post. Thanks for taking the time to share. 👍
Any chance it is so they will hopefully get sprung from jail by the next level up and that can quickly be tracked?
One of the problems with accepting this idea comes from the 6th amendment right to counsel. While evidence gathered through wiretaps and other surveillance of one person most certainly can be used against any third parties that become incriminated through this collection process, it cannot be used against the defendant if his 6th amendment right to counsel has attached. As a corollary, this is highly problematic for getting a judge to sign a warrant for surveillance. If the government is to act lawfully, it must provide a judge/magistrate with probable cause to secure a surveillance warrant. And this must be particularized to the defendant with specific articulable facts that would lead a reasonable person to conclude a crime occurred, and evidence of the crime would likely be found via surveillance. It is unconstitutional to wiretap person 1 without probable cause in order to attempt to catch person 2. And a judge is going to be very skeptical of approving a warrant if the underlying crime that probable cause is asserted to have been committed is of like or similar kind to the defendant's charge(s) upon which his/her 6th amendment right to counsel has attached.
This is why the fake stories by Christopher Steele and Alfa Bank were created in the first place. They were used to get spy warrants on Trump via the FISA court, which is run by John Roberts.
That's what this case is really all about.
Wow thank you for the knowledge bomb! We have a lot of people around here that THINK they know what they are talking about. You on the other hand really seem to actually know
"Seem" to "actually" know? That's some low standards, fren.
Oh wait that's right you probably want to hear "sealed indictments!" "Mass arrests!" "Devolution part 378 - how we are totally winning! Enjoy the show www"
🙄
It was nice to hear a fresh take from someone who, yes, seems to know what they are talking about as opposed to regurgitating the same catch phrases over and over again
"Nice to hear." Eat your pablum, baby.