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.
What do you mean if I read the regulation? I'm the one who posted it.
Meanwhile, you're now admitting additional exemptions apply to the Special beyond that of a normal United States Attorney, which was my point to begin with.
If you don't want to define said exemptions as special privileges, that's your prerogative.
And if it's not a special privilege or ability, why don't these exemptions apply to the records of normal United States attorneys?
Because the act itself exempts law enforcement activities from it. Thus the US Attorney's office is not subject to these disclosure requirements already if the matters relate to law enforcement activities. This is specifically to quell any argument that the SC's office is not an arm of law enforcement because it is not a US Attorney. Go ahead and try to get the US Attorney's office to divulge information from an ongoing investigation/prosecution and cite the Privacy Act and see how successful you are in getting it.
The first special counsel statute was declared unconstitutional back in the late 90's. This is what Ken Starr was appointed under. To try to duck the logic of SCOTUS in continuing the program, it was redesigned by empowering the US AG and removing Congress from the equation. But you still have the issue where the President must receive the advice and consent of the Senate to appoint a US Attorney. Which does not happen in the special counsel statute/regulations. Based upon prior SCOTUS rulings, it is presumed that a narrow scope of investigatory/prosecutorial power precludes the need to seek the advice and consent of the Senate, as well as the consideration that the SC's office is actually a US Attorney. As a consequence, certain laws/regulations applicable to the US Attorney's office do not necessarily carry over to the office of SC. So this regulation solves it.
So no, I am admitting no such thing. Exactly how making the SC on equal footing with a US Attorney as it relates to the public disclosure of investigatory activities is somehow a special privilege, you'll have to enlighten me.
Here are the exemptions for standard US Attorneys-
5 U.S.C. 552a(c) (3) and (4); (d); (e) (1), (2) and (3), (e)(4) (G) and (H), (e)(5); and (g):
https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/28/16.70
Here are the exemptions for Independent Counsel-
5 U.S.C. 552a(c) (3) and (4); (d); (e)(1), (2) and (3); (e)(4) (G), (H) and (I); (e) (5) and (8); (f); and (g):
https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/28/700.31
There are two additional exemptions for Independent Counsel, namely (I) and (e)(8). If they had equal footing, they would have the exact same exemptions.
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.
Juries can also determine if the law is abusive. I realize that judges will throw a hissy fit if they find out that a jury or jurorist is doing it, but the jury has always had that power under American law.
Which is why nobody should abdicate their civic duty when summoned to serve on a grand or petit jury. When you sniff out a hoax, don't vote to return a true bill. And try to persuade other fellow grand jurors not to as well. When a Binger prosecutor brings a railroading case, simply refuse to convict. That would go a long ways to checking many of these abuses.
100%
I'm interested, but that's because I'm insane. To save you the trouble, if you have a link to any resources, I'd be happy to look that over instead.
Thanks for the open discussion.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/fre
Here's the Federal Rules of Evidence. They can be mind bogglingly confusing or circular. Fortunately, ample case law exists on how the various rules are applied and can be found doing simple google searches.
Also very useful are the committee notes from the people who wrote the rules and how they intended the rules to apply. These notes are very often cited in case opinions by judges as persuasive in making their ruling. I would start with reading the committee notes on whatever particular rule you are interested in for clarity prior to seeking out cases ruling on them. That is far easier, and saves time. The rule notes are not binding, but are given great weight by judges.
I'm always happy to opine on the meaning and applicability of a rule - be it civil procedure, criminal procedure, evidence etc... Doesn't mean I will be right, but I most certainly have no problem offering my thoughts lol
I've struggled on how to explain the logic in the legal system to those unfamiliar. It is kind of like English grammar - there are rules, and then there are a bunch of ridiculous exceptions to the rules. Some of it is readily apparent and sensible. Other parts seem to contradict themselves. As a long time arm chair lawyer vet, I have stumped many a top tier attorney or law professor with my questions. It is a frickin cluster. People have their area of expertise and simply don't stray outside of it. I suppose you could say its like NASA in that no single individual possesses enough knowledge on how to design/build/launch a rocket.
Thanks!
Today's gonna be a long day.
I have an off-topic question: traffic tickets.
In many states, the system is set up so that it does not follow the state's rules of procedure for either criminal or civil.
Usually, there is no indictment or similar filing (criminal), nor is there any complaint (civil). Instead, there is just a "citation."
I read a court rule (in one state) where the citation can be used in lieu of the indictement/etc., but only if not objected to.
If a court tries to proceed, let's say to an "arraignment," but there is no official prosecution/plaintiff document, only a citation and the "defendant" does not agree, what would be the best strategy?
The ideal result would be to get the case dismissed for lack of Subject Matter Jurisidction, since the court has no legal document from a prosecutor/plaintiff to base any action upon. Of course, the court system (especially traffic) being as corrupt as it is, no judge/magistrate/pro tem is going to go along with that reasoning, but they might dismiss on some other made-up grounds, which is still a win.
Thoughts?
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.
I would say that my view is maybe a little higher elevation. I don't focus so much on the individual puppets (and I think they are all puppets).
Re: Obama --
I believe he is a CIA asset, and has been from his earliest years. This is why he has no identifiable history, including no birth certificate, and nobody who can remember him at the schools he supposedly attended.
Both of his maternal grandparents were CIA. His grandmother was a VP at the Bank of Hawaii, which laundered money to various Asian governments at that time.
His mother was also CIA. Her role eventually became to use her communist ideological roots to help her new husband Soetoro in Indonesia. He was a high-ranking military officer, who helped in the round-up and murder of communist revolutionaries in Indonesia. She worked for the Ford Foundation, a CIA front, and infiltrated that group, to identify who to take out. The CIA was installing a puppet regime, and they were getting rid of the commies because the commies were backed by the USSR.
This was a run-up to the Vietnam War.
Re: Clinton --
Hillary comes from a mob family, according to Larry Nichols, who was an Arkansas State trooper, and eventually became a personal guard of Gov. Clinton. He had a lot of stories to tell.
Hillary was always extermely ambitious, and without a moral compass. She was so nasty, that she was kicked off the legal team that was investigating Watergate. She was too corrupt, even for that team of attorneys.
Bill Clinton became a "made man" via Carroll Quigley, a professor of his at Georgetown University. Quigley was invited into the inner sanctum of the globalist planners, in order to study their history. It was a private project they commissioned. The current (at the time) players in that criminal group wanted to go through a ton of documents that had been collected by their predecessors, and have it all sorted out for them. Quigley was hired to do that. He eventually wrote and had published two books about his findings. One of those books was immediately removed from publication, but that only created more interest (the Streisand Effect), so it went back into publication.
This is why Clinton became a Rhodes scholar, which is one of the means by which they identify potential young individuals to groom through the corrupt system.
Hillary was always riding Bill's coattails. Having psychopathic ambition, she resented that. Yet, she was able to execise a lot of power from the shadows. What with all the Arkancides that happened, the Whitewater theft, and the various schemes and crimes they got away with over the years, she likely becamse convinced that she was more important, more valuable, and smarter than she really ever was.
It was her "turn" at the presidency. She knew 2016 was rigged for her benefit -- both the primary and the general.
This is why her reactions were so bizarre when she lost. She "just knew" that the vote was "wrong."
I agree that there is a rift or battle between Obama and Clinton. Clinton also knows that Obama was not a natural born citizen. She was the one who came out with it first. She has that to hold over him.
However, he was also using her private server while she was Secretary of State. They have become joined at the hip in their co-criminal actions. Neither can afford to really destroy the other, yet they both want the power and the fame, so they do battle.
But I believe that they are just two factions among several factions of the bigger picture, which is run by a globalist group of criminals, who are the real brains behind it all.
Even they, individually, are not all that brilliant. But when you have billions of dollars to fund various think tanks, researchers, bioweapons labs, etc., someone in that system will eventually come up with something that can be used as a plan. They think long-term, and they don't really give a damn about the puppets, other than making sure they stay controlled.
Since they control the media, and the media largely influences the sheep, they have been able to push their agenda to a large degree. But they know there will always be resistance, so they need useful idiots like Obama, Clinton, Bush, and all the rest to lead various factions, so that they can direct things where they want it to go.
If I am right, then Q, Trump, Durham, and many more know all of this and a lot more. Durham is going after small fry right now. Is that going to be the end of it, or is it going to lead to the bigger puppets, and eventually a take-down of the corrupt system itself?
I dunno ...
I seem to remember some fbi documents that came to light a few years ago that would support some of your thoughts here. I believe obama was working with the fbi to set hillary up over the illegal server so that after her stint at president, she would be coerced to help michelle get elected. I dont have the sauce handy, and maybe I am remembering it wrong, but if you are looking for more evidence to your theory this maybe a direction to search.
It sure seems like these Intel and federal law enforcement agencies are attempting to seize control of the government this way. Would be interested in whatever you can provide. Thank you!
https://www.independentsentinel.com/texts-strongly-suggest-obama-kept-tabs-on-hillary-email-scandal/
I still cant find the article discussing documents that showed the plan was to coerce hillary into helping michelle after her run, but they were clearly keeping tabs on her.
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.
Lmao! Pablum? His post was the opposite of pablum! I was lamenting an over abundance of pablum on here and his post was the antidote.
https://www.mining.com/clinton-run-presidency-swept-haitian-gold-permit-affair-45216/
Archive this shit. Will be important later.
You nailed it sleepydude! 👏
[Clinton run swept up in Haitian gold permit affair]
(https://archive.ph/PAgpH)
Thanks!
Means more than anyone can imagine. A direct paper trail from Hillary to Haiti, without her Foundation getting too much in the way.
5 months is a long time for this to end? Kek. I highly doubt all that you listed will be exposed so soon let alone brought to court!
Also your narcolepsy while your name is sleepy dude 😆
sleepydude this is an excellent hopium post, I thank ye good sir
I'm about to drop. Night night. See you in the morning.
Actually, talking about it being 4-5 months sounds fantastic. I was worried this was going to continue for 4-5 YEARS!!! After what we've been through, a few more months is nothing!
Keep in mind, that's just to nab Hillary and settle the 2016 election interference scheme.
Lots more needs to happen after that, as we are all aware. Especially as far as the medical and economic aspects are concerned.
Hey if I see Hillary Clinton finally behind bars, I feel like I can die happy 😂
Interesting...let us have a look at who opened the door on a few fronts. Who "opened" the door to let the shooter get in? Who "opened" the door on 1/6?
Laku noç, sleepydude! (Goodnight in Serbian).
Excellent post Anon!
What really got me and I’m oh so glad he is, is how freakin cheap Sussman is! Believe me I have worked for some of the cheapest lawyers out there! Like most attorneys he’s programmed to make the “client” pay for all (expenses) disbursements, those usb drives. He had to present the receipt to his Accounts Payable dept. in order to be reimbursed for his monthly expenses, no receipt no reimbursement. So being the incredibly stupid and cheap attorney he is, he got a receipt and he placed the “clients number and matter number” on the receipt. The law firm then bills the “client” for the disbursement on the clients invoice using the client number and matter name, then the law firm sends the invoice off to the client for payment of the invoice including the disbursements for that month. I’d love to see the narratives on that invoice! It’s all on that invoice!
Of course, the law firm can destroy the initial “proforma” that had the original narratives, (attorney conversations with client what service they did) etc. along with the disbursements. However, the final invoice to the Client has to be kept intact in the law firms accounting records, they can’t delete it or they are in violation of accounting, IRS, insurance regulations etc. If an invoice needs to be presented for the courts they can redact it, but the disbursements have to show who and how it was billed and paid for, so all this led right back to Clinton.
Hard to believe any law office wouldn’t just have a box of new usb drives in their supply closet. That he actually walked to a Staples to buy one and saved the receipt to bill the client is absurd.
They do, however here is the catch firms are becoming increasingly tight that they don’t want attorneys and staff placing client information on usb drives. They don’t want the liability of a client’s information getting into the “wrong” hands, with confidential client documentation leaving the office and internal network. If you wanted to have client information files on a usb drive you would have to get IT department and executive committee approval. He bypassed that. So now he’s opened up the firm to lawsuits ... nice huh?
And it gave them a way to launder their stolen gold. I had read years ago, that is how they laundered Ghadaffi's gold that they stole after they killed him. Sorry, I have no link to that article.
Top shelf hopium right here. Papa bless.
Stuff hopium.
This is data, analysis and applied due diligence.
Hopium is crack. This is Grade A organic nutrients.
Hopermectin!
Exactly.
https://media.greatawakening.win/post/H0UW5XF9.png
Note: "Magna Excitatio" is latin for what pedes that know call "the great awakening"
Dragging it out to October 27 2022? https://qalerts.app/?n=1 5 year delta?
They drag it out much further and people will starve or freeze. they are going to have a "fun" summer torturing us
Can't be. That's not a Monday. The consensus conclusion is that the callout was to distract from Saudi Arabia. Or that's when the movie started, but I think SA is the real story of that post.
Just made me think of something here. A recent talent contest hosted by Kelly Clarkson was on called American song contest. The winner was a Korean American teen, and the song “Wonderland” about Alice battling the red Queen. I know that Snoop made death threats against President Trump, could this win have been White Hat controlled and that song chosen for a reason?
Good post, and reflecting on drop 1753 with what is going on now with Durham, and in the past, it makes a great deal of logical sense to me.
In this context, I wonder if the "reason not mentioned a single time" in regards to saving Israel for last has something to do with Palestinians and the Clinton/Obama admin.
Side Note: Remember when Bill Clinton said he killed himself to give the Palestinians a state? https://archive.ph/kpLcZ
Great post. all makes sense to me . o7
SleepyDude AND AllowMeToExplain — I appreciate what each of you have offered us in your posts. I read and recently reread Sidney Powell’s magnificent expose of the REAL “Legal System” in the United States (title: “License to Lie”) learning how corrupted many lawyers and judges actually are, but Powell especially hit on the Brady Law to disclose to opposing counsel EVERYTHING that could help the defendant — and how often this is not done on purpose. I HATE it that we can't trust those institutions that as free citizens we should be able to trust, but I’m staying the course and —with FAITH — trusting in individual PEOPLE. John Durham is one of them. So is Sidney Powell. So is Lt. Gen Michael Flynn. And there are more. 🇺🇸🙏
You forgot about court case scheduling. Each case may last 2-3 weeks, but they are months apart if not more.
Great read, thanks!
Thank you sleepydude!
Great work @sleepydude!
I very much like your Iron Man box of scraps analogy. I'm going to use that with folks in my neck of the woods.
I've always explained the situation like threads in a tapestry. Pull one thread, and the entire tapestry comes undone. Hence the need to pull at the right threads in the right order to as to effectively bring down the entire Deep State. We don't want any loose threads on this one. We want them all to pay for their crimes.
I like your analogy much better. Durham really is putting together a legal machine with which he will topple the Deep State. What's more, he just marched into the lion's den in DC and dropped the gauntlet on them. What we witnessed with the Sussman case was a show of strength. Durham is showing the entire world that even the Deep State, corrupt as it is, can bleed.
What do we say about creatures that can bleed?
Longer than that. Each case won't be introduced right away with the lawfare going on. Could be years still.
I have to believe that the last 4 years of Durham were him getting the prep-work out of the way for a back-to-back court scenario.
This October will be a 5 year delta for the 'Hillary was arrested between 8-8:30...' drop.
To hide the fact he was building a suit and not a missile from the terrorists holding him captive, he split the blueprint for the suit onto several sheets of paper.
Only by lining them up under a backlight did the actual diagram come into shape.
Durham is doing the same thing with the matters of fact established in discovery.
Each minor case he brings against Hillary's cronies tacks on small little pieces of a larger case. Components of a larger whole.
They can't stop him because he is special counsel prosecutor. He HAS to bring cases before courts to do his job. They'd never let a Hillary case get off the ground though. They can't possibly know which small little facts he needs to introduce anymore than you can figure out how a million shattered pot shards fit together if all you have to go on is a photograph.
The facts he is accumulating in discovery from the minor court cases are locked into place and can be cross-referenced in different trials. That's something he can do as a special prosecutor investigating a wider conspiracy scheme. We all know not just one person was involved. The Court knows this as well.
It doesn't look like Durham is doing anything, because he is exclusively baking bricks and not laying a single one for the wall he was tasked to build. Once he has the last brick, however, the wall will manifest almost in a blink of the eye.
Does that clear it up?
Eric Braverman.
It could lead to places like Haiti. But is there any evidence they are actually going to do something about it?
Durham could just stop with the FBI?
Not dooming here at all.
We all know this can go far.
But are they just dealing with the Russia fake only? It seems to me they are only focusing on Russia.
Nothing more than that.
The money leaves a trail.
WHO gave them the money to spy on Trump?
How far does it have to get if Obama, Russia, Ukraine, China, Haiti, the WEF etc. are all implicated.
In order to just pin down Hillary for spying, you have to look at the money, and the money would reveal the whole network and reveal everyone's hand in the cookie jar of corruption.
What Durham finds would then be handed over to the Military, because they're the ones who deal with spies.
That's alright, I've already accepted that we're in it for the long haul!
Goosebumpiums…. 👌🏻🤛🏻🤘🏻
I doubt this October I'm thinking 1 more year ish. But this is a great post.
That's gonna take YEARS. HRC will die of old age before the bigger picture comes together and she can be indicted ffs.
So basically we wont see justice for another 25 years at this rate
I'm thinking sooner. Seen lots of military helicopters this past week. Many things happening.
I agree I believe it will be sooner it’s a run away train with no breaks on the Dems side, they can’t cover it anymore ...
It's less that they can't cover it because they've been kneecapped. They simply don't have enough fingers to plug all the leaks in the boat.
If thats what it takes to dismantle evil that has been slowly working to grip every part of this world for 300 years, But this process in this iteration started in 1999 so we are already 23 years into this. Who knows how much longer, if we want our world back we have to be patient.
Whenever the next election is, Trump will run and win.
There could be a Constitutional Crisis that happens where the military will takeover. They will openly monitor and secure that election.
If the next opportunity for a presidential election doesn't happen until 2024, it doesn't mean the criminals we have today will be running things until then.
just 2 more weeks
A fellow aussie! Care to share your journey to this place?
I'm mostly a poltard but I come here to refuel on hopium now and then. I've followed Q loosely since the drops began and I'm convince there is something to it, but I don't know what exactly
None of this is going to happen. Just as you have been wrong for the past two years, you will continue to be wrong as long as you expect justice from the American legal process.
See you in November when you have a new one.
Me personally, or are you speaking in generalities?
You're a handshake, so I know we've not interacted before.
What are you referencing? If it's in general, then why are you here other than to start a fight?
Dormers going to doom no matter what ...
In English, "you" is simultaneously singular and plural, and which is which must be sussed out based on context.
Because English is a mongrel language with very very few strict rules
Diagnosed with Idiopathic Hypersomnia.
Failed 2/5 in the Multiple Sleep Latency Test.
I have a prescription for Sodium Oxybate (usually you need a narcolepsy diagnosis for that).
I suffer from cataplexic attacks triggered by nostalgia. (They say "happy" or "angry" triggers it, but for me it's the rose-tinted goggles that do it)