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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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