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.
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.