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.
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?