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.
The funny thing is you probably believe upvotes matter and downvote the truth just because you're wrong.
This isn't a discussion. This is you unwilling to admit you are wrong about something.
Did I ever say the Attorney General could fire a US Attorney? What's your point exactly other than padding your post with useless paragraphs?
P.S. Special counsel, Durham can't be easily removed by the Biden Administration as only an attorney general can fire a special counsel. Any firing must be made in writing and carried out only for specific reasons like misconduct and conflict of interest. As a special counsel, Durham won't be directly supervised by the Justice Department but can be required by Biden's attorney general to explain his investigation and its procedural steps.
https://www.newsweek.com/democrats-worry-special-counsel-john-durham-will-tie-bidens-hands-settle-old-scores-russia-1551680
And why are you so hellbent to prove Durham doesn't have super powers AKA independence from the Department of Justice? What is YOUR mission, handshake?
Wrong about what? That I missed an entirely inconsequential exemption from some public records protection act that means absolutely zilch in the grand scheme of things and does not have any bearing on the powers of the office of SC?
You are the one that chimed in here to "fact check" me on what I said. I stand by what I said. You don't have any idea what you are talking about. He doesn't have powers above and beyond a US Attorney. And if you don't understand the plain constitutional issues that damned the original special counsel statute, you won't understand why they cannot do that. If you actually think the privacy act has some kind of impact or effect on this analysis, that is truly a meritless argument.
None of what I was saying are "useless paragraphs." They are to illustrate that the office of Special Counsel is not superior to the office of US Attorney. If you can't see that, then you don't understand how any of this works. Like I said before, the special counsel trades geographic forum limitations for limited scope of investigatory/prosecutorial powers. There is absolutely nothing inaccurate about that. The SC office has no investigatory or prosecutorial power exceeding the office of US Attorney.
If you want to consider no geographic limitations a "special privilege" then you are just arguing with me about nomenclature semantics. Since that "special privilege" came at a loss of plenary prosecutorial power, I simply would not agree it is a privilege.
Why would you want to continue believing something demonstrably inaccurate? And then why would you act like simple facts and evidence are proof of some "handshake" ulterior motive? Sorry if you'd rather carry on believing something else. But I'm not going to praise the emperor's new clothes along with you just because you say so. When the head of DOJ tells you what the scope of your duties entails, no reasonable person could call that "independence from the department of justice." Akin to a child pronouncing his independence from his parents as a result of receiving a list of household rules along with chores to be done. This is shooting the messenger because somehow what I said causes you cognitive dissonance and you blame me for it. Just don't bother reading what I say or chiming in if its so upsetting.
Nice.
And who was the head of the DOJ when John Durham was appointed and gave him the scope, which was very broad, as it was to get to the bottom of Russiagate? Was it Merrick Garland?
NCSWIC, especially not you.
LOL! I can't even stop a fart after eating sauerkraut. You have lost your marbles. Like I have any personal stake in facts and evidence. Apparently you do.
You do realize that Garland can, and likely has, altered the scope of Durham. Rod Rosenstein did so numerous times with Mueller. We haven't even seen all of the edicts from Rosenstein authorizing Mueller, just a select couple of them. I would not expect that we would see see them, either. And just because Garland may have altered the scope does not mean that it he couldn't have made it even more broad. We simply do not know. But it would be foolish to presume that a letter from October 2020 was the last time Durham had an update to the scope of his work.
Look at all your presumptions on display here that are entirely baseless and formed out of your own preconceived notions and sentiments. When I tell you that Durham doesn't have special privileges beyond that of a US Attorney, you automatically presume I am saying that as some negative thing. Pointing out reality is a neutral proposition. How you perceive the message is exclusively within your domain without any actual effect on the validity of the message.
So if you read what I say and come to some conclusion that this is a castigation of Durham, that's all you buddy. I never said that, and that is a product of your own invention.
Nah, fam.
Mueller had more powers than a standard US Attorney as well. There are plenty of articles in that regard.
And it's very telling you ignore questions and type a couple paragraphs of psychobabble instead.