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.
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.
Ignore questions about what? What did you ask me that I didn't respond to. Sorry if I talk over your comprehension capability.
Show me one shred of evidence about Mueller having more powers than a US Attorney. Calling straight bs on this claim right now. And don't go telling me to find them. You made the claim you back it up. I'm not going on a wild goose chase to find what isn't there.
What part about the Constitution's appointment clause and the advice and consent of the Senate required for officers of the United States don't you get? In what magic world do you live where some person gets appointed by someone other than the president, absent any advice and consent from the senate, and exercise powers greater than those exercised by people who did get appointed by the president and confirmed by the Senate? Do you know what allows the special counsel to be able to do that? It is very simple. The SC is an inferior officer of the United States. US Attorneys are principal officers. Only in your magic world can an inferior officer exercise authority greater than that of a principal officer.
This is not rocket science. This is common sense. Principal officer > inferior officer. Appointment of a principal officer by anyone except the President and without the advice and consent of the Senate is patently unconstitutional.
"He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments."
Art. 2 § 2 cl. 2
"The Constitution for purposes of appointment very clearly divides all its officers into two classes. The primary class requires a nomination by the President and confirmation by the Senate." United States v. Germaine, 99 U.S. 508 (1878).
"We think its fair import is that any appointee exercising significant authority pursuant to the laws of the United States is an “Officer of the United States,” and must, therefore, be appointed in the manner prescribed by s 2, cl. 2, of that Article." Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1 (1976).
Sure seems like a Special Counsel with powers beyond what can be exercised by a principal officer of the United States would comport with the Buckley v. Valeo court, doesn't it? Keep living in fantasyland and wrongfully presuming that my reality check has ulterior motives.
Mueller Team’s Extra Powers Aren’t Shown Abusive Yet, But Could Be
Mueller’s team members not only possess the virtually unlimited authority granted the special counsel’s office by Rosenstein, they also have the broader, general powers of SAUSA—should they ever decide to exercise that authority.
https://thefederalist.com/2018/05/29/mueller-teams-extra-powers-arent-shown-abusive-yet/
SAUSA must be sought from the Attorney General. SC's office must seek this status from the AG. It is not some special ability that the SC can unilaterally pronounce. If SAUSA allows one to exercise the same authority as a US Attorney, then for you to promote this as a special power is an admission that the SC lacks the same authority as a US Attorney.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/28/543
From your same article:
"Against the backdrop of Ellis’ comments, Politico and The Hill read Mueller’s decision to obtain a joint designation of SAUSA for at least four of his attorneys (Andrew Weissmann, Greg Andres, Kyle Freeny, and Scott Meisler) as significant. It is not. Rather, the SAUSA designation allowed the special counsel’s office to comply with the local rules for the Eastern District of Virginia."
So now, according to you, the SC can act as Attorney General AND US Attorney. That's interesting...Does SC have commander in chief powers too?
Ignore click bait headlines and get through to the substance. There is nothing here that is "extra powers"