Sussman verdict flow chat. Easy to understand even for the epic doomers!
(media.greatawakening.win)
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
Comments (122)
sorted by:
I don't understand how you can conclude the FBI actively conspired just because Sussman was found not guilty. One does not follow from the other. Trials are all independent, completely orthogonal events.
The jury only said Sussman didn't lie. If you now put FBI agents on trial, the jury can say (and likely will say) the FBI didn't actively conspire either. The two trials are totally unconnected, information from one can't even be presented at the other except in limited circumstances, and the jury does not have to ever explain what they think really did happen.
The honest truth is Sussman did lie, AND the FBI conspired. That outcome, the real truth, isn't even available on your flowchart.
Why not just say what this actually is? Another example of a corrupt, failed court case, which I hope will finally wake up the US military that our entire judicial system is compromised and military tribunals are the only hope we have for justice.
Reading any more into this verdict than that is just wishful thinking in my opinion, and not using logic. Q has told us the military is the only way. Why does everyone here insist on doubting this? Nothing is going to happen until we get to military tribunals. It's all just theater until then. When the military is finally deployed under the guise of riot control, then and only then, is something happening.
Wow someone actually thinking instead of blindly moving goal posts and spinning the outcome to your own narrative win? Thinking for yourself? Calling out other possibilities other than the most crazy? Most likely a ban coming.
Mongo just a pawn in the game of life.
~ Mongo in Blazing Saddles ~
Hi shill. Everyone else, take a look at what demoralization accomplishes in psychological warfare:
https://greatawakening.win/p/15IEOW29RL/what-does-demoralization-of-your/c/
you don't know that he lied... you don't know this wasn't Baker setting Sussman up as the fall guy...
All you have is a lying POS Baker's testimony that Sussman lied AND tricked him behind closed doors. Nobody else in the room... no recording of the conversation... nothing...
EVEN IF you did have that... you would also have to believe Sussman tricked Baker into opening the investigation...
open your eyes please... if the logic keeps steering you off the cliff, maybe your logic isn't as logical as you thought..
its very tiring trying to fix the logic of everyone that is too lazy to fix themself.. but I guess that's my war... my job...
They also had his text the day before saying that he was not coming on behalf of any client. The defense conceded that this was a lie, and that it was even the same lie the prosecution was arguing Sussman told to Baker the next day - the same lie he was being charged for - but because the case was about whether or not he told this lie on the 19th, it didn’t matter that he previously told it on the 18th. They even argued that it was unlikely Sussman would have told this lie on the 19th, in person, because he already told it on the 18th, in text, and to repeat it would have been redundant.
this is correct
https://nypost.com/2022/05/18/durham-team-reveals-damning-text-from-hillary-clinton-lawyer-sussmann-to-fbi/
This doesn't mean that this text and meeting with Baker wasn't a plan to go around the rules of FBI and not open up an investigation sourced from a political opponent.
Monomial is right, at least about the Sussman prosecution.
the military is cucked bro cmon now not every servicemember is a qtard