JURY FINDS DANCHENKO NOT GUILTY ON ALL COUNTS
(truthsocial.com)
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
Comments (78)
sorted by:
I hope the paper trail of evidence and witness testimony being introduced in these Durham cases are somehow going to be used in military trials for treason and sedition charges against the big fish.
Sure hope you're right. I know Cates and others think it'll play out this way. And it all makes sense. Just gets a bit disheartening after a while. Not that I've lost faith, but I'd sure like to see some big wins soon
It is frustrating, but I'm willing - should I make it out alive and well in the future - to wait it out till the end. At least I'm certain that God wins. :-)
Any link you know of where they lay out their theories on how this will go down?
Here are a few I've come across...
Brian Cates on what is being accomplished with the Durham approach
(Content in first comment)
Durham’s In-Your-Face Danchenko Gambit
EDVA Jury: Igor Danchenko not guilty on all counts And - what we learned from the trial
Igor Danchenko Trial Revelations: Team Mueller’s Obstruction
That doesn’t make any sense from a legal standpoint. There isn’t anything special about “evidence” because a court ruled it was admissible in a trial, e.g. if he has something on Hillary, he could have used it before.
There IS something special about using a conviction to leverage a case against a big fish - something that is not an option now.
Not dooming, just a lawfag.
it's getting testimony on the record with bit players. now if called into court it is verry difficult for them to change testimony without being charged with lying to the court. If someone is murdered before trial the prosecutor can use their testimony.
My understanding, and if I'm mistaken please correct me, they have all this evidence, but if the court just rules all the significant evidence as inadmissible, then they won't be able to make the case and get a conviction.
So, the intention of the Durham lawsuits is NOT about getting convictions, but to get evidence on the record in such a way that it can't be deemed inadmissible because the court had already heard it. In that way, when they have the case, it's not so much a pile of evidence, but a record of court transcripts that will be indefensible and automatically admissible to go after the targets... or possibly just to get the proof that the system is so corrupted that the military takes over to clean things up.
I see your point and understand fully how convictions are better. I don’t care if something is considered dooming are not. I for one appreciate the truth and can handle the truth. I could also handle different opinions, it helps me decide my opinion by taking everything into account.
Is there any precedent for mass evidence gathered in this way to be presented at a different trial?
When the whole system is corrupt, who you gonna call?
GAW's Busters!
top comment
…is…
...the...
u/#trumptank
..mostly compromised...
Military too busy dressing up men in women's uniforms right now.