Well yeah pretty much! Its like when you tell your friend "yo, we know each other real well, do me a solid and lets trick these faggots into a megaton RICO case and ill keep you safe. Just act like a faggot for a little bit so they don't find out".
100%. This part of the plan is to show every damn govt agency is corrupt. Then people will accept military takeover and a reconstruction of our country (and world)
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. :-)
This looks like more official evidence on the federal books, with direct ties with the FBI now. Durham is doing his part I believe, and this was just another step for the military tribunals. For this to go down, smoothly with little to no backlash, we need a mountain of undeniable proofs to bury all their excuses and fraudulent evidence they will try and use.
We have one shot at this, and if we're getting the big dogs up top and not just the low laying fruits, it has to be perfect.
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.
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.
I'm not a lawfag, but to me, getting their testimony on record is a big deal. If we are going after them with a RICO case, then we are getting the smaller fish on record lying, while also covering their fraud/court manipulation with their planted judges/jury at the same time.
If Durham was planning some sort of RICO (he’s not), this would not help him. The acquittal hurts him dramatically if this is the goal. Getting various small witnesses “on record” is not a thing.
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.
With all due respect, you are mistaken in several points. There’s no such thing as a continuous “record” among related proceedings - the trial testimony of the witnesses we just heard is not any more or less admissible in any future proceeding. It will be subject to the same analysis as to its admissibility as any other proposed evidence.
There are much, much easier ways to secure statements from witnesses than to hold an entire trial - the entire idea does not make sense to any lawyer.
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.
Testimonies and planted jury/judges are my guess on what they're gathering right now. Not so much as physical evidence, I believe that they already have everything they need. This may be a two way "show trial" in a sense.
I don't know. Personally I just don't see how Durham can bring military tribunals. I mean, Who in our military would actually conduct the tribunals? Did Biden not just completely pacify our military?
He's just playing his part, I don't think he will have anything to do with activating the Military Tribunals. I personally do not think our entire military is corrupt. It's as Trump stated in the past, we have our TV Military, and the real Military...the select, the few, the ones who do most the work behind the scenes that don't get the credit.
I just don't understand how we go from a bunch of not guilty sentences to putting Hillary in the rest in front of the military. If Danchenko didn't lie to the FBI then couldn't Hillary just say no crime was meant to be committed, that it was all an accident or at the most "misguided but had good intentions"? Wheres the smoking gun for intent?
Sadly this is a difficult and dangerous topic fraught with satanists that turn everything around 50 times before sticking in your ass and down your throat so we don't talk of such things here.
I still believe the scope is much greater and his purpose is to build the ground work. He's a distinguished prosecutor whith big name convictions under his belt. He didn't start this process in 2017 to convict small puppets with light jail sentences. We all know the end goal is uge. It really is a slow burn that is tough to watch unfold. Patience truly is a virtue.
He wasn’t going to be found guilty the whole point was to show it was the fib that was behind it and being controlled by the DS
Nice Freudian slip. :D
In GTAIV it's actually called the FIB. lol
In my native language it's called FJB, lol.
Well yeah pretty much! Its like when you tell your friend "yo, we know each other real well, do me a solid and lets trick these faggots into a megaton RICO case and ill keep you safe. Just act like a faggot for a little bit so they don't find out".
One possible explanation I saw was......
Danchenko was telling the truth. He told the FBI the dossier was made up BS. The FBI ran with it anyways.
If that's the case then the not guilty verdict was appropriate.
I dont actually know anything though, and there's no sauce cuz I read it on here somewhere.
100%. This part of the plan is to show every damn govt agency is corrupt. Then people will accept military takeover and a reconstruction of our country (and world)
He ratted out who was guilty. Some people got named.
Military...
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
This looks like more official evidence on the federal books, with direct ties with the FBI now. Durham is doing his part I believe, and this was just another step for the military tribunals. For this to go down, smoothly with little to no backlash, we need a mountain of undeniable proofs to bury all their excuses and fraudulent evidence they will try and use.
We have one shot at this, and if we're getting the big dogs up top and not just the low laying fruits, it has to be perfect.
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.
You don’t need the entire time and expense of a trial to do that.
you do when the lawyers are high priced attorneys, and the judge has taken sides on an issue.
I'm not a lawfag, but to me, getting their testimony on record is a big deal. If we are going after them with a RICO case, then we are getting the smaller fish on record lying, while also covering their fraud/court manipulation with their planted judges/jury at the same time.
If Durham was planning some sort of RICO (he’s not), this would not help him. The acquittal hurts him dramatically if this is the goal. Getting various small witnesses “on record” is not a thing.
He's not the one putting the RICO case together. He's playing his part, he's another step in the ladder, to get us all to the top...the finish line.
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.
With all due respect, you are mistaken in several points. There’s no such thing as a continuous “record” among related proceedings - the trial testimony of the witnesses we just heard is not any more or less admissible in any future proceeding. It will be subject to the same analysis as to its admissibility as any other proposed evidence.
There are much, much easier ways to secure statements from witnesses than to hold an entire trial - the entire idea does not make sense to any lawyer.
Then the answer would be that this is the process intended to prove the corruption in the justice system as a whole.
If you have a better alternative explanation, I'd love to hear.
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?
Testimonies and planted jury/judges are my guess on what they're gathering right now. Not so much as physical evidence, I believe that they already have everything they need. This may be a two way "show trial" in a sense.
I don't know. Personally I just don't see how Durham can bring military tribunals. I mean, Who in our military would actually conduct the tribunals? Did Biden not just completely pacify our military?
He's just playing his part, I don't think he will have anything to do with activating the Military Tribunals. I personally do not think our entire military is corrupt. It's as Trump stated in the past, we have our TV Military, and the real Military...the select, the few, the ones who do most the work behind the scenes that don't get the credit.
I just don't understand how we go from a bunch of not guilty sentences to putting Hillary in the rest in front of the military. If Danchenko didn't lie to the FBI then couldn't Hillary just say no crime was meant to be committed, that it was all an accident or at the most "misguided but had good intentions"? Wheres the smoking gun for intent?
When the whole system is corrupt, who you gonna call?
u/#trumpnato
GAW's Busters!
top comment
…is…
...the...
u/#trumptank
..mostly compromised...
Military too busy dressing up men in women's uniforms right now.
Law was already dead. It is NOT real whatsoever and hasn't been. There is simply no justice in this artificial society.
How do we revive it? Even after some big military event? Short of executing half of government officials, judges, and lawyers?
Sadly this is a difficult and dangerous topic fraught with satanists that turn everything around 50 times before sticking in your ass and down your throat so we don't talk of such things here.
Yikes, the glowies here didn't like that did they. 😆 🖕
Yup. The longer this unfolds, the more people wake up to the fact this is a marathon, not a sprint.
Instant gratification is natural, adapting to the reality that's not how the world works is difficult for many. Even those who are "awake".
I always knew he wouldn't get much. SO no goal posts moved here. The whole system has to be shown to the people to be corrupt beyond repair.
That is "The great awakening"
Durham is not so much, eh?
I still believe the scope is much greater and his purpose is to build the ground work. He's a distinguished prosecutor whith big name convictions under his belt. He didn't start this process in 2017 to convict small puppets with light jail sentences. We all know the end goal is uge. It really is a slow burn that is tough to watch unfold. Patience truly is a virtue.
True. I don't believe at this point Durham is trying to undo a lifetime of good legal work. He seems to me to be trying to do the right things.
Believe a way. Durham was over sold.
Nobody cares about danchenko. Nobody thinks there is going to be successful prosecutions in DC.
There's a bigger game here.
Wasn’t DC. Wasn’t an Obama judge. Durham was over sold.
"We made a mistake, those Russian bastards LIED to us, it's not our fault!"
^ this excuse is now off the table
(Along with "It was our overzealous lawyers wot did it" thanks to Wiezman or whatever)
I don't get it. I mean, I get it. But, I just don't get it.
Get what I mean?
I dont think they care. Goal is to get sworn testimony on the record. Previously there was sussman who got off.
These people probably made a plea deal. trial is a show trial.
Still 👏 3👏 more 👏 indictments 👏 left 👏.
Q4621
[Placeholder - Indictments Tracking > Non_Civ]
[Set 1]
Kevin Clinesmith [KC][11.3]
Michael Sussmann
igor Danchenko
?????????????
?????????????
?????????????
[Placeholder - Indictments Tracking > Civ]
https://www.justice.gov/archives/jm/criminal-resource-manual-923-18-usc-371-conspiracy-defraud-us
Any guesses who 4, 5 & 6 may be?
No idea. But we will hear when Durham makes another indictment.
Durham, if I recall, had a perfect or near perfect record of convictions. This is significant if he brings forth a case and it results in acquittal.
Right? It's frustrating in the moment but the bigger picture is what's important.
As Gomer would say... "Surprise, Surprise".
If you lie to the FBI but they're in on it, you didn't lie to the FBI.
I agree. I hope others understand this concept!
Like Mr. Summey always said:
There is Justice in America...
Sometimes.