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:
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.
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.
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.