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.
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.
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.
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.