Again ... important evidence regarding Hillary is now on judicial record .... which gets used later. Danny wasnt really on trial ... the FBI was: lots of evidence came out showing how corrupt they are.
Not saying the Military isn't the only way, still. Just saying "small steps".
Added: also, now they can't come back later and blame the low-level player and suicide him before he speaks out.
I see what you all are saying, I am just getting fatigued. Had a somewhat conservative friend visibly shaking when talking about Trump, like he couldn't even have a convo without his anger taking over. Around me not many are waking up.
It's a lot easier to sleep through a disaster than wake up and deal with it, especially when you think it's not real, it doesn't really affect you, that there's nothing you can do about it or that it's just natural for things to get worse over time and that you just learn to deal with it as the new norm.
If your friends and family don't wake up to this, let them sleep, leave them behind and go fight alongside those who are also awake.
You’re not playing the right game in your head. This is chess, not checkers. We didn’t want to convict this guy. We wanted the verdict we got. We wanted to lose that piece so we could gain another. We were able to submit evidence that shows he didn’t lie. If he didn’t lie, the FBI did. Now we build a stronger case against the FBI.
Come on, guys. It was the fact the trial happened, and with a jury no less, that matters here. I guarantee you Durham is using the same playbook Giuliani used to take down the mob. All in good time, then all at once.
I get what you're saying, but convicting them and getting the pieces we need to go higher can easily be done. It's done every day in courts via plea bargains.
Durham may still be ok, but each one of these non-convictions eats away at his reputation. He needs to win one. Even a stupid small one like lying to the FBI.
Can't garland block things if Durham starts framing a really clear case against bureau? Hes already said no actions against mccabe and comey, and it seems there only a tiny subset of the US pop that know and /or care.
I tried to find that out and was debating the other night with several posters and somehow I picked up a "fan" along the way that went back 3 or 4 days and downvoted every comment I had. No idea why this is so controversial.
My guess is Garland can only remove Durham for cause, but that could be easy since there are a lot of regulations he has to follow (same ones US Attorneys have to follow) and there are other regs for the special counsel. I also think if Garland tries to remove Durham there will be backlash from both sides. Real liberals (not the stupid socialists we have now) and lawyers will raise a stink because they will see that as interference or obstruction of justice.
I'm not following you on this question. What I mean is even if Danchenko (for example) is a small player that can give Durham leads he needs to go after bigger fish that doesn't mean he shouldn't try for a conviction.
Sure - give Danchenko a plea bargain, maybe a 30 day deferred sentence and allow the conviction to drop off if he stays out of trouble for the 30 days. Durham will still get the info he needs, the person on trial will not have a record as long as they are good during that period, and it will stop the MSM and normies from saying Durham is doing wild goose chases and should be shut down.
I'm not saying Durham lied if that's what you mean. I personally don't like any of these cases where someone is charged for lying to the FBI. They are usually total BS because the FBI can say you got one irrelevant detail wrong when you talked to them and just put you in jail regardless of whether you actually lied or got confused/misremembered/misspoke,etc. What is it, like 90%+ of Federal cases result in convictions? They got Flynn on a lying to the FBI charge and tried to ruin him. Durham can't seem to do the same (without the ruin part)?
Actually, you can. The top of the ladder isn’t a person. The top of the ladder is the political weapon itself. The institution of the FBI. The weapon/tool itself needs to be dismantled or someone else will just pick it up and use it.
It's the judges and the juries and the relative weakness and lack of "focus" in the prosecutions.
And why would anyone higher than Danchenko have anything to fear from Durham at this point?
If you get tried by a suborned judge in a trial that is heard by a suborned jury - why would you consider it more than an inconvenience? People like Strzok, Page, Comey, McCabe et al expect to be tried. It's part of the package.
I hope that Durham is sandbagging a devastatingly effective RICO trial that will bring down the whole corrupt temple - but I don't see it.
If and when the military comes in I don't think they are going to be waiting on "referrals" from John Durham.
you can't move up the ladder if you can't convict the small timers.
Again ... important evidence regarding Hillary is now on judicial record .... which gets used later. Danny wasnt really on trial ... the FBI was: lots of evidence came out showing how corrupt they are.
Not saying the Military isn't the only way, still. Just saying "small steps".
Added: also, now they can't come back later and blame the low-level player and suicide him before he speaks out.
I see what you all are saying, I am just getting fatigued. Had a somewhat conservative friend visibly shaking when talking about Trump, like he couldn't even have a convo without his anger taking over. Around me not many are waking up.
It's a lot easier to sleep through a disaster than wake up and deal with it, especially when you think it's not real, it doesn't really affect you, that there's nothing you can do about it or that it's just natural for things to get worse over time and that you just learn to deal with it as the new norm.
If your friends and family don't wake up to this, let them sleep, leave them behind and go fight alongside those who are also awake.
And didn't Garland block all the other prosecutions? I thought I read that.
He can’t block indictments, he can just try shutting durham down but it would be a court battle
You’re not playing the right game in your head. This is chess, not checkers. We didn’t want to convict this guy. We wanted the verdict we got. We wanted to lose that piece so we could gain another. We were able to submit evidence that shows he didn’t lie. If he didn’t lie, the FBI did. Now we build a stronger case against the FBI.
Come on, guys. It was the fact the trial happened, and with a jury no less, that matters here. I guarantee you Durham is using the same playbook Giuliani used to take down the mob. All in good time, then all at once.
RICO.
I get what you're saying, but convicting them and getting the pieces we need to go higher can easily be done. It's done every day in courts via plea bargains.
Durham may still be ok, but each one of these non-convictions eats away at his reputation. He needs to win one. Even a stupid small one like lying to the FBI.
Can't garland block things if Durham starts framing a really clear case against bureau? Hes already said no actions against mccabe and comey, and it seems there only a tiny subset of the US pop that know and /or care.
I tried to find that out and was debating the other night with several posters and somehow I picked up a "fan" along the way that went back 3 or 4 days and downvoted every comment I had. No idea why this is so controversial.
My guess is Garland can only remove Durham for cause, but that could be easy since there are a lot of regulations he has to follow (same ones US Attorneys have to follow) and there are other regs for the special counsel. I also think if Garland tries to remove Durham there will be backlash from both sides. Real liberals (not the stupid socialists we have now) and lawyers will raise a stink because they will see that as interference or obstruction of justice.
If he lied they’re not as culpable. They’re who we want. What aren’t you getting?
I'm not following you on this question. What I mean is even if Danchenko (for example) is a small player that can give Durham leads he needs to go after bigger fish that doesn't mean he shouldn't try for a conviction.
Sure - give Danchenko a plea bargain, maybe a 30 day deferred sentence and allow the conviction to drop off if he stays out of trouble for the 30 days. Durham will still get the info he needs, the person on trial will not have a record as long as they are good during that period, and it will stop the MSM and normies from saying Durham is doing wild goose chases and should be shut down.
I'm not saying Durham lied if that's what you mean. I personally don't like any of these cases where someone is charged for lying to the FBI. They are usually total BS because the FBI can say you got one irrelevant detail wrong when you talked to them and just put you in jail regardless of whether you actually lied or got confused/misremembered/misspoke,etc. What is it, like 90%+ of Federal cases result in convictions? They got Flynn on a lying to the FBI charge and tried to ruin him. Durham can't seem to do the same (without the ruin part)?
That allows wiggle room for the FBI and the true traitors. Danchenko and sussman are expendable assets to protect the bigger players
Actually, you can. The top of the ladder isn’t a person. The top of the ladder is the political weapon itself. The institution of the FBI. The weapon/tool itself needs to be dismantled or someone else will just pick it up and use it.
Hard to believe anything will happen without the military.
It's the judges and the juries and the relative weakness and lack of "focus" in the prosecutions.
And why would anyone higher than Danchenko have anything to fear from Durham at this point?
If you get tried by a suborned judge in a trial that is heard by a suborned jury - why would you consider it more than an inconvenience? People like Strzok, Page, Comey, McCabe et al expect to be tried. It's part of the package.
I hope that Durham is sandbagging a devastatingly effective RICO trial that will bring down the whole corrupt temple - but I don't see it.
If and when the military comes in I don't think they are going to be waiting on "referrals" from John Durham.