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)?
It’s like you’re new to the concept on this site that things are not always as they seem, and that losses can still be wins. You’re thinking too linearly still. This is chess. Have some faith that the plan is working even when things don’t look good on the surface. This trial was still a win no matter what the outcome would have been for Danchenko.
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)?
It’s like you’re new to the concept on this site that things are not always as they seem, and that losses can still be wins. You’re thinking too linearly still. This is chess. Have some faith that the plan is working even when things don’t look good on the surface. This trial was still a win no matter what the outcome would have been for Danchenko.
That allows wiggle room for the FBI and the true traitors. Danchenko and sussman are expendable assets to protect the bigger players