Excellent catch on the flag. I wonder if that is true of a lot of the graphics. If we should look at the measurements of the graphics to get hints as well.

I never have regarded Sussman as the target. He is a stepping stone. I notice Doomers trying to be like "but his max sentence won't be that high" which confused me. He was never the target anymore than Clinesmith (Durham's first indictment). Clinesmith sentence was very light and most of it was put as time served. He had his law license suspect till 2023 and he'll never have a security clearance again so he did pay a high price in other ways.

Sussman is simply further sucking the flies into Durham's web. He's more of a bait. Even if Sussman got 30 years would we be like "Oh yeah! Got 'em!". No, because it's not Sussman we want. It is what Sussman leads to.

Marc Elias is now ensnared. Marc is their moronic superlawyer who keeps losing embarrassing lawsuits. He connects to the Steele Dossier. Sussman also connected to Rodney Joffe who connects to many others.

People need to realize the connections and how RICO cases work.

https://greatawakening.win/p/141ra2y86V/overview-of-russiagate-scandal/c/

Baker talked and that is how they got Sussman on a lie. Baker talking means that no FBI are going to be found guilty in this trial. I'm surprised Sundance would ever think that. Of course not. That's why they talked and gave up Sussman.

One problem is that most people just read about RICO cases AFTER they've been finished. Never mind the 10-13 years it took to take down the mafia heads. We get a quick summary on wiki. We weren't watching and waiting for the 10 year take down. Imagine the agony of the families who had to wait that long for justice against some of these mob bosses.

Durham was involved in taking down the Gambino and several crime families.

Building a case of racketeering and conspiracy is a long process. It doesn't happen fast. It takes incredible patience and dedication.

Durham is framing things that way because the target is the Clinton Campaign, not the FBI. Of course he'd do it that way. The trial is about Sussman. You can't make it about other people. You are trying to prove that Sussman deliberately and knowingly lied. Durham is also working to prove that Sussman was working in broader conspiracy for the Clinton Campaign to spread malicious data in the hopes of Trump's campaign and administration being investigated by federal authorities.

It would be stupid and destroy the entire case if Durham tried to say that the FBI (the ones WHO gave the testimony that Sussman lied to them) were also part of the conspiracy. Durham would destroy his own case if he put the FBI on trial.

Obviously Durham can't do that. It is Baker's testimony that got Sussman indicted. You have to push that the FBI were the ones duped because you are using THEIR testimony against Sussman.

Excellent catch on the flag. I wonder if that is true of a lot of the graphics. If we should look at the measurements of the graphics to get hints as well.

I never have regarded Sussman as the target. He is a stepping stone. I notice Doomers trying to be like "but his max sentence won't be that high" which confused me. He was never the target anymore than Clinesmith (Durham's first indictment). Clinesmith sentence was very light and most of it was put as time served. He had his law license suspect till 2023 and he'll never have a security clearance again so he did pay a high price in other ways.

Sussman is simply further sucking the flights into Durham's web. He's more of a bait. Even if Sussman got 30 years would we be like "Oh yeah! Got 'em!". No, because it's not Sussman we want. It is what Sussman leads to.

Marc Elias is now ensnared. Marc is their moronic superlawyer who keeps losing embarrassing lawsuits. He connects to the Steele Dossier. Sussman also connected to Rodney Joffe who connects to many others.

People need to realize the connections and how RICO cases work.

https://greatawakening.win/p/141ra2y86V/overview-of-russiagate-scandal/c/

Baker talked and that is how they got Sussman on a lie. Baker talking means that no FBI are going to be found guilty in this trial. I'm surprised Sundance would ever think that. Of course not. That's why they talked and gave up Sussman.

One problem is that most people just read about RICO cases AFTER they've been finished. Never mind the 10-13 years it took to take down the mafia heads. We get a quick summary on wiki. We weren't watching and waiting for the 10 year take down. Imagine the agony of the families who had to wait that long for justice against some of these mob bosses.

Durham was involved in taking down the Gambino and several crime families.

Building a case of racketeering and conspiracy is a long process. It doesn't happen fast. It takes incredible patience and dedication.

Durham is framing things that way because the target is the Clinton Campaign, not the FBI. Of course he'd do it that way. The trial is about Sussman. You can't make it about other people. You are trying to prove that Sussman deliberately and knowingly lied. Durham is also working to prove that Sussman was working in broader conspiracy for the Clinton Campaign to spread malicious data in the hopes of Trump's campaign and administration being investigated by federal authorities.

It would be stupid and destroy the entire case if Durham tried to say that the FBI (the ones WHO gave the testimony that Sussman lied to them) were also part of the conspiracy. Durham would destroy his own case if he put the FBI on trial.

Obviously Durham can't do that. It is Baker's testimony that got Sussman indicted. You have to push that the FBI were the ones duped because you are using THEIR testimony against Sussman.