2
DigitSoldier 2 points ago +2 / -0

You can, when the dude is fighting against the globalist nazis.

24
DigitSoldier 24 points ago +24 / -0

Uh oh... looks like Putin has the goods.

I guess the military is the only way.

3
DigitSoldier 3 points ago +3 / -0

Anything that prevents them from covering the continuous stream of evidence and happenings of the rigged 2020 election...

24
DigitSoldier 24 points ago +24 / -0

Shutting it down today would do the world a favor tomorrow.

5
DigitSoldier 5 points ago +5 / -0

Antonakakis continued: “Please, try to imagine a ‘United States of America’ where investigations and prosecutions are determined by ideas and political believes [sic].” There is no need to imagine this reality, however, because we lived through it for five years.

I love it when these swamp rat tools feel like they are getting a taste of their own medicine.

1
DigitSoldier 1 point ago +1 / -0

My statement was about a broken link in the fake news Axios article.

But there is indeed an indictment for Tina Peters on bogus charges. God forbid an elected official do her job and preserve election records. I hear she has good lawyers, though, so hopefully she will win against this tyranny against her.

5
DigitSoldier 5 points ago +5 / -0

Tinapetersforcolorado.com and lindelllegalfund.org

Tina is a God fearing, gold star mom. She will persevere through this baseless indictment.

by BQnita
21
DigitSoldier 21 points ago +21 / -0

I will be voting. I will never not vote again.

2
DigitSoldier 2 points ago +2 / -0

Sidney is moving to discovery in other court cases. This was frivolous lawfare against Sidney.

Check her latest update on frankspeech under Defending the Republic show.

https://frankspeech.com/video/update-defendingtherepublicorg

1
DigitSoldier 1 point ago +1 / -0

This is white-wash

You’ve given no coherent reason why this is “white wash”.

I’m not disappointed at all. Sussman’s lie IS material, and Durham can prove it. The case will go forward.

WINNING

Now who will be next??? :-O

1
DigitSoldier 1 point ago +1 / -0

He didn’t say Sussman duped them into spying on Trump.

Sussman is claiming his lie, that he was not representing any clients, is immaterial and Durham’s case against him should be dismissed.

Durham’s response is that Sussman’s lie could have changed the course of the investigation, and he has testimony from witnesses who will confirm this is true.

None of this implies anything else about anyone else who also was a part of this criminality.

3
DigitSoldier 3 points ago +3 / -0

The gist of Durham's rebuttal is that IF Sussman didn't lie then spygate never happens.

Correct, which refutes Sussman’s claim that the lie was immaterial and the case should be dismissed.

You are talking about other characters that have nothing to do with this Sussman case as it is right now. Right now, Sussman is in the hot seat.

3
DigitSoldier 3 points ago +3 / -0

Some of those are swamp rats...

Everyone knows “Qanon” is FBI.

Now how many of them are doing anything about human trafficking? That’s what we care about.

3
DigitSoldier 3 points ago +3 / -0

That’s a very weird read on those paragraphs. The whole context of the article is that Durham is refuting Sussmann’s claim that Sussman’s lie was immaterial which is what Sussman is using to try and dismiss the case.

Where do you get this idea that all of this means Durham is trying to save these “corrupt DOJ institutions”?

It looks more to me like Durham has his shit together and Sussman probably going to didn’t kill himself.

Here are the real money shots:

Far from finding himself in the vulnerable position of an ordinary person whose speech is likely to be chilled, the defendant — a sophisticated and well-connected lawyer — chose to bring politically-charged allegations to the FBI’s chief legal officer at the height of an election season,” Durham wrote the judge.

He then chose to lie about the clients who were behind those allegations,” he added. “Using such rare access to the halls of power for the purposes of political deceit is hardly the type of speech that the Founders intended to protect. The Court should therefore reject defendant’s invitation to expand the scope of the First Amendment to protect such conduct.”

3
DigitSoldier 3 points ago +3 / -0

Yes, go to https://lindelllegalfund.org/

Mike has been providing her lawyers ever since these cretins raided her office. She was just on his show a few days ago giving an update on her campaign for Secretary of State.

view more: ‹ Prev Next ›