Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
He didn't work with Hitlery at the DOJ, Dumbass.The judge had no reason to recuse himself. Hillary Clinton was not on trial. Every person on the jury took a oath to base their judgement only on the evidence. Your side had no evidence.
So you say. Where are the charges in Georgia.He attempted to pressure the Georgia Secretary of State to find enough votes for him to win the state. That is criminal.
Along with the judge refusing to remove a friend of Sussman’s daughter from the jury, or to remove admitted Hillary donors. Durham proved his case beyond a doubt. The judge refused ro allow evidence to be admitted (though Durham may just release it all anyway). There’s another trial coming later this year that should fry some bigger fish.He didn't work with Hitlery at the DOJ, Dumbass.
He worked with the fucking DEFENDANT at the trial in question. Man, you really have non clue what went on in this case. None at all.
Maybe you should back out of the thread and get an education, Moron.
All I can say is you're a liar. Read the indictment, the charge is specific to lying to Baker on 9/19/16. Nothing before or after is charged in the indictment.He was charged with lying to the FBI. The text confirms the lie you raving lunatic.
Good lord you are one stupid mother fucker.
Read federal rules of criminal procedure rule 404Once again, the text confirms the lie he was charge with, Dumbass.
If your IQ dropped 2 points you would be in negative numbers.
And you don't think the email from the prior day where Sussman lied his ass off has any bearing on the case?All I can say is you're a liar. Read the indictment, the charge is specific to lying to Baker on 9/19/16. Nothing before or after is charged in the indictment.
MICHAEL A. SUSSMANN, the defendant herein- a lawyer at a major international
law firm ("Law Firm-I") - requested and held with the FBI General Counsel on or about September 19, 2016 at FBI Headquarters in the District of Columbia.
During the meeting, SUSSMANN lied about the capacity m which he was
providing the allegations to the FBI. Specifically, SUSSMANN stated falsely that he was not doing his work on the aforementioned allegations "for any client,"
Case 1:21-cr-00582-CRC Document 1 Filed 09/16/21
Really? Someone who plans a crime before the crime can't have those plans used against them in court?Read federal rules of criminal procedure rule 404
Crimes or behavior occurring before the crime charged are not admissible as evidence,
First the friend, wasn't a friend, but one of 40 people at the school on the crew team, in which she was 3 years distance (senior vs freshman) from the jurors daughter.Along with the judge refusing to remove a friend of Sussman’s daughter from the jury, or to remove admitted Hillary donors. Durham proved his case beyond a doubt. The judge refused ro allow evidence to be admitted (though Durham may just release it all anyway). There’s another trial coming later this year that should fry some bigger fish.
Because he clearly bilked the taxpayers for time and money. There wasn't a shred of evidence presented in this trial that he did not possess 18+ months ago.First the friend, wasn't a friend, but one of 40 people at the school on the crew team, in which she was 3 years distance (senior vs freshman) from the jurors daughter.
The text from before the meeting was excluded because Durham waited 8 months to seek it. Leaving little time for the defense to respond to it under discovery, and thus excluded.
And I hate to burst your bubble, but the reason Durham had to "rush to judgement" in the indictment is he was up against the statute of limitations a year ago.
It's excluded under federal rules of criminal procedure.And you don't think the email from the prior day where Sussman lied his ass off has any bearing on the case?
Only if charged in the indictment.Really? Someone who plans a crime before the crime can't have those plans used against them in court?
Just when I thought you couldn't get any dumber.
The Fifth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution provides, "No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury,Really? Someone who plans a crime before the crime can't have those plans used against them in court?
Just when I thought you couldn't get any dumber.
Your story is changing. This is what you posted earlier. You said nothing about indictments:Only if charged in the indictment.
No, that's an example the explodes your so-called "logic."Haha, the Alamo of the desperate cultist...
"But OJ"
Hilarious every time.
Um, the text confirms he told the FBI he claimed he was acting as just a concerned citizen, and not on the behalf of anyone else. His billing records prove that was a lie he told the FBI.The Fifth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution provides, "No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury,
In the case of the Text, it offers no proof of later criminal behavior, unlike the planning of the crime, supporting the charge indicted.
Yes, you uneducated freaks think you can literally void any conviction that doesn't align with your childish cult fetishes, by mentioning OJ.No, that's an example the explodes your so-called "logic."
Your story is changing. This is what you posted earlier. You said nothing about indictments:
Crimes or behavior occurring before the crime charged are not admissible as evidence,
Along with the judge refusing to remove a friend of Sussman’s daughter from the jury, or to remove admitted Hillary donors. Durham proved his case beyond a doubt. The judge refused ro allow evidence to be admitted (though Durham may just release it all anyway). There’s another trial coming later this year that should fry some bigger fish.
And I posted a link to the statute saying the judge has discretion on admitting evidence at trial.And as I also said, that everything in an indictment is chargeable. That's the purpose of an indictment (see 5th amendment)
Durhams problem was that he could not get the Text into the indictment (statute of limitations) thus it comes under rule 404.
