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.
You obviously don't know the meaning of the word "still" in this context. It means "despite," dingbat.And STILL the jury found Sussman not guilty. Prove that the trial was rigged. Oh wait, you can't.
Still waiting for you to prove the trial was rigged. And, you sure can lie, can't you? No proof has been provided at all in this thread.You obviously don't know the meaning of the word "still" in this context. It means "despite," dingbat.
Yes, we can prove the trial was rigged. The proof has been posted multiple times in this thread.
Unbelievable! Based on the instructions to the jury, this is not a surprise ( the judge told the jury that the text message was not admissible). The trial was held in Democrat DC, presided over by a Democrat judge, and decided by a jury of Democrats. The outcome of the was determined before the trail began. Now that he is acquitted the MSM will spin it that all of the related allegations are false.
www.msnbc.com
Thats easy...Still waiting for you to prove the trial was rigged. And, you sure can lie, can't you? No proof has been provided at all in this thread.
The indictment alleges that Sussmann lied in the meeting, “falsely stating to the General Counsel that he was not providing the allegations to the FBI on behalf of any client.”
Durham, in his Monday filing, writes that Sussmann “had assembled and conveyed the allegations to the FBI on behalf of at least two specific clients,” including Tech Executive-1, who has been identified as Rodney Joffe, and the Clinton campaign.
…”Indeed, on September 18, 2016 at 7:24 p.m., i.e., the night before the defendant met with the General Counsel, the defendant conveyed the same lie in writing and sent the following text message to the General Counsel’s personal cellphone,” Durham wrote in the filing.
The text message, according to Durham, stated: “Jim—it’s Michael Sussmann. I have something time-sensitive (and sensitive) I need to discuss. Do you have availability for a short meeting tomorrow? I’m coming on my own—not on behalf of a client or company—want to help the Bureau. Thanks.”
Baker replied: “Ok. I will find a time. What might work for you?”
^^^^^^Looks contemporaneous to me^^^^^^^
Sounds like you are trying to prove that Durham was a sucky prosecutor.And no one can explain away any of my questions...
Can anyone tell me why the FBI has an Office in the Perkins-Coie law Firm, who is the lead counsel for the DNC?
Who thinks that this is a good idea? Why has it gone on so long? What is the roll of this office?
No one can explain away why Pelosi refused to take the proper protective posture offered by Trump.
No one can explain why Pelosi would have allowed people to be waived in by CHP, given she was informed by the FBI of the threat potential and what process was going on in the HOR (validation of the electoral college votes).
No one can explain why Pelosi and her SAA reduced the police staff prior to this day..
Why did Pelosi do these things? What plausible explanation is there for doing this?
The Sussman trial exposed a lot of things than need to be addressed. And it all starts with the incestuous relationship between the DNC, Perkins-Coie, and the FBI
I clearly laid out that the judge was not trustworthy. The Judge denied the request for change of venue. This stinks to high heaven of judicial malfeasance.Sounds like you are trying to prove that Durham was a sucky prosecutor.
It doesn't matter. It's hard evidence that he lied. The judge is obviously a sleazy dishonest douchebag.
It doesn't matter. We all know what the truth is.
www.thebulwark.com
Good Lord you are one stupid person.
The text was a lie. Do you think he went in the next day and said "I was just joking in my text, I'm actually being paid by Hitlery right now to come in here and give these two thumb drives of Russian lies to you"? If so, produce your evidence he said that instead of claiming once again he was just there as a concerned citizen.
Are you really that stupid?
The evidence did not support the charge. Full stop. The jury foreman said the charges were a waste of time and resources.......which is exactly right.I clearly laid out that the judge was not trustworthy. The Judge denied the request for change of venue. This stinks to high heaven of judicial malfeasance.
wach.com
You didn't "clearly laid out" anything. You don't like the result and now you are like the sports fan whining about the refs. Durham FAILED.I clearly laid out that the judge was not trustworthy. The Judge denied the request for change of venue. This stinks to high heaven of judicial malfeasance.
Dayum, are all Catholics as racist as you?
Why am I still waiting for you to post how you know they're uneducated? Or obese? Or on welfare?
I don't need to prove it. The evidence was on display. The jury forum even admitted that they engaged in jury nullification.Still waiting for you to prove the trial was rigged. And, you sure can lie, can't you? No proof has been provided at all in this thread.
Nostra posted this is the text...
Jim—it’s Michael Sussmann. I have something time-sensitive (and sensitive) I need to discuss. Do you have availability for a short meeting tomorrow? I’m coming on my own—not on behalf of a client or company—want to help the Bureau. Thanks.
... where's the lie?
No, I am just using the bripat9643 standard:You're the one claiming Sussmann is innocent, moron.
Not only did the jury unanimously and promptly reject the feeble charge. It was directed at a dude who was accused by Durham of lying to the FBI, when the target of Durham's three-year witch hunt had been the FBI on which he could contrive nothing."Show me the conviction"
nypost.com
