2000 Mules

Poor Richard Saunders said:
Durham isn't going to win the case against Sussmann. He has totally blown the case by not doing investigating before he indicted. The evidence completely exonerates Sussmann and the court has denied Durham the ability to introduce is unsubstantiated speculation.
Click to expand...
seems to me Elias has not backed up Sussman,and Baker is still testifying - but the evidence is a text message directly countering Sussmans claim he was a good samaritan.
Like I said Im not in the weeds on this one - sussman is a pawn -but seeing where it goes from here
should help establish the predicate
 
ExpressLane said:
Durham for sure did his homework. Sussman told the FBI he was not working for a client but he billed the Clinton campaign for his time for the FBI visit. If Durham loses it will be because of the Washington DC jury pool is extremely liberal.
Click to expand...

It couldn't possibly be because his evidence his garbage. But then you don't have a clue what he has for evidence. You just live in your little conspiracy bubble.
 
dukkha said:
seems to me Elias has not backed up Sussman,and Baker is still testifying - but the evidence is a text message directly countering Sussmans claim he was a good samaritan.
Like I said Im not in the weeds on this one - sussman is a pawn -but seeing where it goes from here
should help establish the predicate
Click to expand...
Elias wasn't at the meeting with Baker so can't testify as to what Sussmann said.

The text doesn't provide the evidence you claim it does. The problem Durham has is he didn't charge the text message. He said Sussmann told Baker at the meeting and that is the only lie he charged. Why would Sussmannn repeat something he said in a text earlier? Baker doesn't know if he did or didn't tell him at the meeting. The other notes taken by others not at the meeting could reflect the text message and so are not support that Sussmann lied. Durham has a problem in that he didn't find that text until long after the initial indictment and after the statute of limitations had run out for that text. The jury can only rule on the crime charged. They can't find Sussmann guilty for the text.
 
Poor Richard Saunders said:
Elias wasn't at the meeting with Baker so can't testify as to what Sussmann said.

The text doesn't provide the evidence you claim it does. The problem Durham has is he didn't charge the text message. He said Sussmann told Baker at the meeting and that is the only lie he charged. Why would Sussmannn repeat something he said in a text earlier? Baker doesn't know if he did or didn't tell him at the meeting. The other notes taken by others not at the meeting could reflect the text message and so are not support that Sussmann lied. Durham has a problem in that he didn't find that text until long after the initial indictment and after the statute of limitations had run out for that text. The jury can only rule on the crime charged. They can't find Sussmann guilty for the text.
Click to expand...
I believe Baker testified to the text, but are you saying the text is unadmissable?
I not going to argue the rest. It's in the weeds an im just getting basic press coverage
se what happens
 
Poor Richard Saunders said:
Elias wasn't at the meeting with Baker so can't testify as to what Sussmann said.

The text doesn't provide the evidence you claim it does. The problem Durham has is he didn't charge the text message. He said Sussmann told Baker at the meeting and that is the only lie he charged. Why would Sussmannn repeat something he said in a text earlier? Baker doesn't know if he did or didn't tell him at the meeting. The other notes taken by others not at the meeting could reflect the text message and so are not support that Sdence.ussmann lied. Durham has a problem in that he didn't find that text until long after the initial indictment and after the statute of limitations had run out for that text. The jury can only rule on the crime charged. They can't find Sussmann guilty for the text.
Click to expand...
There is no statute of limitation for evidence. The statute tolls when the indictment is made.
 
Poor Richard Saunders said:
It couldn't possibly be because his evidence his garbage. But then you don't have a clue what he has for evidence. You just live in your little conspiracy bubble.
Click to expand...
Durham is a very successful Prosecutor and does his homework. He hasn't overcharged like you see prosecutors do so often. Sussman is in very big trouble. He will probably take the fall for his political bosses.
 
48ee035867b0d37910944d9cfcf2aa228323bbdebcd88bfbb418058a509912c7-jpg.996823
 
dukkha said:
I believe Baker testified to the text, but are you saying the text is unadmissable?
I not going to argue the rest. It's in the weeds an im just getting basic press coverage
se what happens
Click to expand...

I am saying the text doesn't prove that Sussmann said anything in the one on one meeting. If anything, the text is exculpatory for the charged crime since Baker can't remember what Sussmann told him in the meeting so he is confusing the text with the meeting. Durham only charged the meeting because he failed to find the text until too late to charge that as the crime.
 
Poor Richard Saunders said:
I am curious as to what possible reason would 2000Mules have for not turning all the evidence over to Georgia law enforcement? Perhaps it's because it isn't true and they don't want anyone to know it isn't true because otherwise idiots like you wouldn't give them money.
Click to expand...

Then again you probably supported BLM and even sent them money, amirite?
 
Poor Richard Saunders said:
I am curious as to what possible reason would 2000Mules have for not turning all the evidence over to Georgia law enforcement? Perhaps it's because it isn't true and they don't want anyone to know it isn't true because otherwise idiots like you wouldn't give them money.
Click to expand...

How would I know, I am not a biologist.
 
Trump is advising the candidate in PA to just "declare victory," even though the count is still going on.

If that doesn't tell you everything you need to know about Trump & his election lies, you are set up to be conned by him for years.
 
Frank Apisa said:
Yes, Joe Biden did win. It is unfortunate that he won against a scumbag unwilling to continue the process started by George Washington of a peaceful transfer of power after an election.

I understand your mind is not able to see that your side lost...and lost big. No problem. Go ask your Mommy for a hug. You will feel better.
Click to expand...
Biden "WON" by counting illegal votes. We now have proof of widescale illegal vote trafficking and we have video proof and scientific proof and now the legal investigations are starting.
 
Poor Richard Saunders said:
OMFG. You are really this stupid?

Try reading what you wrote and see if it makes any sense to you.
Click to expand...
I guess you don't understand legal terms. When a person is indicted it stops the statute of limitations on the crime and all evidence is valid. Is that simple enough for you. All evidence of Sussman's guilt is available for Durham to use. The statute of limitations does not apply.


BTW : Toll: To stop the running of a time period, especially a time period set by a statute of limitations.https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/toll#:~:text=To stop the running of,3.

ie: Indictment stops the statute of limitation from running out.
 
ExpressLane said:
Biden "WON" by counting illegal votes. We now have proof of widescale illegal vote trafficking and we have video proof and scientific proof and now the legal investigations are starting.
Click to expand...

You do not have proof of anything...and if you assholes did, you would present it in a court of law and not be laughed out of that court by a judge...often appointed by that abomination, Trump.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top