NOT GUILTY: Trump’s Special Counsel John Durham loses his biggest case.

Poor Richard Saunders said:
It does in the indictment. A jury isn't going to convict you of robbing a bank on the 15th if you didn't rob a bank on the 15th because the evidence of you being in the bank on the 15th wouldn't exist.
Are you sure you are a lawyer? Or is the Alzheimer's so bad for you that you have forgotten how facts work to gain a conviction?

The prosecutor could correct their error and change the indictment to say the robbery was the 12th if that is when the robbery occurred.
The problem for Durham is by the time he found the text the statute of limitations had run out so he could no longer charge that as a crime. That's on him.
Click to expand...

You're always such a snidey arsehole, the text was disallowed and that would have made all the difference. It's clear, to anybody sentient, that Sussmann was sent into the FBI on behalf of the Clinton campaign, only shills like you think otherwise.
 
AssHatZombie said:
this won't be the biggest case.
Click to expand...

The whole point of this case was to threaten Sussmann into testifying against bigger fish. A not guilty verdict means there is no threat. Durham has admitted there are not other possible witnesses, but even if there were, they would not be threatened by a failing prosecutor.

I doubt there was anything criminal here, but even if there were, the case is dead. No one can say how a bigger case would be made.
 
AssHatZombie said:
It was valid.
Click to expand...

Sussmann said he was not working for a client, when he handed over the report. He did not bill for the time, which is the normal definition of work. On top of that, as a lawyer he did not feel the need to use attorney client privilege. In other words, there was no case.

Had Sussmann been like trump, and claimed to never have worked in his life, Durham would have a case. Sussmann has been a very hard worker.
 
Walt said:
Sussmann said he was not working for a client, when he handed over the report. He did not bill for the time, which is the normal definition of work. On top of that, as a lawyer he did not feel the need to use attorney client privilege. In other words, there was no case.

Had Sussmann been like trump, and claimed to never have worked in his life, Durham would have a case. Sussmann has been a very hard worker.
Click to expand...

but he was.

he did bill for it.
 
Walt said:
The whole point of this case was to threaten Sussmann into testifying against bigger fish. A not guilty verdict means there is no threat. Durham has admitted there are not other possible witnesses, but even if there were, they would not be threatened by a failing prosecutor.

I doubt there was anything criminal here, but even if there were, the case is dead. No one can say how a bigger case would be made.
Click to expand...

part of his defense was that the fbi already knew it was a lie.

goal achieved.

then during the investigation the fbi didn't tell the assigned case officers that the informant was clinton's lawyer.
 
Walt said:
Sussmann did not bill for the meeting, he billed for another internal meeting. Sussmann did say he represented clients involved in this case.
Click to expand...

on second thought, if this is true, then the fbi started an investigation from an obviously biased tip from a political opponent.

Go durham. voila, the bigger fish.
 
Poor Richard Saunders said:
It does in the indictment. A jury isn't going to convict you of robbing a bank on the 15th if you didn't rob a bank on the 15th because the evidence of you being in the bank on the 15th wouldn't exist.
Are you sure you are a lawyer? Or is the Alzheimer's so bad for you that you have forgotten how facts work to gain a conviction?

The prosecutor could correct their error and change the indictment to say the robbery was the 12th if that is when the robbery occurred.
The problem for Durham is by the time he found the text the statute of limitations had run out so he could no longer charge that as a crime. That's on him.
Click to expand...

sad that demmycunts are willing to ignore bank robberies if it isn't Friday.......no wonder the country is so fucked up.......
 
Primavera said:
You're always such a snidey arsehole, the text was disallowed and that would have made all the difference. It's clear, to anybody sentient, that Sussmann was sent into the FBI on behalf of the Clinton campaign, only shills like you think otherwise.
Click to expand...

The text was not charged as a crime since the alleged crime as charged by Durham occurred on Sept 19 and the text was sent on Sept 18.
It's clear to anyone that is sentient that you can't commit a crime on Sept 19 by committing a crime on Sept 18.
It should also be clear to anyone that is sentient that the reason Sussmann wasn't charged with a crime that occurred on Sept 18 is because Durham is incompetent.
 
PostmodernProphet said:
sad that demmycunts are willing to ignore bank robberies if it isn't Friday.......no wonder the country is so fucked up.......
Click to expand...

Sad that as a lawyer you don't recognize that that Durham is the one that fucked up in that he didn't actually look at the evidence of when the alleged crime occurred before he made his indictment. He would have had a much stronger case charging the lie in the text but that is on him. You can't blame anyone else.
 
it isn't an issue of who fucked up......its an issue of demmycunts applauding the fact Sussman confessed to the crime but wasn't convicted of it.......that actually demonstrates more than a conviction would have.......
 
PostmodernProphet said:
it isn't an issue of who fucked up......its an issue of demmycunts applauding the fact Sussman confessed to the crime but wasn't convicted of it.......that actually demonstrates more than a conviction would have.......
Click to expand...

The issue is that there is no issue, only innuendo echoed by one side, and is usually the case with the innuendo echoed by that side, it is totally bogus, but that don't stop the lemmings from believing it if it reaffirms what they want to believe, which also is the objective of the Durham "investigation"
 
archives said:
The issue is that there is no issue, only innuendo echoed by one side, and is usually the case with the innuendo echoed by that side, it is totally bogus, but that don't stop the lemmings from believing it if it reaffirms what they want to believe, which also is the objective of the Durham "investigation"
Click to expand...

why don't you think lying to the FBI is an issue.......you did when you thought Trump was lying.....now that we know it was Sussman it seems your okay with it......
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top