Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted (edited)
19 minutes ago, DRsGhost said:

 

 

Regardless of all the damning evidence, I'd be surprised if any of this results in a conviction as the Judge has put tight guardrails around areas the prosecution can cover and question, what evidence can be submitted, and add to that a DC jury composition being highly favorable to political positions of the defense team and their client.  Either way half of the country will be happy and the other half unhappy with the result. 

 

In any event what it does is implicate the Clinton campaign in the fabrication and origin of the Russia hoax. Given this it's a mystery anyone can still believe in it. 

Edited by All_Pro_Bills
Posted
8 minutes ago, All_Pro_Bills said:

Regardless of all the damning evidence, I'd be surprised if any of this results in a conviction as the Judge has put tight guardrails around areas the prosecution can cover and question, what evidence can be submitted, and add to that a DC jury composition being highly favorable to political positions of the defense team and their client.  Either way half of the country will be happy and the other half unhappy with the result. 

 

I agree, Sussman has an all star defense team and a hugely favorable DC jury. All it takes is one activist juror, and that's highly likely in DC.

 

Danchenko will of course have the same favorable venue, but won't have the same resources as Sussman for his defense.

Posted
20 minutes ago, DRsGhost said:

 

 

I guess one side of that political spectrum is off the “If he has nothing to hide, he should testify” and “if he can’t prove definitively he’s innocent, he’s probably guilty” shtick these days.  

Posted
21 hours ago, Doc said:

OJ was acquitted. 

This is why I have little trust in the conviction, with the amount of excluded evidence proving this to a jury beyond a reasonable doubt would be difficult. OJ was guilty but his lawyers made a compelling enough case

Posted

The argument by the defense that the information would have been investigated (if Sussman had told them he was working for Hilly, like he should have) anyway is bull####.  I'll bet the FBI gets hundreds of "tips" on public figures and needs to weed-out what is possibly real or not.  But since it's the cesspool that is DC, he'll likely walk.  But still be guilty of helping foist one of the worst fake scandals in American history.

Posted (edited)

In DC a lawyer for a political campaign can bring evidence to the FBI on a thumb drive purchased and billed to that very same campaign, literally bringing evidence to the FBI on behalf of a client, and then claim that he was not bringing the evidence to the FBI on behalf of a client.

 

That's like having the OJ glove that actually fits like a glove.

Edited by DRsGhost
Posted
22 minutes ago, DRsGhost said:

In DC a lawyer for a political campaign can bring evidence to the FBI on a thumb drive purchased and billed to that very same campaign, literally bringing evidence to the FBI on behalf of a client, and then claim that he was not bringing the evidence to the FBI on behalf of a client.

 

That's like having the OJ glove that actually fits like a glove.

 

And saying "it wasn't meant to fit so well."

  • Like (+1) 1
Posted

 

But the facts are that ultimately it turned out to be a lie and Sussman worked for the Clinton campaign.  The evidence is clear.  But since it's a trial by jurors, some of whom are Clinton supporters, he'll likely walk.

×
×
  • Create New...