Michigan Militia Plotted To Kidnap Gov. Gretchen Whitmer, FBI Says

cajunrevenge said:
At what point do you realize how little understanding of the legal system you have? You still haven't even come to terms with the exonerations from the Durham hoax.
Click to expand...

You don't even a clue to what you're talking about.

Durham proved both were guilty.

FBI even said Danshenko lied. It didn't matter.

I can't argue facts with delusional potheads it seems.


"No, I never believed there were nuclear documents"

"I believe there are nuclear documents. Prove they're fake"

I played you like a drum and you don't have enough brain cells to figure it out.
 
Last edited:
Everything I said was fact. I know you have **** for brains but if you read the case beyond what the MSM is telling you I'm correct.

I even proved that excuse you made for Sussman was false. lol

I will enjoy when I'm proven right in this case as well.



I might make this below my new sig.


"No, I never believed there were nuclear documents"

"I believe there are nuclear documents. Prove they're fake"

I played you like a drum and you don't have enough brain cells to figure it out.
 
Last edited:
Garmel said:
Durham proved both were guilty.
Click to expand...

Garmel said:
I even proved that excuse you made for Sussman was false.
Click to expand...

You might want to consider the possibility that to simply assert that something is proven doth not make it so.

It could also be that your definition of the word proof is different from other people's. Certainly judge and jury in the cases Durham lost appear to have a different standard. Doesn't mean your standard is bad or wrong. Just not definitive.
 
nsacpi said:
You might want to consider the possibility that to simply assert that something is proven doth not make it so.

It could also be that your definition of the word proof is different from other people's. Certainly judge and jury in the cases Durham lost appear to have a different standard. Doesn't mean your standard is bad or wrong. Just not definitive.
Click to expand...

I consider proof when Durham has the lie Sussman said in black and white. It's the smoking gun. Durham in B&W showed that Sussman representing nobody but himself was false because Sussman billed Hillary for it and Durham had the receipt. lol. How can you get more definite than that? You wish the anti-Trump cases you believe in had that much evidence. Trump would be a goner for sure if there was. lol.
 
Last edited:
nsacpi said:
Jury wasn't buying. And judge expressed considerable skepticism. Your "definition" of proof appears to be an idiosyncratic one.
Click to expand...


1) Sussman lied.

2) Not only did Durham produce the lie in black and white he showed that Sussman billed Hillary for showing up and saying he didn't represent anyone.

If you can't figure out this was political nonsense involved then I can't help you. Now, after showing you the facts what defense does Sussman have? Please tell me.

However, the most important thing is we found out Hillary approved the Alfa bank nonsense.
 
Garmel said:
Everything I said was fact. I know you have **** for brains but if you read the case beyond what the MSM is telling you I'm correct.

I even proved that excuse you made for Sussman was false. lol

I will enjoy when I'm proven right in this case as well.



I might make this below my new sig.


"No, I never believed there were nuclear documents"

"I believe there are nuclear documents. Prove they're fake"

I played you like a drum and you don't have enough brain cells to figure it out.
Click to expand...



Lol you are so broken. Believing whatever your media matters tell you to think. All you are proven is you have some kind of Hillary derangement syndrome.




As for the nuclear documents, I believe the reports that there was information about another countries of nuclear capabilities based on reporting. That is not the same thing as believing something is an indisputable fact. Until we get more information, like an indictment, I cant be 100% certain there were nuclear documents.
 
Garmel said:
1) Sussman lied.

2) Not only did Durham produce the lie in black and white he showed that Sussman billed Hillary for showing up and saying he didn't represent anyone.

If you can't figure out this was political nonsense involved then I can't help you. Now, after showing you the facts what defense does Sussman have? Please tell me.

However, the most important thing is we found out Hillary approved the Alfa bank nonsense.
Click to expand...


Sussman cant be representing someone who specifically didnt want the allegations brought to the FBI. The defense showed Hillary didnt think the FBI would investigate and thought the media would do a better job of vetting the allegations. Also, no where has it ever been shown that Hillary knew the Alfa bank allegations were false. Not that even making false claims about another candidate through the media is criminal or even uncommon.
 
Also, Durhams star witness about Danshenko only said he left out information and was previously shown to say that Danshenko was truthful with what he told the FBI.
 
cajunrevenge said:
Sussman cant be representing someone who specifically didnt want the allegations brought to the FBI. The defense showed Hillary didnt think the FBI would investigate and thought the media would do a better job of vetting the allegations. Also, no where has it ever been shown that Hillary knew the Alfa bank allegations were false. Not that even making false claims about another candidate through the media is criminal or even uncommon.
Click to expand...

LOLOLOL!!!! Sussman billed Hillary for his act and Durham had the receipt. Yeah, she didn't know what was going on.

I've always said Clinesmith made a mistake pleading guilty. He would have walked easily.
 
Last edited:
cajunrevenge said:
Lol you are so broken. Believing whatever your media matters tell you to think. All you are proven is you have some kind of Hillary derangement syndrome.




As for the nuclear documents, I believe the reports that there was information about another countries of nuclear capabilities based on reporting. That is not the same thing as believing something is an indisputable fact. Until we get more information, like an indictment, I cant be 100% certain there were nuclear documents.
Click to expand...

lol. Congrats! You gotta be the dumbest **** on here.
 
Last edited:
Garmel said:
LOLOLOL!!!! Sussman billed Hillary for his act and Durham had the receipt. Yeah, she didn't know what was going on.

I've always said Clinesmith made a mistake pleading guilty. He would have walked easily.
Click to expand...


Durham would have a better case that Sussman defrauded Hillary. I guess you expect the jurors to believe that Hillarys campaign somehow knew there would one day be a trial and sent those emails stating they didnt want to take the Alfa bank allegations to the FBI to cover themselves...... Even beyond all that the other part you refuse to understand is that any lie would have to have had a material effect on the investigation. The FBI thought the claim was dubious at best and barely investigated before concluding it was a nothingburger. Whether he was there on behalf of the Clinton campaign he was publicly attached to the campaign and every FBI agent involved knew that going in. So Durham failed to prove either part needed for a conviction. And again, I point out that Sussman was never charged with lying about the accusation. Its only a tertiary fact that Durham tried to nail him on. If he ever thought he had a good case he wouldnt have waited until the day before the statute of limitations ran out before bringing the charges. He was still trying to find more evidence to use against him because he knew the case was iffy at best.



Clinesmith might have had a case if he didnt plead guilty. He only admitted to purposely misleading as part of the plea deal. Before that he claimed it was only accidental and that he was just clarifying what the email said rather than changing what it said. He took the safe route knowing a plea deal knowing that with no priors admitting his fault and expressing remorse for his actions would get him no prison time. He should have been charged and it shouldnt have taken Durham to do it. I agree what he did was wrong and any law enforcement officer fabricating things like that should get 10+ years in prison, what I dont agree with is that it had any real effect. All it changed was Carter Paige was monitored for 120 days rather than 90 days because what Clinesmith did was during a 4th renewal of the FISA warrant. If he had been truthful it wouldnt have impacted the Russia investigation one iota.
 
Garmel said:
lol. Congrats! You gotta be the dumbest **** on here.
Click to expand...


Glad you think that, because all I do is reflect your and the other Stooges BS right back at you. You use ignoring context and BS games to argue all the damn time but when I do it back to you all of a sudden care about context and logic.
 
lol. If that's not material then all the cases against Trump people aren't either.
 
Last edited:
Mike Flynn pled guilty twice so we wont really know how a jury would have voted. Manafort pled guilty to far more serious charges so lying to the FBI was irrelevant. Curious that you think lying about meeting with Russians and lying about the contents of the discussion arent relevant to a Russian collusion investigation.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top