Sussman Not Guilty - More Failure For Barr, Durham

  

Category:  News & Politics

By:  john-russell  •  4 weeks ago  •  164 comments

Sussman Not Guilty - More Failure For Barr, Durham























Ron Filipkowski  1f1fa-1f1e6.png



























@RonFilipkowski















Hahahahahahh 1f602.png1f602.png1f602.png1f602.png1f602.png !!!!! John Durham goes down to defeat as Michael Sussman is acquitted today. A trial that Trump and MAGA have followed daily arguing it was going to lead to the prosecution of Hillary Clinton.























l1bcfxOy?format=jpg&name=small






washingtonpost.com

Lawyer Sussmann, who worked for Clinton, acquitted of lying to FBI in 2016

A jury cleared Michael Sussmann, a lawyer for Democrats, of lying to the FBI at the height of the 2016 campaign -- a defeat for Special Counsel John Durham.









Tags

jrDiscussion - desc
[]
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
1  author  JohnRussell    4 weeks ago

same old same old

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
2  author  JohnRussell    4 weeks ago

Maybe members of the jury are pedophile , socialist, God and gun haters. 

What else could it be? 

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
2.1  Vic Eldred  replied to  JohnRussell @2    4 weeks ago

Three were Clinton donors, one an AOC donor and another's daughter played on the same team as Sussman's daughter. Even if a miracle happened and Sussman was convicted, the Obama judge would have given him zero prison time.

Now you know why they didn't bother to prosecute James Comey, who had a criminal referral.

The next trial will be much different. It will be held in Virginia.

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
2.1.1  Tessylo  replied to  Vic Eldred @2.1    4 weeks ago

Tell yourself that if it makes you feel better.

jrSmiley_10_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
MrFrost
Professor Principal
2.1.2  MrFrost  replied to  Vic Eldred @2.1    4 weeks ago
The next trial will be much different.

The right has been saying that for the last 25 years.. "Hillary will be arrested ANY DAY NOW!!!!"..

/yawn

 
 
 
1stwarrior
Professor Guide
2.1.3  1stwarrior  replied to  Vic Eldred @2.1    4 weeks ago

Johnny Depp/Amber Heard trial has lasted much longer than ten weeks - and it still ain't over.  Sussman's trial, at the hands of his friends/colleagues, only lasted two weeks.

Reality???

 
 
 
Ender
Professor Principal
2.1.4  Ender  replied to  1stwarrior @2.1.3    4 weeks ago

So no blame gets put on Durham himself? Seems to me he has as much a part of how long the trial lasts as anyone.

 
 
 
Greg Jones
Professor Guide
2.1.5  Greg Jones  replied to  Ender @2.1.4    4 weeks ago

Rigged jury.

 
 
 
Ender
Professor Principal
2.1.6  Ender  replied to  Greg Jones @2.1.5    4 weeks ago

So again, Durham gets a pass? Seems to me he was there for jury selection.

 
 
 
Ozzwald
Professor Quiet
2.1.7  Ozzwald  replied to  Greg Jones @2.1.5    4 weeks ago

Rigged jury.

Goes along with the last rigged election?  Can't you come up with something new?

 
 
 
bbl-1
Professor Quiet
2.1.8  bbl-1  replied to  Vic Eldred @2.1    4 weeks ago

Why are Trump's decades long Russian connections, finances and who knows what else so desperately in need of protection?

Besides, if you really want to 'jail' anybody for Russian connections why doesn't Durham relitigate Manafort, Flynn, Gorka and the Trump kids?

And the daughter that played on the same team as Sussman's daughter is also a criminal?  Gee, sounds like 'The Kraken' has hemorrhoids, don't ya think? 

 
 
 
bbl-1
Professor Quiet
2.1.9  bbl-1  replied to  Ender @2.1.4    4 weeks ago

What is the annual salary and budget of a 'Special Council'?  Is a Special Council appointed by a MAGA entity a life-long appointment or vehicle of employment on the Taxpayers dime? 

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Principal
2.1.10  Dulay  replied to  Vic Eldred @2.1    4 weeks ago
The next trial will be much different. It will be held in Virginia.

Based on your partisan ideology, your hopes for Virginia being a better venue for Durham's BS are baseless. The jury pool voted 80% Democratic in 2020, UP from 76% from 2016. Seems like it's a pretty good bet that there are a pretty percentage of Clinton and Democratic House donors still in that pool. 

While the Judge IS a Bush appointee, it's unfair to assume that he is a partisan hack. 

BTW, Durham is pulling the same BS that he did in the Sussman case. Durham bitched about alleged 'conflicts of interest' of Danchenko's attorneys, just as he did with Sussman. Durham then files motions to adjourn discovery, over and over again causing the defendants time to object to those documents to be conflated in order to keep the trial date. Durham will now do another last-minute document dump and Danchenko gets 15 days to review them. 

 
 
 
Ozzwald
Professor Quiet
2.1.11  Ozzwald  replied to  Dulay @2.1.10    4 weeks ago
Based on your partisan ideology, your hopes for Virginia being a better venue for Durham's BS are baseless. The jury pool voted 80% Democratic in 2020, UP from 76% from 2016.

The trouble is that it the type of jury they want.  They can't win, they just want to be able to point to the jury and claim that the jury was biased.  Just like they are doing now.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
2.2  Texan1211  replied to  JohnRussell @2    4 weeks ago
Maybe members of the jury are pedophile , socialist, God and gun haters.  What else could it be? 

A few legitimate questions:

Did Sussman claim in text messages that he was not representing a client?

Was he representing a client?

Did his firm bill time to a client for his little trip to the FBI, and charge his client for a thumb drive to transfer the info to the FBI?

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
3  Vic Eldred    4 weeks ago

I didn't think they were going to get by that jury even with overwhelming evidence. At least the people know, regardless of what one thinks of Donald Trump, that a terrible scam was perpetrated on the American public and the FBI & the media were willing participants.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
3.1  author  JohnRussell  replied to  Vic Eldred @3    4 weeks ago
At least the people know, regardless of what one thinks of Donald Trump, that a terrible scam was perpetrated on the American public and the FBI & the media were willing participants.

No they dont. 

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
3.1.1  Vic Eldred  replied to  JohnRussell @3.1    4 weeks ago

You bet they do!

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
3.1.2  Tessylo  replied to  Vic Eldred @3.1.1    4 weeks ago

No they don't!

jrSmiley_10_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
3.1.3  Texan1211  replied to  JohnRussell @3.1    4 weeks ago
No they dont. 

You are right.

Many people don't recognize what happened, and probably never will.

Sure, he was working for clients when he went to the FBI, and lied about that specifically. Hell, records show he billed the clients for his time and a flash drive for the info he passed to the FBI.

Some will never see that simple truth.

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
3.1.4  Tessylo  replied to  Vic Eldred @3.1.1    4 weeks ago

Gee, what a shocker that the investigation of the investigators has all added up to nothing!

jrSmiley_10_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
Ed-NavDoc
Professor Quiet
3.1.5  Ed-NavDoc  replied to  Vic Eldred @3.1.1    4 weeks ago

The ones without mile wide blinders on certainly do.

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
3.2  Tessylo  replied to  Vic Eldred @3    4 weeks ago

The terrible scam perpetrated on the American public was trumpturd and his enablers/supporters.  

 
 
 
Ed-NavDoc
Professor Quiet
3.2.1  Ed-NavDoc  replied to  Tessylo @3.2    4 weeks ago

Trump is no longer in office. Deal with the present.

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
PhD Guide
3.2.2  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  Ed-NavDoc @3.2.1    4 weeks ago

You know that won't happen.  If they do that then they would have to face up to the fact that they put Biden in office.  They would have to accept responsibility for the train wreck.

 
 
 
Ed-NavDoc
Professor Quiet
3.2.3  Ed-NavDoc  replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @3.2.2    4 weeks ago

Very true.

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Expert
3.3  Sean Treacy  replied to  Vic Eldred @3    4 weeks ago
didn't think they were going to get by that jury even with overwhelming evidence.

Yeah, it's not a surprise. The evidence is bulletproof.  He lied in his text to Baker (no he said/she said defense) and the billing records show he charged Clinton for his work.  The  FBI agents all said the lie was material.  

But it's a DC Jury.

 
 
 
Ozzwald
Professor Quiet
3.3.1  Ozzwald  replied to  Sean Treacy @3.3    4 weeks ago
Yeah, it's not a surprise. The evidence is bulletproof.

Yup, totally bulletproof.  Hillary will be locked up in jail any day now.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
3.3.2  Texan1211  replied to  Ozzwald @3.3.1    4 weeks ago
Hillary will be locked up in jail any day now.

Nice dodge.

He didn't say anything about your Goddess Hillary being locked up.

 
 
 
Ozzwald
Professor Quiet
3.3.3  Ozzwald  replied to  Texan1211 @3.3.2    4 weeks ago
He didn't say anything about your Goddess Hillary being locked up.

4blz3h.jpg

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
3.3.4  Texan1211  replied to  Ozzwald @3.3.3    4 weeks ago

You HAD a point?

LOL.

 
 
 
Ed-NavDoc
Professor Quiet
3.3.5  Ed-NavDoc  replied to  Texan1211 @3.3.2    4 weeks ago

Makes no difference to me whether Hillary Clinton goes to jail or not. Just knowing she will never be president is enough for me.

 
 
 
afrayedknot
Freshman Quiet
3.3.6  afrayedknot  replied to  Ed-NavDoc @3.3.5    4 weeks ago

“Just knowing she will never be president is enough for me.”

So thanks be to Obama, eh?

 
 
 
Ed-NavDoc
Professor Quiet
3.3.7  Ed-NavDoc  replied to  afrayedknot @3.3.6    4 weeks ago

He had nothing to do with it. She did it all herself.

 
 
 
Buzz of the Orient
Professor Principal
3.4  Buzz of the Orient  replied to  Vic Eldred @3    4 weeks ago

Are the Las Vegas bookies placing odds on whether or not you will be changing your avatar?

 
 
 
bccrane
Freshman Silent
3.4.1  bccrane  replied to  Buzz of the Orient @3.4    4 weeks ago

Why should Vic do that?  Durham got what he wanted, Sussman was ancillary, a conviction would've been great but not needed.

What do we now know, the Trump Russia connection was hatched in the Hillary campaign, it was then sent to the FBI by a concerned citizen, Sussman, which we now know was a lie, he was working for the Clinton campaign, Hillary signed off on the plot, the FBI investigation was leaked to the press, with Hillary acting all surprised when the story came out, and this all came out in court. Now, you having been a lawyer, know what this means.

 
 
 
Buzz of the Orient
Professor Principal
3.4.2  Buzz of the Orient  replied to  bccrane @3.4.1    4 weeks ago

I don't have knowledge of or experience in American political legal entanglements and I have never been able to comprehend this one. 

 
 
 
bccrane
Freshman Silent
3.4.3  bccrane  replied to  Buzz of the Orient @3.4.2    4 weeks ago

Since it was brought out in court, Durham can now use what was admitted to, in front of a judge, in the next trial, he is still building his case and he just received more useful information.

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Principal
3.4.4  Dulay  replied to  bccrane @3.4.1    4 weeks ago
Hillary signed off on the plot

Link? 

Oh, facts please, not innuendo not proven in court. 

 
 
 
bugsy
Professor Participates
3.4.5  bugsy  replied to  Dulay @3.4.4    4 weeks ago

My God this is too easy.

It is also from far left publication Time, so let's see you try and spin this, or get some other spin CNN or MSDNC told you.

"Clinton’s 2016 campaign manager Robby Mook testified on May 20 that Clinton agreed with the campaign’s decision to tell reporters about the potential Trump-Russia internet connection."

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
3.4.6  Texan1211  replied to  Dulay @3.4.4    4 weeks ago
Oh, facts please, not innuendo not proven in court. 

Does testimony from defense witnesses mean anything at all to you?

 
 
 
bugsy
Professor Participates
3.4.7  bugsy  replied to  Texan1211 @3.4.6    4 weeks ago
Does testimony from defense witnesses mean anything at all to you?

No because when testimony from someone on their side is damaging to their side, then that person is no longer credible, is now MAGA, and by default, a white supremacist.

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Principal
3.4.8  Dulay  replied to  bugsy @3.4.5    4 weeks ago

From your link:

Trump himself gave voters plenty of reason to believe he welcomed Russian assistance in defeating Clinton. On July 27, 2016, during a televised press conference, Trump looked into the cameras and encouraged the Russian government to intervene to find emails allegedly deleted from Clinton’s personal servers and make them public. “Russia, if you’re listening, I hope you’re able to find the 30,000 emails that are missing, I think you will probably be rewarded mightily by our press.” That same day, Russian actors sent phishing emails to accounts used by Clinton’s campaign and office, special counsel Robert Mueller found.

So it looks like that FBI had 'plenty of reason to believe' that there was a Trump/Russia connection LONG before Sussman went to the FBI. So it wasn't 'hatched' by Clinton, it was exhibited by Trump, Trump Jr., Manafort and Papadopulos and Flynn and Page.  

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Principal
3.4.9  Dulay  replied to  bugsy @3.4.7    4 weeks ago

WTF are you babbling on about? 

 
 
 
Buzz of the Orient
Professor Principal
3.4.10  Buzz of the Orient  replied to  bccrane @3.4.3    4 weeks ago

Thanks for the info, bccrane.  By the way, I've not practised law since about 2002 - getting pretty rusty. 

 
 
 
Buzz of the Orient
Professor Principal
3.4.11  Buzz of the Orient  replied to  Texan1211 @3.4.6    4 weeks ago
"Does testimony from defense witnesses mean anything at all to you?"

That's an interesting question on an intellectual level.  I believe it is up to a jury or a judge sitting without a jury to form an opinion as to the probablility and veracity of such testimony, which may or may not be accurate or true, not just from what is said, but from the demeanor of the witness.  I don't think Dulay was sitting on the jury.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
3.4.12  Texan1211  replied to  Buzz of the Orient @3.4.11    4 weeks ago

Gee, I don't think Dulay was sitting on the jury either.

I responded to this post:

Hillary signed off on the plot
Link?  Oh, facts please, not innuendo not proven in court.

It was CLEAR from testimony given by a defense witness that Hillary approved of the plan.

Hence my question.

Hope that makes it clear.

 
 
 
Ed-NavDoc
Professor Quiet
3.4.13  Ed-NavDoc  replied to  bugsy @3.4.7    4 weeks ago

Funny thing is I have been called that before even on NT.  They focus on my Anglo sounding name and conservative leaning views when I am in fact of multi ethnic background that includes Mexican/American and Chiricahua Apache on my mother's side. My paternal grandmother was of 1/4 Cherokee extract.jrSmiley_82_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
Ed-NavDoc
Professor Quiet
3.4.14  Ed-NavDoc  replied to  Texan1211 @3.4.6    4 weeks ago

Actually, no it does not. It is far too easy to ignore truth and facts and rely on and try them in the kangaroo court of public opinion.

 
 
 
bugsy
Professor Participates
3.4.15  bugsy  replied to  Dulay @3.4.8    4 weeks ago
So it looks like that FBI had 'plenty of reason to believe'

Maybe if you actually read what you cut and paste, it says "Trump himself gave voters plenty of reason" Does not say FBI.....and BTFW, Dulay, the voters the link is alluding to is loon leftists who had been, and still are, directed to believe Trump colluded with Russia.

You are no different, You follow orders well.

 
 
 
bccrane
Freshman Silent
3.4.16  bccrane  replied to  Buzz of the Orient @3.4.10    4 weeks ago

I've never practiced law, but it has been thrust upon me numerous times through lawsuits, interacting with lawyers through depositions, and being an expert witness in a negligent homicide case.  It never crossed my mind that I would even be in a position of having to deal with the judicial system when I was young and now beyond 60 years of age looking back it's like "holy crap I went through a lot" for being out in the middle of nowhere.

One notable encounter with a lawyer during a deposition for a lawsuit against my company, this lawyer was one of the top personal injury lawyers of the state, at the 12th question he asked and I answered and he immediately told me that he had asked this question before and I answered differently and I told him he never asked this question before, my lawyer was starting to squirm in his chair and looking at me with the look of "Don't argue with him", I wasn't going to let it go because the lawyer wanted me to change my first answer, so I told him "I know you didn't ask this question before, because if you had it would've been the same answer as I just gave you".  At this point I looked at the stenographer and asked her to go back to the third question and read it off, she did, now read off this question, she did, then I asked her was that the same question, she said the words were similar but not the same question, I asked my lawyer was it the same question, "No" he was now smiling, the lawyer relented, asked me a couple more questions, even though you could clearly see he had pages of questions to go, and ended the deposition.  This is why I sympathize with Flynn when questions keep coming at you it's easy to fall into a perjury trap.

 
 
 
bugsy
Professor Participates
3.4.17  bugsy  replied to  Texan1211 @3.4.12    4 weeks ago
It was CLEAR from testimony given by a defense witness that Hillary approved of the plan.

But you have to understand that if you do not post links from a far left website, the action never happened.

 
 
 
Paula Bartholomew
Professor Guide
3.4.18  Paula Bartholomew  replied to  Dulay @3.4.8    4 weeks ago

His own son is on record saying that Trump gets plenty of money from Russia.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
3.4.19  Texan1211  replied to  Paula Bartholomew @3.4.18    4 weeks ago
His own son is on record saying that Trump gets plenty of money from Russia.

Is that illegal--or even relevant to anything at all?

 
 
 
bugsy
Professor Participates
3.4.20  bugsy  replied to  bugsy @3.4.17    4 weeks ago
But you have to understand that if you do not post links from a far left website, the action never happened

The funny thing is I posted a link from the far left site Time, and she refused to read it because it would have enlightened her.

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Principal
3.4.21  Dulay  replied to  bugsy @3.4.15    4 weeks ago
Maybe if you actually read what you cut and paste, it says "Trump himself gave voters plenty of reason" Does not say FBI.....

Strawman. 

and BTFW, Dulay, the voters the link is alluding to is loon leftists who had been, and still are, directed to believe Trump colluded with Russia.
You are no different, You follow orders well.

More bullshit based on your bias, unfounded opinion. I leave it to members to judge your veracity based on their own interpretation of the article. 

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Principal
3.4.22  Dulay  replied to  bugsy @3.4.20    4 weeks ago
The funny thing is I posted a link from the far left site Time, and she refused to read it because it would have enlightened her.

Are you suggesting that I somehow acquired the block quote I posted from your linked article via osmosis bugsy? 

BTFW, I'm not the one misrepresenting it's content, you are.  

 
 
 
Just Jim NC TttH
Masters Principal
3.4.23  Just Jim NC TttH  replied to  Dulay @3.4.22    4 weeks ago

No from outside, it looks like you are. The article clearly says "gave VOTERS plenty of reason" NAFT about the FBI. You are seeing things that aren't there.................

 
 
 
bugsy
Professor Participates
3.4.24  bugsy  replied to  Dulay @3.4.22    4 weeks ago

[Deleted]

"Trump himself gave voters plenty of reason to believe he welcomed Russian assistance in defeating Clinton. On July 27, 2016, during a televised press conference, Trump looked into the cameras and encouraged the Russian government to intervene to find emails allegedly deleted from Clinton’s personal servers and make them public. “Russia, if you’re listening, I hope you’re able to find the 30,000 emails that are missing, I think you will probably be rewarded mightily by our press.” That same day, Russian actors sent phishing emails to accounts used by Clinton’s campaign and office, special counsel Robert Mueller found."

[Deleted]

"So it looks like that FBI had 'plenty of reason to believe' that there was a Trump/Russia connection LONG before Sussman went to the FBI".

I educated you that nowhere in that post does it say the FBI by educating you with this :

"Maybe if you actually read what you cut and paste, it says "Trump himself gave voters plenty of reason" Does not say FBI"

You doubled down on ignorance by going straight to insults when you know you have been proven wrong yet again

Not my fault.

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Principal
3.4.25  Dulay  replied to  Just Jim NC TttH @3.4.23    4 weeks ago
No from outside, it looks like you are. The article clearly says "gave VOTERS plenty of reason" NAFT about the FBI. You are seeing things that aren't there.................

The predicate [look it up] for this discussion was this comment;

Other members have tried and failed to support that statement, which BTFW includes Clinton signing off on 'the plan' which allegedly includes Sussman knowingly giving false information to the FBI . There was NO testimony to support that claim.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
3.4.26  Texan1211  replied to  Dulay @3.4.25    4 weeks ago
Other members have tried and failed to support that statement, which BTFW includes Clinton signing off on 'the plan' which allegedly includes Sussman knowingly giving false information to the FBI . There was NO testimony to support that claim.

Sussman charged the Hillary campaign for his time spent at the FBI peddling his and her campaign's lies.

Pretending Hillary didn't know and approve is simply ridiculous when presented with the facts.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
4  author  JohnRussell    4 weeks ago

I hope certain members of NT can survive this calamitous news. 

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
4.1  Vic Eldred  replied to  JohnRussell @4    4 weeks ago

I'm sure they are celebrating and don't worry they know Sussman lied, but like you once said, they had to get Trump!

 
 
 
Snuffy
Senior Guide
4.2  Snuffy  replied to  JohnRussell @4    4 weeks ago

I'm confident we won't see pictures of any of them wearing stupid hats and screaming at the sky...

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
4.2.1  Texan1211  replied to  Snuffy @4.2    4 weeks ago
I'm confident we won't see pictures of any of them wearing stupid hats and screaming at the sky...

I think some of the "woke" left has a monopoly on that particular kind if stupidity.

 
 
 
Gsquared
Senior Expert
4.2.2  Gsquared  replied to  Snuffy @4.2    4 weeks ago
I'm confident we won't see pictures of any of them wearing stupid hats and screaming at the sky...

You mean like these idiots?

384384

384384

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
4.2.3  Texan1211  replied to  Snuffy @4.2    4 weeks ago
I'm confident we won't see pictures of any of them wearing stupid hats and screaming at the sky...

Here are some good ones.

th?id=OIP.2RL6gWwHGfdu2lOR1AfMwQHaEK&w=197&h=106&c=8&rs=1&qlt=90&o=6&dpr=1.5&pid=3.1&rm=2

th?id=OIP.HEaNpZrq2Gd9oY9BV_hj4QHaE7&w=137&h=98&c=8&rs=1&qlt=90&o=6&dpr=1.5&pid=3.1&rm=2

OIP.AIPG8Ayp1EZrC14KEu1jaAHaEc?w=288&h=180&c=7&r=0&o=5&dpr=1.5&pid=1.7

OIP.8FUwNSTlGqB3v19b6MjHuQHaD4?w=299&h=180&c=7&r=0&o=5&dpr=1.5&pid=1.7

 
 
 
Gsquared
Senior Expert
4.2.4  Gsquared  replied to  Snuffy @4.2    4 weeks ago

Or this screaming lunatic...

512

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
PhD Guide
4.2.5  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  Gsquared @4.2.2    4 weeks ago

You must be taking lessons from another useless meme user here on NT.  Your photoshop skills desperately need some work.

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Principal
4.2.6  Dulay  replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @4.2.5    4 weeks ago
You must be taking lessons from another useless meme user here on NT.  Your photoshop skills desperately need some work.

That image is neither a meme nor photoshopped. It's a screen shot from a documentary. 

Your supercilliousness is noted. 

 
 
 
bugsy
Professor Participates
4.2.7  bugsy  replied to  Dulay @4.2.6    4 weeks ago

Real......or meme?

images?q=tbn:ANd9GcR71YkBuDrcQubB_uYNvy9F2hJEAai46ePbgQ&usqp=CAU

Correct answer...

Both

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Principal
4.2.8  Dulay  replied to  bugsy @4.2.7    4 weeks ago
Real......or meme?

Correct answer...

Both

False. 

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
PhD Guide
4.2.9  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  Dulay @4.2.6    4 weeks ago
That image is neither a meme nor photoshopped.

Bullshit like that is why people laugh at you.

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
4.2.10  Tessylo  replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @4.2.9    4 weeks ago

Incorrect, we don't laugh at Dulay.  That's on you all and your lack of understanding of facts and truth and reality.  

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
PhD Guide
4.2.11  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  Tessylo @4.2.10    4 weeks ago

Oh, don't feel bad Tess.  We laugh at you too.  Just for different reasons.

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
4.2.12  Tessylo  replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @4.2.11    4 weeks ago

FUCK OFF

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Principal
4.2.13  Dulay  replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @4.2.9    4 weeks ago
Bullshit like that is why people laugh at you.

Here is a version posted by the AP in 2016:

Donald Trump looms as cloud in Marco Rubio's Sunshine State (floridapolitics.com)

Here's is the EXACT photo posted by St. Louise media:

'Unfit: The Psychology of Donald Trump' Diagnoses The President - KDHX

Here's one posted by Spanish media in 2020:

Donald Trump zginie? Jest nagroda za zamach na prezydenta USA! - Planeta

So, unless you are claiming that Gsquared 'shared' his creation with those media outlets since 2016, your claim is bullshit. 

Bullshit like that is why I laugh at YOU. 

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
PhD Guide
4.2.14  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  Dulay @4.2.13    4 weeks ago

LMAO.  Is that supposed to convince me your meme isn't photoshopped?  If it is, you failed miserably.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
4.2.15  Texan1211  replied to  Dulay @4.2.6    4 weeks ago
That image is neither a meme nor photoshopped. It's a screen shot from a documentary. 

The picture that leads off post 4.2.2 is definitely photoshopped, trying to say otherwise is a fool's errand.

That picture MAY appear in some documentary that only TDS sufferers watched.

Still photoshopped.

Your supercilliousness is noted

As is yours.

 
 
 
Ed-NavDoc
Professor Quiet
4.2.16  Ed-NavDoc  replied to  bugsy @4.2.7    4 weeks ago

jrSmiley_86_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
Ronin2
Professor Quiet
4.3  Ronin2  replied to  JohnRussell @4    4 weeks ago

Nothing calamitous about it. Just another example of our two tier justice system at work.

Judge and jury were already bought and paid for; verdict was predictable from the start. 

Only TDS suffering morons are celebrating this victory of our broken justice system.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
4.3.1  Vic Eldred  replied to  Ronin2 @4.3    4 weeks ago

The only thing missing is what the Simpson jury gave us - honesty!

They at least had the decency to admit that they acquitted him because he was black!

These jurors don't have the integrity of a pig that they wish they were decent enough to be!

 
 
 
Gsquared
Senior Expert
4.3.2  Gsquared  replied to  Ronin2 @4.3    4 weeks ago
Judge and jury were already bought and paid for

Just like the Trumpist morons think the election was stolen.  What a bunch of feeble minded idiots.

 
 
 
Gsquared
Senior Expert
4.3.3  Gsquared  replied to  Vic Eldred @4.3.1    4 weeks ago
These jurors don't have the integrity of a pig that they wish they were decent enough to be!

How many of the jurors do you know?  

Do you really hate the American people that much?

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
4.3.4  Tessylo  replied to  Ronin2 @4.3    4 weeks ago

It's hilarious it's only broken when your guy loses.

jrSmiley_10_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
4.3.5  Tessylo  replied to  Gsquared @4.3.3    4 weeks ago

Yes, quite obviously.  Only those on the left/dems/progressives though.  

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
PhD Guide
4.3.6  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  Ronin2 @4.3    4 weeks ago
Judge and jury were already bought and paid for; verdict was predictable from the start.

You know the mouthpieces on the left will ignore all that.  

 
 
 
Gsquared
Senior Expert
4.3.7  Gsquared  replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @4.3.6    4 weeks ago
Judge and jury were already bought and paid for

Your proof of that?  Or is that just another expression of reactionaries' hatred of the American people?

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
PhD Guide
4.3.8  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  Gsquared @4.3.7    4 weeks ago

You need to pay attention to who you are quoting and asking questions of.  

 
 
 
Wishful_thinkin
Freshman Silent
4.3.9  Wishful_thinkin  replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @4.3.8    4 weeks ago

Since you quoted the same thing and commented on it, he's asking you of course or are you that obtuse.  

 
 
 
Ronin2
Professor Quiet
4.3.10  Ronin2  replied to  Gsquared @4.3.7    4 weeks ago

Seems that some leftists either don't give a damn; or just can't read.

It was all over the news. The judge and jury were both tainted.

Looking at the jury box, one can understand Shaw’s unease.  During jury selection , one juror admitted he was a Clinton donor and could only promise to “strive for impartiality as best I can.” Prosecutors objected to his being seated, but Judge Christopher Cooper overruled them. 

Last I checked it either the prosecution or defense wanted to dismiss a juror the judge could do jack shit of nothing about it. So already judge is tampering with the jury pool by allowing a Clinton donor and supporter on it that prosecution didn't want seated.

In another exchange, a former bartender and donor to far-left Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) was told by a Sussmann defense lawyer that neither Clinton nor Trump were on trial and then asked if she could be impartial. She responded, “Yes, knowing that” — which might suggest she would not be impartial if the campaigns were part of the trial. 

So two Democrat donors. Neither of which should have been seated.

Other jurors include a woman who said she thought she was a Clinton donor but could not remember; a juror whose husband worked for the Clinton 2008 campaign; and a juror who believes the legal system is racist and police departments should be defunded. 

Why not just have the Clinton campaign and defense team be the jurors. They would have been just as impartial.

To be sure,  D.C. voters chose Clinton over Trump  in 2016 by a breathtaking margin: 90.9 percent to 4.1 percent. While liberal and Democratic jurors still can be fair and impartial, Judge Cooper has seated a couple jurors who seemed to struggle with the concept of impartiality. 

Already a stacked deck by having the trial in DC; but the judge ensured the verdict he wanted.

Also, the judge barred evidence; and greatly limited the scope of what Durham could use.

Judge Cooper has stressed that this trial cannot be about the Clinton campaign per se, but the specific lie that was told. He specifically barred Durham from arguing that there was a “joint venture” in deception with the Clinton campaign. The judge sharply limited the evidence that Durham can present which, in the  words of Politico , “spares the Clinton campaign and the Democratic National Committee … potential embarrassment.”  

Without the broader context, the prosecution could sound like a play without a plot — just characters and insular acts. The first witnesses included FBI agents who told the jury that the claims passed along by Sussmann “ didn’t make sense ” and that the collusion theory was rejected within days of looking at the underlying data. However, Cooper warned that he will keep a tight rein on prosecutors delving into how the underlying data was produced or managed through the campaign.

That is not the only blow delivered to the prosecution by the court. The judge refused prosecution access to some evidence and, while allowing access to some emails between the campaign and an opposition-research firm, he barred their introduction at trial due to the late request from the prosecutors.  

Then there is the POS judge himself.

The President Barack Obama -appointed Judge Christopher Cooper of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, who is presiding over the case, has described himself, and the accused, Michael Sussmann, as "professional acquaintances." The two overlapped in President Bill Clinton 's Department of Justice .

Judge Cooper's wife Amy Jeffress, who he married in 1999 with now-Attorney General Merrick Garland officiating, served in the Obama Justice Department. Subsequently, Jeffress left for private practice, where she has represented, among others, the disgraced, Trump-loathing former FBI attorney Lisa Page since at least 2018.

Page was the paramour of similarly disgraced former FBI Counterespionage Chief Peter Strzok, and a close colleague of former Deputy FBI Director Andrew McCabe —both of whom were fired for misconduct. Their related words and acts evinced a bias towards Hillary Clinton, or at minimum against Donald Trump.

That bias mattered because the trio played a pivotal role in both the Clinton-emails and Trump-Russia probes, including in the efforts to pursue both Gen. Mike Flynn —wrecking his reputation and finances—and former Trump campaign advisor Carter Page—foisting a fraud on the FISA court while undermining basic civil liberties. Carter Page has since sued all three for their efforts. Lisa Page left Special Counsel Robert Mueller 's team weeks before Strzok was removed from it, following the public revelation of the pair's infamous anti-Trump texts.

Some, such as Kash Patel, the former chief investigator for then-Rep. Devin Nunes (R-CA) on the House Intelligence Committee, who helped unravel much that is known about Russiagate/Spygate, have speculated that Special Counsel Durham is targeting Page and Strzok.

As my RealClearInvestigations colleague Paul Sperry has reported , Jeffress contributed $2,700 to Hillary Clinton's 2016 campaign. She and her husband Judge Cooper—prior to his appointment to the court—had routinely cut checks to Democratic candidates and the DNC .

To what extent does this background bear on Sussmann's case?

Law professor Jonathan Turley notes that Judge Cooper has made life unusually difficult for Special Counsel Durham in pursuing Sussmann, especially in comparison with the comparably hostile environments colleagues like Judges Emmett Sullivan and Amy Berman Jackson created for defendants Gen. Flynn and Trump ally Roger Stone , respectively.

To wit, as Turley details, Cooper has "barred Durham from arguing that there was a 'joint venture' in deception [between Sussmann and Joffe] with the Clinton campaign," "limited the evidence that Durham can present" and "refused prosecution access to some evidence and, while allowing access to some emails between the campaign and an opposition-research firm [Fusion GPS]...barred their introduction at trial due to the late request from the prosecutors."

What's more, Judge Cooper overruled prosecutors when they objected to the seating of several jurors.

Yeah, nothing to see here. Move along. Democrats would be screaming bloody murder if the positions were reversed and it was a Bush appointed judge with a history of cracking down on Democrats; and several Trump donors the judge forced onto the jury. 

 
 
 
afrayedknot
Freshman Quiet
4.3.11  afrayedknot  replied to  Vic Eldred @4.3.1    4 weeks ago

“These jurors don't have the integrity of a pig…”

Would these be the feral pigs that require AR-15s to exterminate? Should you ever go to trial, one wonders just what a jury of your peers would look like…

…on second thought, just read the commentary hereabouts to determine the pool… but you know it does not, should not, and cannot meet the Constitutional requirements. 

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
4.3.12  Tessylo  replied to  Ronin2 @4.3.10    4 weeks ago
"It was all over the news. The judge and jury were both tainted."

jrSmiley_10_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Principal
4.3.13  Dulay  replied to  Ronin2 @4.3.10    4 weeks ago
Yeah, nothing to see here. Move along.

Glad we agree that bias opinion isn't worthy. 

several Trump donors the judge forced onto the jury. 

Wow, then why did they come to a unanimous opinion to acquit Sussman? 

 
 
 
bugsy
Professor Participates
4.3.14  bugsy  replied to  Dulay @4.3.13    4 weeks ago
several Trump donors the judge forced onto the jury. 

Nice failed block quote

Here is the actual full sentence

"Democrats would be screaming bloody murder if the positions were reversed and it was a Bush appointed judge with a history of cracking down on Democrats; and several Trump donors the judge forced onto the jury. "

Hypocritical that you would do the exact same thing you bitch and moan about daily.

 
 
 
Paula Bartholomew
Professor Guide
4.3.15  Paula Bartholomew  replied to  afrayedknot @4.3.11    4 weeks ago
one wonders just what a jury of your peers would look like

Animal Farm characters comes to mind.

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Principal
4.3.16  Dulay  replied to  bugsy @4.3.14    4 weeks ago
Hypocritical that you would do the exact same thing you bitch and moan about daily.

Yet BOTH block quotes are equally BULLSHIT so your comment is moot. 

 
 
 
Just Jim NC TttH
Masters Principal
4.3.17  Just Jim NC TttH  replied to  Dulay @4.3.16    4 weeks ago

Deflect alert

256

When all else fails, tell people you inserted yourself into and were arguing about something that was bullshit to begin with. Not a good look.

 
 
 
bugsy
Professor Participates
4.3.18  bugsy  replied to  Dulay @4.3.16    4 weeks ago

Nope....you lose once again.

Like your normal MO, You tried to parse his words to argue something totally different than what was commented on,. It is dishonest, at the very least.

BTFW, Dulay, his comment was right on. You know it, I know it, everyone knows it because EVERYONE knows that whatever the left accuses the right of doing, the left damn sure is doing it themselves....and doubling down on it.

 
 
 
bugsy
Professor Participates
4.3.19  bugsy  replied to  Just Jim NC TttH @4.3.17    4 weeks ago
Not a good look

But with some...

fully exected

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Principal
4.3.20  Dulay  replied to  Just Jim NC TttH @4.3.17    4 weeks ago
When all else fails, tell people you inserted yourself into and were arguing about something that was bullshit to begin with.

I think you may want to reword your comment Jim...

Not a good look.

jrSmiley_10_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Principal
4.3.21  Dulay  replied to  bugsy @4.3.18    4 weeks ago
Like your normal MO, You tried to parse his words to argue something totally different than what was commented on,

My argument is that his implication that the judge forced donors of ANY persuasion onto the jury is utter bullshit. 

It is dishonest, at the very least.

Fuck off bugsy. 

 
 
 
bugsy
Professor Participates
4.3.22  bugsy  replied to  Dulay @4.3.21    4 weeks ago
Fuck off bugsy. 

Damn Dulay...didn't figure you as the triggered type.

We all have known that giving you truth over and over gives you the want to try and argue something not posted, hoping to argue whatever you want and try and declare victory.

But telling someone to fuck off?

If you want to talk about it, give me a ring, ya hear?

 
 
 
bugsy
Professor Participates
4.3.23  bugsy  replied to  Dulay @4.3.21    4 weeks ago
My argument is that his implication that the judge forced donors of ANY persuasion onto the jury is utter bullshit.

No, that's bullshit.

You need to reread what you posted in. Here..let me help you

"Wow, then why did they come to a unanimous opinion to acquit Sussman?"

Just admit it, Dulay...you fucked up.

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Principal
4.3.24  Dulay  replied to  bugsy @4.3.22    4 weeks ago
Damn Dulay...didn't figure you as the triggered type.
We all have known that giving you truth over and over gives you the want to try and argue something not posted, hoping to argue whatever you want and try and declare victory.

But telling someone to fuck off?

If you want to talk about it, give me a ring, ya hear?

Take your supercilious bullshit to someone who respects your opinion. 

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Principal
4.3.25  Dulay  replied to  bugsy @4.3.23    4 weeks ago
No, that's bullshit.

You need to reread what you posted in. Here..let me help you

"Wow, then why did they come to a unanimous opinion to acquit Sussman?"

Just admit it, Dulay...you fucked up.

It takes some intellect to recognize irony. I can't help you with that bugsy. 

 
 
 
bugsy
Professor Participates
4.3.26  bugsy  replied to  Dulay @4.3.25    4 weeks ago

OK since you won't do it, I'll do it for you..

You fucked up.

Own it.

You'll be better for it.

Or maybe not

 
 
 
bugsy
Professor Participates
4.3.27  bugsy  replied to  Dulay @4.3.24    4 weeks ago
Take your supercilious bullshit to someone who respects your opinion. 

Yep......triggered.

Sorry  to see it s/

 
 
 
Ed-NavDoc
Professor Quiet
4.3.28  Ed-NavDoc  replied to  bugsy @4.3.27    3 weeks ago

At least there are people that respect yours. Triggered is quite correct.

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Principal
4.3.29  Dulay  replied to  bugsy @4.3.26    3 weeks ago
OK since you won't do it, I'll do it for you..

You fucked up.

Own it.

You'll be better for it.

Or maybe not

Awarding yourself a participation trophy. Well done. /s

jrSmiley_84_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Principal
4.3.30  Dulay  replied to  bugsy @4.3.27    3 weeks ago

Unsurprisingly, you mistake unimpressed with triggered bugsy. 

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Principal
4.3.31  Dulay  replied to  Ed-NavDoc @4.3.28    3 weeks ago

Oh, I forget that thumbs up buddies are all important to you and yours. I see by 'people' you mean yourself. 

 
 
 
bugsy
Professor Participates
4.3.32  bugsy  replied to  Ed-NavDoc @4.3.28    3 weeks ago

[Deleted]

 
 
 
Paula Bartholomew
Professor Guide
4.4  Paula Bartholomew  replied to  JohnRussell @4    4 weeks ago

A certain member is most likely wearing a black arm band because his idol got his ass handed to him in court.

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Expert
5  Sean Treacy    4 weeks ago

Lol..

Suddenly this case is news?  Strange how proud you were this was being ignored by the MSM and now, amazingly, the MSM has made it a front page story  and already  two seeds on this site.

Weird how that works.

Durham proved his case. The jury, unsurprisingly, failed to follow where the law and facts led them. 

But the important thing is the record is made.  There's no escaping the history once the partisan fervor dies down.  History knows what the Clinton and the FBI did. There's no running away from that. 

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Principal
5.1  Dulay  replied to  Sean Treacy @5    4 weeks ago
History knows what the Clinton and the FBI did.

This seed is about the acquittal of Sussmann for lying to the FBI. 

History knows that Clinton has been accused ad nauseam for DECADES and NEVER indicted for a fucking thing. 

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Expert
5.1.1  Sean Treacy  replied to  Dulay @5.1    4 weeks ago
his seed is about the acquittal of Sussmann for lying to the FBI. 

No shit. Are you familiar, at all,  with the trial?  I'm referring to the admitted evidence. 

hat Clinton has been accused ad nauseam for DECADES and NEVER indicted for a fucking thing

So what? The same can be said about Trump.  Doesn't change what she's done

 
 
 
Greg Jones
Professor Guide
5.1.2  Greg Jones  replied to  Dulay @5.1    4 weeks ago
"History knows that Clinton has been accused ad nauseam for DECADES and NEVER indicted for a fucking thing."

But everybody knows what she did and  gotten away with.

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Principal
5.1.3  Dulay  replied to  Greg Jones @5.1.2    4 weeks ago
But everybody knows what she did and  gotten away with.

Nope. 

Tell you what Greg, cite the laws or statutes violations that you claim Clinton 'got away with'. I'll wait...

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Principal
5.1.4  Dulay  replied to  Sean Treacy @5.1.1    4 weeks ago
No shit. Are you familiar, at all,  with the trial?  I'm referring to the admitted evidence. 

Then WHY are you flapping your gums about Hillary Clinton and the FBI? What evidence was admitted to prove that Clinton or the FBI violated any laws Sean? 

 
 
 
Dismayed Patriot
Professor Participates
5.1.5  Dismayed Patriot  replied to  Greg Jones @5.1.2    4 weeks ago
But everybody* knows what she did and gotten away with.

*everybody deluded by Qanon conspiracy theories, horse shit right wing propaganda and those who are high on the fumes from leaving their heads stuck up Trumps ass too long...

 
 
 
Ed-NavDoc
Professor Quiet
5.1.6  Ed-NavDoc  replied to  Greg Jones @5.1.2    4 weeks ago

The teflon is strong with that one.

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Principal
5.1.7  Dulay  replied to  Ed-NavDoc @5.1.6    4 weeks ago

The ignorance is strong in that comment. 

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Principal
5.1.8  Dulay  replied to  Greg Jones @5.1.2    4 weeks ago

You made a statement but as usual, you can't support it. 

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
5.1.9  Tessylo  replied to  Dulay @5.1.4    4 weeks ago

They have Clinton Derangement Syndrome.

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
5.1.10  Tessylo  replied to  Dulay @5.1.7    4 weeks ago

Yes, as usual.  

 
 
 
Ed-NavDoc
Professor Quiet
5.1.11  Ed-NavDoc  replied to  Tessylo @5.1.10    4 weeks ago

Pot meet kettle...

 
 
 
Sparty On
Professor Principal
5.1.12  Sparty On  replied to  Ed-NavDoc @5.1.6    3 weeks ago

Left over from Teflon Bill.

 
 
 
Gsquared
Senior Expert
5.2  Gsquared  replied to  Sean Treacy @5    4 weeks ago
Durham proved his case.  The jury, unsurprisingly, failed to follow where the facts and law lead.

Further proof of the contempt some reactionaries hold for the American people.

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Expert
5.3  Sean Treacy  replied to  Sean Treacy @5    4 weeks ago

[deleted]

 
 
 
Gsquared
Senior Expert
5.3.1  Gsquared  replied to  Sean Treacy @5.3    4 weeks ago

removed for context

 
 
 
Sparty On
Professor Principal
5.4  Sparty On  replied to  Sean Treacy @5    4 weeks ago

Sussman lied too

And Clinton knew

Turk 182

 
 
 
Hallux
Sophomore Principal
6  Hallux    4 weeks ago

Oh well, there's always Danchenko ...

 
 
 
Gsquared
Senior Expert
7  Gsquared    4 weeks ago

The reactionaries are claiming that the verdict doesn't mean anything, the jury was corrupt and whatever other excuse they can think up.

If the verdict was guilty we can know for a fact that they would be screaming at the top of their lungs what a great victory it was.

What a bunch of hypocritical phonies.

 
 
 
JBB
Professor Principal
7.1  JBB  replied to  Gsquared @7    4 weeks ago

The FBI treated Sussman's allegations the same as all the other reports (plural) of Trump's secretive dealings with known agents of Russian State Intelligence Services while running for President.

Yes, the FBI and CIA were investigating Trump's Russian dealings in the lead up to the 2016 election. How could they not? Interpol and MI6 were also...

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Expert
7.1.1  Sean Treacy  replied to  JBB @7.1    4 weeks ago
al) of Trump's secretive dealings with known agents of Russian State Intelligence Services while running for President.

You should stop making thigs up and read the Mueller report. 

. How could they not? Interpol and MI6 were also...

Why not add the justice league? It's not like reality has anything to do with your claims. 

 
 
 
JBB
Professor Principal
7.1.2  JBB  replied to  Sean Treacy @7.1.1    4 weeks ago

Now you are being ridiculous. The Sussman verdict is the end of John Durham's Folly...

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Expert
7.1.3  Sean Treacy  replied to  JBB @7.1.2    4 weeks ago
The Sussman verdict is the end of John Durham's Folly..

Still another trial coming up. 

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
7.1.4  Texan1211  replied to  JBB @7.1    4 weeks ago
Yes, the FBI and CIA were investigating Trump's Russian dealings in the lead up to the 2016 election. How could they not? Interpol and MI6 were also...

And the results of those investigations?

NOTHING.

Absolutely fucking NOTHING.

Even YOU who parrot the same shit over and over have NEVER been able to say what Trump did illegally.

So WHAT if Trump was "investigated?

We who can think and see clearly know that Sussman lied.

 
 
 
Hallux
Sophomore Principal
7.1.5  Hallux  replied to  Texan1211 @7.1.4    4 weeks ago
We who can think and see clearly know that Sussman lied.

They who can think disinterestedly know that you have an opinion.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
7.1.6  Texan1211  replied to  Hallux @7.1.5    4 weeks ago

I'll ask you the same questions which have been ignored:

Did Sussman claim in text messages that he was not representing a client?

Was he representing a client?

Did his firm bill time to a client for his little trip to the FBI, and charge his client for a thumb drive to transfer the info to the FBI?

If you can truthfully answer these questions, we can talk about my opinion.

 
 
 
Hallux
Sophomore Principal
7.1.7  Hallux  replied to  Texan1211 @7.1.6    4 weeks ago

The trial was not covered up here other than an article or 2 in newspapers of various partisan leanings which makes it a case I would never comment on as to guilt or innocence. Any comment/opinion I may have made would have been directed at the entirely partisan 'jump the shark' desire to find guilt.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
7.1.8  Texan1211  replied to  Hallux @7.1.7    4 weeks ago
The trial was not covered up here other than an article or 2 in newspapers of various partisan leanings which makes it a case I would never comment on as to guilt or innocence. Any comment/opinion I may have made would have been directed at the entirely partisan 'jump the shark' desire to find guilt.

I never asked you if he was guilty in your eyes or not. Since you commented on the case, I just naturally assumed you were interested enough in it to have kept up with it a little.

The questions I asked didn't call for any opinion, just an honest look at the facts, and honest answers.

If facts are considered "jumping the shark", color me guilty.

 
 
 
Hallux
Sophomore Principal
7.1.9  Hallux  replied to  Texan1211 @7.1.8    4 weeks ago

There is only one 'fact' of any importance, the jury was unanimous in its finding.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
7.1.10  Texan1211  replied to  Hallux @7.1.9    4 weeks ago
There is only one 'fact' of any importance, the jury was unanimous in its finding.

It is very apparent to me you aren't really interested in any facts regarding the case.

Thanks anyway.

 
 
 
bbl-1
Professor Quiet
7.1.11  bbl-1  replied to  JBB @7.1.2    4 weeks ago

Another trial coming up in October except this is with a witness for the prosecution that is unsure of what he thought he heard.  

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
PhD Guide
7.1.12  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  JBB @7.1    4 weeks ago
Yes, the FBI and CIA were investigating Trump's Russian dealings in the lead up to the 2016 election. How could they not? Interpol and MI6 were also..

You've been parroting that for quite a while now.  And yet you have yet to provide anything to back it up.  No evidence, no charges, NOT A GODDAMN THING.  And yet you expect to be taken seriously.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
7.1.13  Texan1211  replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @7.1.12    4 weeks ago
And yet you have yet to provide anything to back it up.  No evidence, no charges, NOT A GODDAMN THING. 

Well, yeah, but................he has memes!

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
PhD Guide
7.1.14  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  Texan1211 @7.1.13    4 weeks ago

All that shows is he's good at making shit up.  But then again his comments do that too.

 
 
 
JBB
Professor Principal
7.1.15  JBB  replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @7.1.14    4 weeks ago

Yet, a unanimous verdict showes I was right!

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
7.1.16  Texan1211  replied to  JBB @7.1.15    4 weeks ago

Will you answer just one question?

Why do you keep repeating the same old tired crap about Trump being investigated when you know damn well NOTHING came of ALL these investigations from around the whole world?

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
PhD Guide
7.1.17  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  JBB @7.1.15    4 weeks ago

At a glance maybe.  But then again even a broken clock is right at least twice a day.

 
 
 
Kavika
Professor Principal
8  Kavika     4 weeks ago

3efhr3.jpg

jrSmiley_10_smiley_image.gifjrSmiley_10_smiley_image.gifjrSmiley_10_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
Professor Principal
8.1  Trout Giggles  replied to  Kavika @8    4 weeks ago

I think he should smile

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
8.1.1  Tessylo  replied to  Trout Giggles @8.1    4 weeks ago

He's so ugly.  Normally I don't give a shit about looks but I'm sick of looking at that ugly mug all the time on NT.  Especially such a loser and a drain on our taxpayer dollars!

 
 
 
cjcold
Professor Quiet
8.1.2  cjcold  replied to  Trout Giggles @8.1    4 weeks ago

I thought he was. 

 
 
 
bugsy
Professor Participates
8.1.3  bugsy  replied to  Tessylo @8.1.1    4 weeks ago
He's so ugly.

But this is SO much better s/

VQJQC37EDRGENBGN3GTWQ26CFQ.jpg

 
 
 
Paula Bartholomew
Professor Guide
8.1.4  Paula Bartholomew  replied to  Tessylo @8.1.1    4 weeks ago

He looks like a mud fence with tadpoles squished all over it.

 
 
 
bugsy
Professor Participates
8.1.5  bugsy  replied to  Paula Bartholomew @8.1.4    4 weeks ago

At least he identifies as a he, and not pretending to be something else.

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
8.1.6  Tessylo  replied to  Paula Bartholomew @8.1.4    4 weeks ago

jrSmiley_10_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
bbl-1
Professor Quiet
9  bbl-1    4 weeks ago

Perhaps Durham's next move, and smartest move, would be to open an investigation of the jury?  

Or should Durham refer back to Barr for a clearer understanding of what he's supposed to be accomplishing?

Or should Durham just move to Belarus?

 
 
 
Sparty On
Professor Principal
10  Sparty On    4 weeks ago

Swamp jury and swamp judge...... is it any surprise this verdict stinks?

Not to thinking people.

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
10.1  Tessylo  replied to  Sparty On @10    4 weeks ago

[Deleted]

 
 
 
Right Down the Center
Freshman Guide
11  Right Down the Center    4 weeks ago

An interesting poll would be to go to a park and ask 1000 people if they knew the results of the Depp trial? Then ask them if they knew the results of the sussman trial? You might learn what the average American cares and doesn't care about.

 
 

Who is online


Ronin2


34 visitors