"In a bombshell court filing late Monday night, Durham for the first time suggested Hillary Clinton's campaign, her researchers and others formed a "joint venture or conspiracy" for the purpose of weaving the collusion story to harm Trump's electionchances and then the start of his presidency."
https://justthenews.com/accountability/russia-and-ukraine-scandals/durham-bombshell-fbi-text-message-shows-clinton-lawyer
On 2023-03-30 17:47, Tommy wrote:chances and then the start of his presidency."
"In a bombshell court filing late Monday night, Durham for the first time suggested Hillary Clinton's campaign, her researchers and others formed a "joint venture or conspiracy" for the purpose of weaving the collusion story to harm Trump's election
https://justthenews.com/accountability/russia-and-ukraine-scandals/durham-bombshell-fbi-text-message-shows-clinton-lawyerSo?
'" I'm coming on my own – not on behalf of a client or company – want to help the Bureau. Thanks."'
Where's the proof that that's not the truth, Sunshine?
On Thursday, March 30, 2023 at 5:56:56 PM UTC-7, Alan wrote:chances and then the start of his presidency."
On 2023-03-30 17:47, Tommy wrote:
"In a bombshell court filing late Monday night, Durham for the first time suggested Hillary Clinton's campaign, her researchers and others formed a "joint venture or conspiracy" for the purpose of weaving the collusion story to harm Trump's election
So?
https://justthenews.com/accountability/russia-and-ukraine-scandals/durham-bombshell-fbi-text-message-shows-clinton-lawyer
'" I'm coming on my own – not on behalf of a client or company – want to >> help the Bureau. Thanks."'
Where's the proof that that's not the truth, Sunshine?
So a conspiracy to rig an election is a CRIME, Fool.
On 2023-03-31 18:12, Tommy wrote:election chances and then the start of his presidency."
On Thursday, March 30, 2023 at 5:56:56 PM UTC-7, Alan wrote:
On 2023-03-30 17:47, Tommy wrote:
"In a bombshell court filing late Monday night, Durham for the first time suggested Hillary Clinton's campaign, her researchers and others formed a "joint venture or conspiracy" for the purpose of weaving the collusion story to harm Trump's
So?
https://justthenews.com/accountability/russia-and-ukraine-scandals/durham-bombshell-fbi-text-message-shows-clinton-lawyer
'" I'm coming on my own – not on behalf of a client or company – want to
help the Bureau. Thanks."'
Where's the proof that that's not the truth, Sunshine?
So a conspiracy to rig an election is a CRIME, Fool.What if he just discovered something that the FBI should know?
On Friday, March 31, 2023 at 6:17:43 PM UTC-7, Alan wrote:election chances and then the start of his presidency."
On 2023-03-31 18:12, Tommy wrote:
On Thursday, March 30, 2023 at 5:56:56 PM UTC-7, Alan wrote:
On 2023-03-30 17:47, Tommy wrote:
"In a bombshell court filing late Monday night, Durham for the first time suggested Hillary Clinton's campaign, her researchers and others formed a "joint venture or conspiracy" for the purpose of weaving the collusion story to harm Trump's
What if he just discovered something that the FBI should know?So?
https://justthenews.com/accountability/russia-and-ukraine-scandals/durham-bombshell-fbi-text-message-shows-clinton-lawyer
'" I'm coming on my own – not on behalf of a client or company – want to
help the Bureau. Thanks."'
Where's the proof that that's not the truth, Sunshine?
So a conspiracy to rig an election is a CRIME, Fool.
So what?
On 2023-04-04 17:02, Tommy wrote:election chances and then the start of his presidency."
On Friday, March 31, 2023 at 6:17:43 PM UTC-7, Alan wrote:
On 2023-03-31 18:12, Tommy wrote:
On Thursday, March 30, 2023 at 5:56:56 PM UTC-7, Alan wrote:
On 2023-03-30 17:47, Tommy wrote:
"In a bombshell court filing late Monday night, Durham for the first time suggested Hillary Clinton's campaign, her researchers and others formed a "joint venture or conspiracy" for the purpose of weaving the collusion story to harm Trump's
What if he just discovered something that the FBI should know?So?
https://justthenews.com/accountability/russia-and-ukraine-scandals/durham-bombshell-fbi-text-message-shows-clinton-lawyer
'" I'm coming on my own – not on behalf of a client or company – want to
help the Bureau. Thanks."'
Where's the proof that that's not the truth, Sunshine?
So a conspiracy to rig an election is a CRIME, Fool.
So what?Do you think that if someone sees evidence of a crime he shouldn't
report it to the appropriate authority, Sunshine?
On Tuesday, April 4, 2023 at 5:03:33 PM UTC-7, Alan wrote:election chances and then the start of his presidency."
On 2023-04-04 17:02, Tommy wrote:
On Friday, March 31, 2023 at 6:17:43 PM UTC-7, Alan wrote:
On 2023-03-31 18:12, Tommy wrote:
On Thursday, March 30, 2023 at 5:56:56 PM UTC-7, Alan wrote:
On 2023-03-30 17:47, Tommy wrote:
"In a bombshell court filing late Monday night, Durham for the first time suggested Hillary Clinton's campaign, her researchers and others formed a "joint venture or conspiracy" for the purpose of weaving the collusion story to harm Trump's
Do you think that if someone sees evidence of a crime he shouldn'tWhat if he just discovered something that the FBI should know?So?
https://justthenews.com/accountability/russia-and-ukraine-scandals/durham-bombshell-fbi-text-message-shows-clinton-lawyer
'" I'm coming on my own – not on behalf of a client or company – want to
help the Bureau. Thanks."'
Where's the proof that that's not the truth, Sunshine?
So a conspiracy to rig an election is a CRIME, Fool.
So what?
report it to the appropriate authority, Sunshine?
Shrillary has FAR MORE evidence to support an indictment than Trump, but the statute of limitations have expired, as THEY HAVE on the Trump case.
On 2023-04-04 22:34, Tommy wrote:election chances and then the start of his presidency."
On Tuesday, April 4, 2023 at 5:03:33 PM UTC-7, Alan wrote:
On 2023-04-04 17:02, Tommy wrote:
On Friday, March 31, 2023 at 6:17:43 PM UTC-7, Alan wrote:
On 2023-03-31 18:12, Tommy wrote:
On Thursday, March 30, 2023 at 5:56:56 PM UTC-7, Alan wrote:
On 2023-03-30 17:47, Tommy wrote:
"In a bombshell court filing late Monday night, Durham for the first time suggested Hillary Clinton's campaign, her researchers and others formed a "joint venture or conspiracy" for the purpose of weaving the collusion story to harm Trump's
Who knows? They might have thought getting a conviction of Shrillary in NY was as likely as seeing Schumer vote for Trump.Do you think that if someone sees evidence of a crime he shouldn'tWhat if he just discovered something that the FBI should know?So?
https://justthenews.com/accountability/russia-and-ukraine-scandals/durham-bombshell-fbi-text-message-shows-clinton-lawyer
'" I'm coming on my own – not on behalf of a client or company – want to
help the Bureau. Thanks."'
Where's the proof that that's not the truth, Sunshine?
So a conspiracy to rig an election is a CRIME, Fool.
So what?
report it to the appropriate authority, Sunshine?
Shrillary has FAR MORE evidence to support an indictment than Trump, but the statute of limitations have expired, as THEY HAVE on the Trump case.So if that's the case, why didn't Trump's DoJ bring charges?
And show me where the statute of limitations on Trump's crimes hasDon't you mean the ALLEGED crimes, Fool?
expired, Sunshine.
On Tuesday, April 4, 2023 at 10:36:29 PM UTC-7, Alan wrote:
On 2023-04-04 22:34, Tommy wrote:Who knows? They might have thought getting a conviction of Shrillary
On Tuesday, April 4, 2023 at 5:03:33 PM UTC-7, Alan wrote:So if that's the case, why didn't Trump's DoJ bring charges?
On 2023-04-04 17:02, Tommy wrote:
On Friday, March 31, 2023 at 6:17:43 PM UTC-7, Alan wrote:
On 2023-03-31 18:12, Tommy wrote:
On Thursday, March 30, 2023 at 5:56:56 PM UTC-7, Alan
wrote:
On 2023-03-30 17:47, Tommy wrote:
"In a bombshell court filing late Monday night,
Durham for the first time suggested Hillary Clinton's
campaign, her researchers and others formed a "joint
venture or conspiracy" for the purpose of weaving the
collusion story to harm Trump's election chances and
then the start of his presidency."
https://justthenews.com/accountability/russia-and-ukraine-scandals/durham-bombshell-fbi-text-message-shows-clinton-lawyer
in NY was as likely as seeing Schumer vote for Trump.
Don't you mean the ALLEGED crimes, Fool?
And show me where the statute of limitations on Trump's crimes has
expired, Sunshine.
On 2023-04-05 16:56, Tommy wrote:
On Tuesday, April 4, 2023 at 10:36:29 PM UTC-7, Alan wrote:You don't understand that a FEDERAL case wouldn't have to have been held
On 2023-04-04 22:34, Tommy wrote:Who knows? They might have thought getting a conviction of Shrillary
On Tuesday, April 4, 2023 at 5:03:33 PM UTC-7, Alan wrote:So if that's the case, why didn't Trump's DoJ bring charges?
On 2023-04-04 17:02, Tommy wrote:
On Friday, March 31, 2023 at 6:17:43 PM UTC-7, Alan wrote:
On 2023-03-31 18:12, Tommy wrote:
On Thursday, March 30, 2023 at 5:56:56 PM UTC-7, Alan
wrote:
On 2023-03-30 17:47, Tommy wrote:
"In a bombshell court filing late Monday night,
Durham for the first time suggested Hillary Clinton's
campaign, her researchers and others formed a "joint
venture or conspiracy" for the purpose of weaving the
collusion story to harm Trump's election chances and
then the start of his presidency."
https://justthenews.com/accountability/russia-and-ukraine-scandals/durham-bombshell-fbi-text-message-shows-clinton-lawyer
in NY was as likely as seeing Schumer vote for Trump.
in New York State...
...right?
Yes, Sunshine.Don't you mean the ALLEGED crimes, Fool?
And show me where the statute of limitations on Trump's crimes has
expired, Sunshine.
Alleged crimes.
Although since he doesn't deny making the payments...
...and his co-conspirator was already convicted...
...by his DoJ...
...of the underlying crimes...
...I don't think they'll be "alleged" for long.
:-)
You get that almost no actual facts in the case are in dispute, right?
On Wednesday, April 5, 2023 at 7:05:13 PM UTC-7, Alan wrote:
On 2023-04-05 16:56, Tommy wrote:
On Tuesday, April 4, 2023 at 10:36:29 PM UTC-7, Alan wrote:You don't understand that a FEDERAL case wouldn't have to have been held
On 2023-04-04 22:34, Tommy wrote:Who knows? They might have thought getting a conviction of Shrillary
On Tuesday, April 4, 2023 at 5:03:33 PM UTC-7, Alan wrote:So if that's the case, why didn't Trump's DoJ bring charges?
On 2023-04-04 17:02, Tommy wrote:
On Friday, March 31, 2023 at 6:17:43 PM UTC-7, Alan wrote:
On 2023-03-31 18:12, Tommy wrote:
On Thursday, March 30, 2023 at 5:56:56 PM UTC-7, Alan
wrote:
On 2023-03-30 17:47, Tommy wrote:
"In a bombshell court filing late Monday night,
Durham for the first time suggested Hillary Clinton's
campaign, her researchers and others formed a "joint
venture or conspiracy" for the purpose of weaving the
collusion story to harm Trump's election chances and
then the start of his presidency."
https://justthenews.com/accountability/russia-and-ukraine-scandals/durham-bombshell-fbi-text-message-shows-clinton-lawyer
in NY was as likely as seeing Schumer vote for Trump.
in New York State...
...right?
Yes, Sunshine.Don't you mean the ALLEGED crimes, Fool?
And show me where the statute of limitations on Trump's crimes has
expired, Sunshine.
Alleged crimes.
Although since he doesn't deny making the payments...
...and his co-conspirator was already convicted...
...by his DoJ...
...of the underlying crimes...
...I don't think they'll be "alleged" for long.
:-)
You get that almost no actual facts in the case are in dispute, right?
No, ALL of these "facts" are in dispute. You DO realize that it is the duty of the prosecutor to PROVE these allegations BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT before a jury of his peers (not his persecutors), don't you?
On 2023-04-06 21:09, Tommy wrote:
On Wednesday, April 5, 2023 at 7:05:13 PM UTC-7, Alan wrote:
On 2023-04-05 16:56, Tommy wrote:
On Tuesday, April 4, 2023 at 10:36:29 PM UTC-7, Alan wrote:You don't understand that a FEDERAL case wouldn't have to have been held >> in New York State...
On 2023-04-04 22:34, Tommy wrote:Who knows? They might have thought getting a conviction of Shrillary
On Tuesday, April 4, 2023 at 5:03:33 PM UTC-7, Alan wrote:So if that's the case, why didn't Trump's DoJ bring charges?
On 2023-04-04 17:02, Tommy wrote:
On Friday, March 31, 2023 at 6:17:43 PM UTC-7, Alan wrote: >>>>>>>> On 2023-03-31 18:12, Tommy wrote:
On Thursday, March 30, 2023 at 5:56:56 PM UTC-7, Alan
wrote:
On 2023-03-30 17:47, Tommy wrote:
"In a bombshell court filing late Monday night,
Durham for the first time suggested Hillary Clinton's >>>>>>>>>>> campaign, her researchers and others formed a "joint
venture or conspiracy" for the purpose of weaving the >>>>>>>>>>> collusion story to harm Trump's election chances and
then the start of his presidency."
https://justthenews.com/accountability/russia-and-ukraine-scandals/durham-bombshell-fbi-text-message-shows-clinton-lawyer
in NY was as likely as seeing Schumer vote for Trump.
...right?
Yes, Sunshine.Don't you mean the ALLEGED crimes, Fool?
And show me where the statute of limitations on Trump's crimes has
expired, Sunshine.
Alleged crimes.
Although since he doesn't deny making the payments...
...and his co-conspirator was already convicted...
...by his DoJ...
...of the underlying crimes...
...I don't think they'll be "alleged" for long.
:-)
You get that almost no actual facts in the case are in dispute, right?
No, ALL of these "facts" are in dispute. You DO realize that it is the duty of the prosecutor to PROVE these allegations BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT before a jury of his peers (not his persecutors), don't you?Such as?
Give an example.
On Thursday, April 6, 2023 at 9:15:59 PM UTC-7, Alan wrote:
On 2023-04-06 21:09, Tommy wrote:
On Wednesday, April 5, 2023 at 7:05:13 PM UTC-7, Alan wrote:Such as?
On 2023-04-05 16:56, Tommy wrote:
On Tuesday, April 4, 2023 at 10:36:29 PM UTC-7, Alan wrote:You don't understand that a FEDERAL case wouldn't have to have been held >>>> in New York State...
On 2023-04-04 22:34, Tommy wrote:Who knows? They might have thought getting a conviction of Shrillary >>>>> in NY was as likely as seeing Schumer vote for Trump.
On Tuesday, April 4, 2023 at 5:03:33 PM UTC-7, Alan wrote:So if that's the case, why didn't Trump's DoJ bring charges?
On 2023-04-04 17:02, Tommy wrote:
On Friday, March 31, 2023 at 6:17:43 PM UTC-7, Alan wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On 2023-03-31 18:12, Tommy wrote:
On Thursday, March 30, 2023 at 5:56:56 PM UTC-7, Alan
wrote:
On 2023-03-30 17:47, Tommy wrote:
"In a bombshell court filing late Monday night,
Durham for the first time suggested Hillary Clinton's >>>>>>>>>>>>> campaign, her researchers and others formed a "joint >>>>>>>>>>>>> venture or conspiracy" for the purpose of weaving the >>>>>>>>>>>>> collusion story to harm Trump's election chances and >>>>>>>>>>>>> then the start of his presidency."
https://justthenews.com/accountability/russia-and-ukraine-scandals/durham-bombshell-fbi-text-message-shows-clinton-lawyer
...right?
Yes, Sunshine.Don't you mean the ALLEGED crimes, Fool?
And show me where the statute of limitations on Trump's crimes has >>>>>> expired, Sunshine.
Alleged crimes.
Although since he doesn't deny making the payments...
...and his co-conspirator was already convicted...
...by his DoJ...
...of the underlying crimes...
...I don't think they'll be "alleged" for long.
:-)
You get that almost no actual facts in the case are in dispute, right?
No, ALL of these "facts" are in dispute. You DO realize that it is the duty of the prosecutor to PROVE these allegations BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT before a jury of his peers (not his persecutors), don't you?
Give an example.
ALL of them, you idiot.
On 2023-04-12 21:44, Tommy wrote:
On Thursday, April 6, 2023 at 9:15:59 PM UTC-7, Alan wrote:
On 2023-04-06 21:09, Tommy wrote:
On Wednesday, April 5, 2023 at 7:05:13 PM UTC-7, Alan wrote:Such as?
On 2023-04-05 16:56, Tommy wrote:No, ALL of these "facts" are in dispute. You DO realize that it is the duty of the prosecutor to PROVE these allegations BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT before a jury of his peers (not his persecutors), don't you?
On Tuesday, April 4, 2023 at 10:36:29 PM UTC-7, Alan wrote:You don't understand that a FEDERAL case wouldn't have to have been held
On 2023-04-04 22:34, Tommy wrote:Who knows? They might have thought getting a conviction of Shrillary >>>>> in NY was as likely as seeing Schumer vote for Trump.
On Tuesday, April 4, 2023 at 5:03:33 PM UTC-7, Alan wrote: >>>>>>>> On 2023-04-04 17:02, Tommy wrote:So if that's the case, why didn't Trump's DoJ bring charges?
On Friday, March 31, 2023 at 6:17:43 PM UTC-7, Alan wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On 2023-03-31 18:12, Tommy wrote:
On Thursday, March 30, 2023 at 5:56:56 PM UTC-7, Alan >>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
On 2023-03-30 17:47, Tommy wrote:
"In a bombshell court filing late Monday night,
Durham for the first time suggested Hillary Clinton's >>>>>>>>>>>>> campaign, her researchers and others formed a "joint >>>>>>>>>>>>> venture or conspiracy" for the purpose of weaving the >>>>>>>>>>>>> collusion story to harm Trump's election chances and >>>>>>>>>>>>> then the start of his presidency."
https://justthenews.com/accountability/russia-and-ukraine-scandals/durham-bombshell-fbi-text-message-shows-clinton-lawyer
in New York State...
...right?
Yes, Sunshine.Don't you mean the ALLEGED crimes, Fool?
And show me where the statute of limitations on Trump's crimes has >>>>>> expired, Sunshine.
Alleged crimes.
Although since he doesn't deny making the payments...
...and his co-conspirator was already convicted...
...by his DoJ...
...of the underlying crimes...
...I don't think they'll be "alleged" for long.
:-)
You get that almost no actual facts in the case are in dispute, right? >>>
Give an example.
ALL of them, you idiot.That's a cop-out, Sunshine...
...and even you know it.
On Wednesday, April 12, 2023 at 10:14:41 PM UTC-7, Alan wrote:
On 2023-04-12 21:44, Tommy wrote:
On Thursday, April 6, 2023 at 9:15:59 PM UTC-7, Alan wrote:That's a cop-out, Sunshine...
On 2023-04-06 21:09, Tommy wrote:
On Wednesday, April 5, 2023 at 7:05:13 PM UTC-7, Alan wrote:Such as?
On 2023-04-05 16:56, Tommy wrote:No, ALL of these "facts" are in dispute. You DO realize that it is the duty of the prosecutor to PROVE these allegations BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT before a jury of his peers (not his persecutors), don't you?
On Tuesday, April 4, 2023 at 10:36:29 PM UTC-7, Alan wrote:You don't understand that a FEDERAL case wouldn't have to have been held >>>>>> in New York State...
On 2023-04-04 22:34, Tommy wrote:Who knows? They might have thought getting a conviction of Shrillary >>>>>>> in NY was as likely as seeing Schumer vote for Trump.
On Tuesday, April 4, 2023 at 5:03:33 PM UTC-7, Alan wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On 2023-04-04 17:02, Tommy wrote:So if that's the case, why didn't Trump's DoJ bring charges?
On Friday, March 31, 2023 at 6:17:43 PM UTC-7, Alan wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> On 2023-03-31 18:12, Tommy wrote:
On Thursday, March 30, 2023 at 5:56:56 PM UTC-7, Alan >>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
On 2023-03-30 17:47, Tommy wrote:
"In a bombshell court filing late Monday night,
Durham for the first time suggested Hillary Clinton's >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> campaign, her researchers and others formed a "joint >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> venture or conspiracy" for the purpose of weaving the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> collusion story to harm Trump's election chances and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> then the start of his presidency."
https://justthenews.com/accountability/russia-and-ukraine-scandals/durham-bombshell-fbi-text-message-shows-clinton-lawyer
...right?
Yes, Sunshine.Don't you mean the ALLEGED crimes, Fool?
And show me where the statute of limitations on Trump's crimes has >>>>>>>> expired, Sunshine.
Alleged crimes.
Although since he doesn't deny making the payments...
...and his co-conspirator was already convicted...
...by his DoJ...
...of the underlying crimes...
...I don't think they'll be "alleged" for long.
:-)
You get that almost no actual facts in the case are in dispute, right? >>>>>
Give an example.
ALL of them, you idiot.
...and even you know it.
It's the FACTS, Fool - and even YOU know it.
On 2023-04-15 10:42, Tommy wrote:
On Wednesday, April 12, 2023 at 10:14:41 PM UTC-7, Alan wrote:
On 2023-04-12 21:44, Tommy wrote:
On Thursday, April 6, 2023 at 9:15:59 PM UTC-7, Alan wrote:That's a cop-out, Sunshine...
On 2023-04-06 21:09, Tommy wrote:
On Wednesday, April 5, 2023 at 7:05:13 PM UTC-7, Alan wrote:Such as?
On 2023-04-05 16:56, Tommy wrote:
On Tuesday, April 4, 2023 at 10:36:29 PM UTC-7, Alan wrote: >>>>>>>> On 2023-04-04 22:34, Tommy wrote:You don't understand that a FEDERAL case wouldn't have to have been held
On Tuesday, April 4, 2023 at 5:03:33 PM UTC-7, Alan wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On 2023-04-04 17:02, Tommy wrote:So if that's the case, why didn't Trump's DoJ bring charges? >>>>>>> Who knows? They might have thought getting a conviction of Shrillary >>>>>>> in NY was as likely as seeing Schumer vote for Trump.
On Friday, March 31, 2023 at 6:17:43 PM UTC-7, Alan wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> On 2023-03-31 18:12, Tommy wrote:
On Thursday, March 30, 2023 at 5:56:56 PM UTC-7, Alan >>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
On 2023-03-30 17:47, Tommy wrote:
"In a bombshell court filing late Monday night, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Durham for the first time suggested Hillary Clinton's >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> campaign, her researchers and others formed a "joint >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> venture or conspiracy" for the purpose of weaving the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> collusion story to harm Trump's election chances and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> then the start of his presidency."
https://justthenews.com/accountability/russia-and-ukraine-scandals/durham-bombshell-fbi-text-message-shows-clinton-lawyer
in New York State...
...right?
Yes, Sunshine.Don't you mean the ALLEGED crimes, Fool?
And show me where the statute of limitations on Trump's crimes has >>>>>>>> expired, Sunshine.
Alleged crimes.
Although since he doesn't deny making the payments...
...and his co-conspirator was already convicted...
...by his DoJ...
...of the underlying crimes...
...I don't think they'll be "alleged" for long.
:-)
You get that almost no actual facts in the case are in dispute, right?
No, ALL of these "facts" are in dispute. You DO realize that it is the duty of the prosecutor to PROVE these allegations BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT before a jury of his peers (not his persecutors), don't you?
Give an example.
ALL of them, you idiot.
...and even you know it.
It's the FACTS, Fool - and even YOU know it.Nope. Saying "all of them" when asked for an example of something is
punking out.
The evidence against him are business records
On Saturday, April 15, 2023 at 11:50:52 AM UTC-7, Alan wrote:
On 2023-04-15 10:42, Tommy wrote:
On Wednesday, April 12, 2023 at 10:14:41 PM UTC-7, Alan wrote:Nope. Saying "all of them" when asked for an example of something is
On 2023-04-12 21:44, Tommy wrote:
On Thursday, April 6, 2023 at 9:15:59 PM UTC-7, Alan wrote:That's a cop-out, Sunshine...
On 2023-04-06 21:09, Tommy wrote:
On Wednesday, April 5, 2023 at 7:05:13 PM UTC-7, Alan wrote:Such as?
On 2023-04-05 16:56, Tommy wrote:No, ALL of these "facts" are in dispute. You DO realize that it is the duty of the prosecutor to PROVE these allegations BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT before a jury of his peers (not his persecutors), don't you?
On Tuesday, April 4, 2023 at 10:36:29 PM UTC-7, Alan wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On 2023-04-04 22:34, Tommy wrote:You don't understand that a FEDERAL case wouldn't have to have been held
On Tuesday, April 4, 2023 at 5:03:33 PM UTC-7, Alan wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> On 2023-04-04 17:02, Tommy wrote:So if that's the case, why didn't Trump's DoJ bring charges? >>>>>>>>> Who knows? They might have thought getting a conviction of Shrillary >>>>>>>>> in NY was as likely as seeing Schumer vote for Trump.
On Friday, March 31, 2023 at 6:17:43 PM UTC-7, Alan wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2023-03-31 18:12, Tommy wrote:
On Thursday, March 30, 2023 at 5:56:56 PM UTC-7, Alan >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
On 2023-03-30 17:47, Tommy wrote:
"In a bombshell court filing late Monday night, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Durham for the first time suggested Hillary Clinton's >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> campaign, her researchers and others formed a "joint >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> venture or conspiracy" for the purpose of weaving the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> collusion story to harm Trump's election chances and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> then the start of his presidency."
https://justthenews.com/accountability/russia-and-ukraine-scandals/durham-bombshell-fbi-text-message-shows-clinton-lawyer
in New York State...
...right?
Yes, Sunshine.Don't you mean the ALLEGED crimes, Fool?
And show me where the statute of limitations on Trump's crimes has >>>>>>>>>> expired, Sunshine.
Alleged crimes.
Although since he doesn't deny making the payments...
...and his co-conspirator was already convicted...
...by his DoJ...
...of the underlying crimes...
...I don't think they'll be "alleged" for long.
:-)
You get that almost no actual facts in the case are in dispute, right? >>>>>>>
Give an example.
ALL of them, you idiot.
...and even you know it.
It's the FACTS, Fool - and even YOU know it.
punking out.
The evidence against him are business records
Hey fucker, I gave you the facts - asking for the same thing is an example of denial.
On Tuesday, April 25, 2023 at 5:41:37 PM UTC-7, Alan wrote:
On 2023-04-25 17:27, Tommy wrote:
On Saturday, April 15, 2023 at 11:50:52 AM UTC-7, Alan wrote:Nope. When asked for a single fact that you claim is in dispute, you
On 2023-04-15 10:42, Tommy wrote:
On Wednesday, April 12, 2023 at 10:14:41 PM UTC-7, Alan wrote:Nope. Saying "all of them" when asked for an example of something is
On 2023-04-12 21:44, Tommy wrote:
On Thursday, April 6, 2023 at 9:15:59 PM UTC-7, Alan wrote:That's a cop-out, Sunshine...
On 2023-04-06 21:09, Tommy wrote:
On Wednesday, April 5, 2023 at 7:05:13 PM UTC-7, Alan wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On 2023-04-05 16:56, Tommy wrote:Such as?
On Tuesday, April 4, 2023 at 10:36:29 PM UTC-7, Alan wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> On 2023-04-04 22:34, Tommy wrote:You don't understand that a FEDERAL case wouldn't have to have been held
in NY was as likely as seeing Schumer vote for Trump.On Tuesday, April 4, 2023 at 5:03:33 PM UTC-7, Alan wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2023-04-04 17:02, Tommy wrote:So if that's the case, why didn't Trump's DoJ bring charges? >>>>>>>>>>> Who knows? They might have thought getting a conviction of Shrillary
On Friday, March 31, 2023 at 6:17:43 PM UTC-7, Alan wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2023-03-31 18:12, Tommy wrote:
On Thursday, March 30, 2023 at 5:56:56 PM UTC-7, Alan >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
On 2023-03-30 17:47, Tommy wrote:
"In a bombshell court filing late Monday night, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Durham for the first time suggested Hillary Clinton's >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> campaign, her researchers and others formed a "joint >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> venture or conspiracy" for the purpose of weaving the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> collusion story to harm Trump's election chances and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> then the start of his presidency."
https://justthenews.com/accountability/russia-and-ukraine-scandals/durham-bombshell-fbi-text-message-shows-clinton-lawyer
in New York State...
...right?
Yes, Sunshine.Don't you mean the ALLEGED crimes, Fool?
And show me where the statute of limitations on Trump's crimes has >>>>>>>>>>>> expired, Sunshine.
Alleged crimes.
Although since he doesn't deny making the payments...
...and his co-conspirator was already convicted...
...by his DoJ...
...of the underlying crimes...
...I don't think they'll be "alleged" for long.
:-)
You get that almost no actual facts in the case are in dispute, right?
No, ALL of these "facts" are in dispute. You DO realize that it is the duty of the prosecutor to PROVE these allegations BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT before a jury of his peers (not his persecutors), don't you?
Give an example.
ALL of them, you idiot.
...and even you know it.
It's the FACTS, Fool - and even YOU know it.
punking out.
The evidence against him are business records
Hey fucker, I gave you the facts - asking for the same thing is an example of denial.
provided not a single actual fact.
Here are the facts, AGAIN! https://justthenews.com/accountability/russia-and-ukraine-scandals/durham-bombshell-fbi-text-message-shows-clinton-lawyer
On 2023-04-25 17:27, Tommy wrote:
On Saturday, April 15, 2023 at 11:50:52 AM UTC-7, Alan wrote:
On 2023-04-15 10:42, Tommy wrote:
On Wednesday, April 12, 2023 at 10:14:41 PM UTC-7, Alan wrote:Nope. Saying "all of them" when asked for an example of something is
On 2023-04-12 21:44, Tommy wrote:
On Thursday, April 6, 2023 at 9:15:59 PM UTC-7, Alan wrote:That's a cop-out, Sunshine...
On 2023-04-06 21:09, Tommy wrote:
On Wednesday, April 5, 2023 at 7:05:13 PM UTC-7, Alan wrote: >>>>>>>> On 2023-04-05 16:56, Tommy wrote:Such as?
On Tuesday, April 4, 2023 at 10:36:29 PM UTC-7, Alan wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On 2023-04-04 22:34, Tommy wrote:You don't understand that a FEDERAL case wouldn't have to have been held
in NY was as likely as seeing Schumer vote for Trump.On Tuesday, April 4, 2023 at 5:03:33 PM UTC-7, Alan wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> On 2023-04-04 17:02, Tommy wrote:So if that's the case, why didn't Trump's DoJ bring charges? >>>>>>>>> Who knows? They might have thought getting a conviction of Shrillary
On Friday, March 31, 2023 at 6:17:43 PM UTC-7, Alan wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2023-03-31 18:12, Tommy wrote:
On Thursday, March 30, 2023 at 5:56:56 PM UTC-7, Alan >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
On 2023-03-30 17:47, Tommy wrote:
"In a bombshell court filing late Monday night, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Durham for the first time suggested Hillary Clinton's >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> campaign, her researchers and others formed a "joint >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> venture or conspiracy" for the purpose of weaving the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> collusion story to harm Trump's election chances and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> then the start of his presidency."
https://justthenews.com/accountability/russia-and-ukraine-scandals/durham-bombshell-fbi-text-message-shows-clinton-lawyer
in New York State...
...right?
Yes, Sunshine.Don't you mean the ALLEGED crimes, Fool?
And show me where the statute of limitations on Trump's crimes has
expired, Sunshine.
Alleged crimes.
Although since he doesn't deny making the payments...
...and his co-conspirator was already convicted...
...by his DoJ...
...of the underlying crimes...
...I don't think they'll be "alleged" for long.
:-)
You get that almost no actual facts in the case are in dispute, right?
No, ALL of these "facts" are in dispute. You DO realize that it is the duty of the prosecutor to PROVE these allegations BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT before a jury of his peers (not his persecutors), don't you?
Give an example.
ALL of them, you idiot.
...and even you know it.
It's the FACTS, Fool - and even YOU know it.
punking out.
The evidence against him are business records
Hey fucker, I gave you the facts - asking for the same thing is an example of denial.Nope. When asked for a single fact that you claim is in dispute, you provided not a single actual fact.
On 2023-04-25 19:07, Tommy wrote:
On Tuesday, April 25, 2023 at 5:41:37 PM UTC-7, Alan wrote:
On 2023-04-25 17:27, Tommy wrote:
On Saturday, April 15, 2023 at 11:50:52 AM UTC-7, Alan wrote:Nope. When asked for a single fact that you claim is in dispute, you
On 2023-04-15 10:42, Tommy wrote:
On Wednesday, April 12, 2023 at 10:14:41 PM UTC-7, Alan wrote: >>>>>> On 2023-04-12 21:44, Tommy wrote:Nope. Saying "all of them" when asked for an example of something is >>>> punking out.
On Thursday, April 6, 2023 at 9:15:59 PM UTC-7, Alan wrote: >>>>>>>> On 2023-04-06 21:09, Tommy wrote:That's a cop-out, Sunshine...
On Wednesday, April 5, 2023 at 7:05:13 PM UTC-7, Alan wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On 2023-04-05 16:56, Tommy wrote:Such as?
On Tuesday, April 4, 2023 at 10:36:29 PM UTC-7, Alan wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> On 2023-04-04 22:34, Tommy wrote:You don't understand that a FEDERAL case wouldn't have to have been held
in NY was as likely as seeing Schumer vote for Trump.On Tuesday, April 4, 2023 at 5:03:33 PM UTC-7, Alan wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2023-04-04 17:02, Tommy wrote:So if that's the case, why didn't Trump's DoJ bring charges? >>>>>>>>>>> Who knows? They might have thought getting a conviction of Shrillary
On Friday, March 31, 2023 at 6:17:43 PM UTC-7, Alan wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2023-03-31 18:12, Tommy wrote:
On Thursday, March 30, 2023 at 5:56:56 PM UTC-7, Alan >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
On 2023-03-30 17:47, Tommy wrote:
"In a bombshell court filing late Monday night, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Durham for the first time suggested Hillary Clinton's >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> campaign, her researchers and others formed a "joint >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> venture or conspiracy" for the purpose of weaving the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> collusion story to harm Trump's election chances and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> then the start of his presidency."
https://justthenews.com/accountability/russia-and-ukraine-scandals/durham-bombshell-fbi-text-message-shows-clinton-lawyer
in New York State...
...right?
Yes, Sunshine.Don't you mean the ALLEGED crimes, Fool?
And show me where the statute of limitations on Trump's crimes has
expired, Sunshine.
Alleged crimes.
Although since he doesn't deny making the payments...
...and his co-conspirator was already convicted...
...by his DoJ...
...of the underlying crimes...
...I don't think they'll be "alleged" for long.
:-)
You get that almost no actual facts in the case are in dispute, right?
No, ALL of these "facts" are in dispute. You DO realize that it is the duty of the prosecutor to PROVE these allegations BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT before a jury of his peers (not his persecutors), don't you?
Give an example.
ALL of them, you idiot.
...and even you know it.
It's the FACTS, Fool - and even YOU know it.
The evidence against him are business records
Hey fucker, I gave you the facts - asking for the same thing is an example of denial.
provided not a single actual fact.
Here are the facts, AGAIN! https://justthenews.com/accountability/russia-and-ukraine-scandals/durham-bombshell-fbi-text-message-shows-clinton-lawyerSorry... ...but:
"Jim – it's Michael Sussmann. I have something time-sensitive (and sensitive) I need to discuss," Sussmann texted Baker on Sept. 18, 2016, according to the new court filing. "Do you have availability for a short meeting tomorrow? I'm coming on my own – not on behalf of a client or company – want to help the Bureau. Thanks."
Where's the proof that he was acting on behalf of anyone.
IIRC, he found evidence that suggested computers related to Trump were
in communication with Russia.
Should he have kept that a secret?
And you remember that he was found innocent of having lied to the FBI
about that...
...right, Sunshine?
On Tuesday, April 25, 2023 at 7:14:53 PM UTC-7, Alan wrote:
On 2023-04-25 19:07, Tommy wrote:
On Tuesday, April 25, 2023 at 5:41:37 PM UTC-7, Alan wrote:Sorry... ...but:
On 2023-04-25 17:27, Tommy wrote:
On Saturday, April 15, 2023 at 11:50:52 AM UTC-7, Alan wrote:Nope. When asked for a single fact that you claim is in dispute, you
On 2023-04-15 10:42, Tommy wrote:
On Wednesday, April 12, 2023 at 10:14:41 PM UTC-7, Alan wrote: >>>>>>>> On 2023-04-12 21:44, Tommy wrote:Nope. Saying "all of them" when asked for an example of something is >>>>>> punking out.
On Thursday, April 6, 2023 at 9:15:59 PM UTC-7, Alan wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On 2023-04-06 21:09, Tommy wrote:That's a cop-out, Sunshine...
On Wednesday, April 5, 2023 at 7:05:13 PM UTC-7, Alan wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> On 2023-04-05 16:56, Tommy wrote:Such as?
On Tuesday, April 4, 2023 at 10:36:29 PM UTC-7, Alan wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2023-04-04 22:34, Tommy wrote:in New York State...
in NY was as likely as seeing Schumer vote for Trump. >>>>>>>>>>>> You don't understand that a FEDERAL case wouldn't have to have been heldOn Tuesday, April 4, 2023 at 5:03:33 PM UTC-7, Alan wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2023-04-04 17:02, Tommy wrote:So if that's the case, why didn't Trump's DoJ bring charges? >>>>>>>>>>>>> Who knows? They might have thought getting a conviction of Shrillary
On Friday, March 31, 2023 at 6:17:43 PM UTC-7, Alan wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2023-03-31 18:12, Tommy wrote:
On Thursday, March 30, 2023 at 5:56:56 PM UTC-7, Alan >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
On 2023-03-30 17:47, Tommy wrote:
"In a bombshell court filing late Monday night, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Durham for the first time suggested Hillary Clinton's >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> campaign, her researchers and others formed a "joint >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> venture or conspiracy" for the purpose of weaving the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> collusion story to harm Trump's election chances and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> then the start of his presidency."
https://justthenews.com/accountability/russia-and-ukraine-scandals/durham-bombshell-fbi-text-message-shows-clinton-lawyer
...right?
Yes, Sunshine.Don't you mean the ALLEGED crimes, Fool?
And show me where the statute of limitations on Trump's crimes has
expired, Sunshine.
Alleged crimes.
Although since he doesn't deny making the payments...
...and his co-conspirator was already convicted...
...by his DoJ...
...of the underlying crimes...
...I don't think they'll be "alleged" for long.
:-)
You get that almost no actual facts in the case are in dispute, right?
No, ALL of these "facts" are in dispute. You DO realize that it is the duty of the prosecutor to PROVE these allegations BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT before a jury of his peers (not his persecutors), don't you?
Give an example.
ALL of them, you idiot.
...and even you know it.
It's the FACTS, Fool - and even YOU know it.
The evidence against him are business records
Hey fucker, I gave you the facts - asking for the same thing is an example of denial.
provided not a single actual fact.
Here are the facts, AGAIN!
https://justthenews.com/accountability/russia-and-ukraine-scandals/durham-bombshell-fbi-text-message-shows-clinton-lawyer
"Jim – it's Michael Sussmann. I have something time-sensitive (and
sensitive) I need to discuss," Sussmann texted Baker on Sept. 18, 2016,
according to the new court filing. "Do you have availability for a short
meeting tomorrow? I'm coming on my own – not on behalf of a client or
company – want to help the Bureau. Thanks."
Where's the proof that he was acting on behalf of anyone.
IIRC, he found evidence that suggested computers related to Trump were
in communication with Russia.
Should he have kept that a secret?
And you remember that he was found innocent of having lied to the FBI
about that...
...right, Sunshine?
You're joking, right? The evidence is in plain sight: https://justthenews.com/sites/default/files/2022-04/04519147331.pdf
On 2023-04-25 19:26, Tommy wrote:
On Tuesday, April 25, 2023 at 7:14:53 PM UTC-7, Alan wrote:
On 2023-04-25 19:07, Tommy wrote:
On Tuesday, April 25, 2023 at 5:41:37 PM UTC-7, Alan wrote:Sorry... ...but:
On 2023-04-25 17:27, Tommy wrote:
On Saturday, April 15, 2023 at 11:50:52 AM UTC-7, Alan wrote:Nope. When asked for a single fact that you claim is in dispute, you >>>> provided not a single actual fact.
On 2023-04-15 10:42, Tommy wrote:
On Wednesday, April 12, 2023 at 10:14:41 PM UTC-7, Alan wrote: >>>>>>>> On 2023-04-12 21:44, Tommy wrote:Nope. Saying "all of them" when asked for an example of something is >>>>>> punking out.
On Thursday, April 6, 2023 at 9:15:59 PM UTC-7, Alan wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On 2023-04-06 21:09, Tommy wrote:That's a cop-out, Sunshine...
On Wednesday, April 5, 2023 at 7:05:13 PM UTC-7, Alan wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> On 2023-04-05 16:56, Tommy wrote:Such as?
On Tuesday, April 4, 2023 at 10:36:29 PM UTC-7, Alan wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2023-04-04 22:34, Tommy wrote:in New York State...
in NY was as likely as seeing Schumer vote for Trump. >>>>>>>>>>>> You don't understand that a FEDERAL case wouldn't have to have been heldOn Tuesday, April 4, 2023 at 5:03:33 PM UTC-7, Alan wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2023-04-04 17:02, Tommy wrote:So if that's the case, why didn't Trump's DoJ bring charges? >>>>>>>>>>>>> Who knows? They might have thought getting a conviction of Shrillary
On Friday, March 31, 2023 at 6:17:43 PM UTC-7, Alan wrote:
On 2023-03-31 18:12, Tommy wrote:
On Thursday, March 30, 2023 at 5:56:56 PM UTC-7, Alan >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
On 2023-03-30 17:47, Tommy wrote:
"In a bombshell court filing late Monday night, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Durham for the first time suggested Hillary Clinton's >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> campaign, her researchers and others formed a "joint >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> venture or conspiracy" for the purpose of weaving the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> collusion story to harm Trump's election chances and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> then the start of his presidency." >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
https://justthenews.com/accountability/russia-and-ukraine-scandals/durham-bombshell-fbi-text-message-shows-clinton-lawyer
...right?
Yes, Sunshine.Don't you mean the ALLEGED crimes, Fool?
And show me where the statute of limitations on Trump's crimes has
expired, Sunshine.
Alleged crimes.
Although since he doesn't deny making the payments... >>>>>>>>>>>>
...and his co-conspirator was already convicted...
...by his DoJ...
...of the underlying crimes...
...I don't think they'll be "alleged" for long.
:-)
You get that almost no actual facts in the case are in dispute, right?
No, ALL of these "facts" are in dispute. You DO realize that it is the duty of the prosecutor to PROVE these allegations BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT before a jury of his peers (not his persecutors), don't you?
Give an example.
ALL of them, you idiot.
...and even you know it.
It's the FACTS, Fool - and even YOU know it.
The evidence against him are business records
Hey fucker, I gave you the facts - asking for the same thing is an example of denial.
Here are the facts, AGAIN!
https://justthenews.com/accountability/russia-and-ukraine-scandals/durham-bombshell-fbi-text-message-shows-clinton-lawyer
"Jim – it's Michael Sussmann. I have something time-sensitive (and
sensitive) I need to discuss," Sussmann texted Baker on Sept. 18, 2016, >> according to the new court filing. "Do you have availability for a short >> meeting tomorrow? I'm coming on my own – not on behalf of a client or >> company – want to help the Bureau. Thanks."
Where's the proof that he was acting on behalf of anyone.
IIRC, he found evidence that suggested computers related to Trump were
in communication with Russia.
Should he have kept that a secret?
And you remember that he was found innocent of having lied to the FBI
about that...
...right, Sunshine?
You're joking, right? The evidence is in plain sight: https://justthenews.com/sites/default/files/2022-04/04519147331.pdfSorry, Sunshine... ...but providing an entire 48 page document without quoting anything is just another dodge.
What evidence are you referring to?
Sussman was found innocent of having lied, Sunshine.
That is a fact.
On Wednesday, April 26, 2023 at 12:47:25 AM UTC-7, Alan wrote:
On 2023-04-25 19:26, Tommy wrote:
On Tuesday, April 25, 2023 at 7:14:53 PM UTC-7, Alan wrote:Sorry, Sunshine... ...but providing an entire 48 page document without
On 2023-04-25 19:07, Tommy wrote:
On Tuesday, April 25, 2023 at 5:41:37 PM UTC-7, Alan wrote:Sorry... ...but:
On 2023-04-25 17:27, Tommy wrote:
On Saturday, April 15, 2023 at 11:50:52 AM UTC-7, Alan wrote: >>>>>>>> On 2023-04-15 10:42, Tommy wrote:Nope. When asked for a single fact that you claim is in dispute, you >>>>>> provided not a single actual fact.
On Wednesday, April 12, 2023 at 10:14:41 PM UTC-7, Alan wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On 2023-04-12 21:44, Tommy wrote:Nope. Saying "all of them" when asked for an example of something is >>>>>>>> punking out.
On Thursday, April 6, 2023 at 9:15:59 PM UTC-7, Alan wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> On 2023-04-06 21:09, Tommy wrote:That's a cop-out, Sunshine...
On Wednesday, April 5, 2023 at 7:05:13 PM UTC-7, Alan wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2023-04-05 16:56, Tommy wrote:Such as?
On Tuesday, April 4, 2023 at 10:36:29 PM UTC-7, Alan wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2023-04-04 22:34, Tommy wrote:in New York State...
in NY was as likely as seeing Schumer vote for Trump. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> You don't understand that a FEDERAL case wouldn't have to have been heldOn Tuesday, April 4, 2023 at 5:03:33 PM UTC-7, Alan wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2023-04-04 17:02, Tommy wrote:So if that's the case, why didn't Trump's DoJ bring charges? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Who knows? They might have thought getting a conviction of Shrillary
On Friday, March 31, 2023 at 6:17:43 PM UTC-7, Alan wrote:
On 2023-03-31 18:12, Tommy wrote:
On Thursday, March 30, 2023 at 5:56:56 PM UTC-7, Alan >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
On 2023-03-30 17:47, Tommy wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "In a bombshell court filing late Monday night, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Durham for the first time suggested Hillary Clinton's >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> campaign, her researchers and others formed a "joint >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> venture or conspiracy" for the purpose of weaving the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> collusion story to harm Trump's election chances and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> then the start of his presidency." >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
https://justthenews.com/accountability/russia-and-ukraine-scandals/durham-bombshell-fbi-text-message-shows-clinton-lawyer
...right?
Yes, Sunshine.Don't you mean the ALLEGED crimes, Fool?
And show me where the statute of limitations on Trump's crimes has
expired, Sunshine.
Alleged crimes.
Although since he doesn't deny making the payments... >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
...and his co-conspirator was already convicted... >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
...by his DoJ...
...of the underlying crimes...
...I don't think they'll be "alleged" for long.
:-)
You get that almost no actual facts in the case are in dispute, right?
No, ALL of these "facts" are in dispute. You DO realize that it is the duty of the prosecutor to PROVE these allegations BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT before a jury of his peers (not his persecutors), don't you?
Give an example.
ALL of them, you idiot.
...and even you know it.
It's the FACTS, Fool - and even YOU know it.
The evidence against him are business records
Hey fucker, I gave you the facts - asking for the same thing is an example of denial.
Here are the facts, AGAIN!
https://justthenews.com/accountability/russia-and-ukraine-scandals/durham-bombshell-fbi-text-message-shows-clinton-lawyer
"Jim – it's Michael Sussmann. I have something time-sensitive (and
sensitive) I need to discuss," Sussmann texted Baker on Sept. 18, 2016, >>>> according to the new court filing. "Do you have availability for a short >>>> meeting tomorrow? I'm coming on my own – not on behalf of a client or >>>> company – want to help the Bureau. Thanks."
Where's the proof that he was acting on behalf of anyone.
IIRC, he found evidence that suggested computers related to Trump were >>>> in communication with Russia.
Should he have kept that a secret?
And you remember that he was found innocent of having lied to the FBI
about that...
...right, Sunshine?
You're joking, right? The evidence is in plain sight:
https://justthenews.com/sites/default/files/2022-04/04519147331.pdf
quoting anything is just another dodge.
What evidence are you referring to?
Sussman was found innocent of having lied, Sunshine.
That is a fact.
You ASKED for the facts and I GAVE you the facts, Fool. That entire document PROVES that Sussman was acting for Shrillary.
On 2023-04-27 17:38, Tommy wrote:
On Wednesday, April 26, 2023 at 12:47:25 AM UTC-7, Alan wrote:
On 2023-04-25 19:26, Tommy wrote:
On Tuesday, April 25, 2023 at 7:14:53 PM UTC-7, Alan wrote:Sorry, Sunshine... ...but providing an entire 48 page document without
On 2023-04-25 19:07, Tommy wrote:
On Tuesday, April 25, 2023 at 5:41:37 PM UTC-7, Alan wrote:Sorry... ...but:
On 2023-04-25 17:27, Tommy wrote:
On Saturday, April 15, 2023 at 11:50:52 AM UTC-7, Alan wrote: >>>>>>>> On 2023-04-15 10:42, Tommy wrote:Nope. When asked for a single fact that you claim is in dispute, you >>>>>> provided not a single actual fact.
On Wednesday, April 12, 2023 at 10:14:41 PM UTC-7, Alan wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On 2023-04-12 21:44, Tommy wrote:Nope. Saying "all of them" when asked for an example of something is
On Thursday, April 6, 2023 at 9:15:59 PM UTC-7, Alan wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> On 2023-04-06 21:09, Tommy wrote:That's a cop-out, Sunshine...
On Wednesday, April 5, 2023 at 7:05:13 PM UTC-7, Alan wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2023-04-05 16:56, Tommy wrote:Such as?
On Tuesday, April 4, 2023 at 10:36:29 PM UTC-7, Alan wrote:in New York State...
On 2023-04-04 22:34, Tommy wrote:Who knows? They might have thought getting a conviction of Shrillary
On Tuesday, April 4, 2023 at 5:03:33 PM UTC-7, Alan wrote:So if that's the case, why didn't Trump's DoJ bring charges?
On 2023-04-04 17:02, Tommy wrote:
On Friday, March 31, 2023 at 6:17:43 PM UTC-7, Alan wrote:
On 2023-03-31 18:12, Tommy wrote:
On Thursday, March 30, 2023 at 5:56:56 PM UTC-7, Alan
wrote:
On 2023-03-30 17:47, Tommy wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "In a bombshell court filing late Monday night, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Durham for the first time suggested Hillary Clinton's
campaign, her researchers and others formed a "joint >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> venture or conspiracy" for the purpose of weaving the
collusion story to harm Trump's election chances and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> then the start of his presidency." >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
https://justthenews.com/accountability/russia-and-ukraine-scandals/durham-bombshell-fbi-text-message-shows-clinton-lawyer
in NY was as likely as seeing Schumer vote for Trump. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> You don't understand that a FEDERAL case wouldn't have to have been held
...right?
Yes, Sunshine.Don't you mean the ALLEGED crimes, Fool?
And show me where the statute of limitations on Trump's crimes has
expired, Sunshine.
Alleged crimes.
Although since he doesn't deny making the payments... >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
...and his co-conspirator was already convicted... >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
...by his DoJ...
...of the underlying crimes...
...I don't think they'll be "alleged" for long. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
:-)
You get that almost no actual facts in the case are in dispute, right?
No, ALL of these "facts" are in dispute. You DO realize that it is the duty of the prosecutor to PROVE these allegations BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT before a jury of his peers (not his persecutors), don't you?
Give an example.
ALL of them, you idiot.
...and even you know it.
It's the FACTS, Fool - and even YOU know it.
punking out.
The evidence against him are business records
Hey fucker, I gave you the facts - asking for the same thing is an example of denial.
Here are the facts, AGAIN!
https://justthenews.com/accountability/russia-and-ukraine-scandals/durham-bombshell-fbi-text-message-shows-clinton-lawyer
"Jim – it's Michael Sussmann. I have something time-sensitive (and >>>> sensitive) I need to discuss," Sussmann texted Baker on Sept. 18, 2016, >>>> according to the new court filing. "Do you have availability for a short
meeting tomorrow? I'm coming on my own – not on behalf of a client or >>>> company – want to help the Bureau. Thanks."
Where's the proof that he was acting on behalf of anyone.
IIRC, he found evidence that suggested computers related to Trump were >>>> in communication with Russia.
Should he have kept that a secret?
And you remember that he was found innocent of having lied to the FBI >>>> about that...
...right, Sunshine?
You're joking, right? The evidence is in plain sight:
https://justthenews.com/sites/default/files/2022-04/04519147331.pdf
quoting anything is just another dodge.
What evidence are you referring to?
Sussman was found innocent of having lied, Sunshine.
That is a fact.
You ASKED for the facts and I GAVE you the facts, Fool. That entire document PROVES that Sussman was acting for Shrillary.And yet you cannot quote a single passage that makes that point...
...and you continue to ignore that he was found innocent of lying to the
FBI about who he was working for when he spoke to them.
'Michael Sussmann found not guilty of charge brought by Special
Prosecutor John Durham
WASHINGTON – The jury on Tuesday found Michael Sussmann not guilty of making a false statement to the FBI in September 2016 when he said he
was not working on behalf of any client, when he brought information alleging a covert communications channel between the Trump Organization
and Russia’s Alfa Bank. '
<https://www.foxnews.com/politics/michael-sussmann-not-guilty-special-prosecutor-john-durham>
On Friday, April 28, 2023 at 9:38:03 PM UTC-7, Alan wrote:
On 2023-04-27 17:38, Tommy wrote:
On Wednesday, April 26, 2023 at 12:47:25 AM UTC-7, Alan wrote:And yet you cannot quote a single passage that makes that point...
On 2023-04-25 19:26, Tommy wrote:
On Tuesday, April 25, 2023 at 7:14:53 PM UTC-7, Alan wrote:Sorry, Sunshine... ...but providing an entire 48 page document without >>>> quoting anything is just another dodge.
On 2023-04-25 19:07, Tommy wrote:
On Tuesday, April 25, 2023 at 5:41:37 PM UTC-7, Alan wrote:Sorry... ...but:
On 2023-04-25 17:27, Tommy wrote:
On Saturday, April 15, 2023 at 11:50:52 AM UTC-7, Alan wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On 2023-04-15 10:42, Tommy wrote:Nope. When asked for a single fact that you claim is in dispute, you >>>>>>>> provided not a single actual fact.
On Wednesday, April 12, 2023 at 10:14:41 PM UTC-7, Alan wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> On 2023-04-12 21:44, Tommy wrote:Nope. Saying "all of them" when asked for an example of something is >>>>>>>>>> punking out.
On Thursday, April 6, 2023 at 9:15:59 PM UTC-7, Alan wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2023-04-06 21:09, Tommy wrote:That's a cop-out, Sunshine...
On Wednesday, April 5, 2023 at 7:05:13 PM UTC-7, Alan wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2023-04-05 16:56, Tommy wrote:Such as?
On Tuesday, April 4, 2023 at 10:36:29 PM UTC-7, Alan wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2023-04-04 22:34, Tommy wrote:in New York State...
in NY was as likely as seeing Schumer vote for Trump. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You don't understand that a FEDERAL case wouldn't have to have been heldOn Tuesday, April 4, 2023 at 5:03:33 PM UTC-7, Alan wrote:So if that's the case, why didn't Trump's DoJ bring charges? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Who knows? They might have thought getting a conviction of Shrillary
On 2023-04-04 17:02, Tommy wrote:
On Friday, March 31, 2023 at 6:17:43 PM UTC-7, Alan wrote:
On 2023-03-31 18:12, Tommy wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thursday, March 30, 2023 at 5:56:56 PM UTC-7, Alan >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
On 2023-03-30 17:47, Tommy wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "In a bombshell court filing late Monday night, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Durham for the first time suggested Hillary Clinton's >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> campaign, her researchers and others formed a "joint >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> venture or conspiracy" for the purpose of weaving the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> collusion story to harm Trump's election chances and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> then the start of his presidency." >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
https://justthenews.com/accountability/russia-and-ukraine-scandals/durham-bombshell-fbi-text-message-shows-clinton-lawyer
...right?
Yes, Sunshine.Don't you mean the ALLEGED crimes, Fool?
And show me where the statute of limitations on Trump's crimes has
expired, Sunshine.
Alleged crimes.
Although since he doesn't deny making the payments... >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
...and his co-conspirator was already convicted... >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
...by his DoJ...
...of the underlying crimes...
...I don't think they'll be "alleged" for long. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
:-)
You get that almost no actual facts in the case are in dispute, right?
No, ALL of these "facts" are in dispute. You DO realize that it is the duty of the prosecutor to PROVE these allegations BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT before a jury of his peers (not his persecutors), don't you?
Give an example.
ALL of them, you idiot.
...and even you know it.
It's the FACTS, Fool - and even YOU know it.
The evidence against him are business records
Hey fucker, I gave you the facts - asking for the same thing is an example of denial.
Here are the facts, AGAIN!
https://justthenews.com/accountability/russia-and-ukraine-scandals/durham-bombshell-fbi-text-message-shows-clinton-lawyer
"Jim – it's Michael Sussmann. I have something time-sensitive (and >>>>>> sensitive) I need to discuss," Sussmann texted Baker on Sept. 18, 2016, >>>>>> according to the new court filing. "Do you have availability for a short >>>>>> meeting tomorrow? I'm coming on my own – not on behalf of a client or >>>>>> company – want to help the Bureau. Thanks."
Where's the proof that he was acting on behalf of anyone.
IIRC, he found evidence that suggested computers related to Trump were >>>>>> in communication with Russia.
Should he have kept that a secret?
And you remember that he was found innocent of having lied to the FBI >>>>>> about that...
...right, Sunshine?
You're joking, right? The evidence is in plain sight:
https://justthenews.com/sites/default/files/2022-04/04519147331.pdf
What evidence are you referring to?
Sussman was found innocent of having lied, Sunshine.
That is a fact.
You ASKED for the facts and I GAVE you the facts, Fool. That entire document PROVES that Sussman was acting for Shrillary.
...and you continue to ignore that he was found innocent of lying to the
FBI about who he was working for when he spoke to them.
'Michael Sussmann found not guilty of charge brought by Special
Prosecutor John Durham
WASHINGTON – The jury on Tuesday found Michael Sussmann not guilty of
making a false statement to the FBI in September 2016 when he said he
was not working on behalf of any client, when he brought information
alleging a covert communications channel between the Trump Organization
and Russia’s Alfa Bank. '
<https://www.foxnews.com/politics/michael-sussmann-not-guilty-special-prosecutor-john-durham>
There are FORTY EIGHT PAGES that make my point, Fool!
On 2023-04-30 17:07, Tommy wrote:
On Friday, April 28, 2023 at 9:38:03 PM UTC-7, Alan wrote:
On 2023-04-27 17:38, Tommy wrote:
On Wednesday, April 26, 2023 at 12:47:25 AM UTC-7, Alan wrote:And yet you cannot quote a single passage that makes that point...
On 2023-04-25 19:26, Tommy wrote:
On Tuesday, April 25, 2023 at 7:14:53 PM UTC-7, Alan wrote:
On 2023-04-25 19:07, Tommy wrote:
On Tuesday, April 25, 2023 at 5:41:37 PM UTC-7, Alan wrote: >>>>>>>> On 2023-04-25 17:27, Tommy wrote:Sorry... ...but:
On Saturday, April 15, 2023 at 11:50:52 AM UTC-7, Alan wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On 2023-04-15 10:42, Tommy wrote:Nope. When asked for a single fact that you claim is in dispute, you
On Wednesday, April 12, 2023 at 10:14:41 PM UTC-7, Alan wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> On 2023-04-12 21:44, Tommy wrote:Nope. Saying "all of them" when asked for an example of something is
On Thursday, April 6, 2023 at 9:15:59 PM UTC-7, Alan wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2023-04-06 21:09, Tommy wrote:That's a cop-out, Sunshine...
On Wednesday, April 5, 2023 at 7:05:13 PM UTC-7, Alan wrote:Such as?
On 2023-04-05 16:56, Tommy wrote:
On Tuesday, April 4, 2023 at 10:36:29 PM UTC-7, Alan wrote:in New York State...
On 2023-04-04 22:34, Tommy wrote:Who knows? They might have thought getting a conviction of Shrillary
On Tuesday, April 4, 2023 at 5:03:33 PM UTC-7, Alan wrote:So if that's the case, why didn't Trump's DoJ bring charges?
On 2023-04-04 17:02, Tommy wrote:
On Friday, March 31, 2023 at 6:17:43 PM UTC-7, Alan wrote:
On 2023-03-31 18:12, Tommy wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thursday, March 30, 2023 at 5:56:56 PM UTC-7, Alan
wrote:
On 2023-03-30 17:47, Tommy wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "In a bombshell court filing late Monday night, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Durham for the first time suggested Hillary Clinton's
campaign, her researchers and others formed a "joint
venture or conspiracy" for the purpose of weaving the
collusion story to harm Trump's election chances and
then the start of his presidency." >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
https://justthenews.com/accountability/russia-and-ukraine-scandals/durham-bombshell-fbi-text-message-shows-clinton-lawyer
in NY was as likely as seeing Schumer vote for Trump. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You don't understand that a FEDERAL case wouldn't have to have been held
...right?
Yes, Sunshine.Don't you mean the ALLEGED crimes, Fool?
And show me where the statute of limitations on Trump's crimes has
expired, Sunshine.
Alleged crimes.
Although since he doesn't deny making the payments... >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
...and his co-conspirator was already convicted... >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
...by his DoJ...
...of the underlying crimes...
...I don't think they'll be "alleged" for long. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
:-)
You get that almost no actual facts in the case are in dispute, right?
No, ALL of these "facts" are in dispute. You DO realize that it is the duty of the prosecutor to PROVE these allegations BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT before a jury of his peers (not his persecutors), don't you?
Give an example.
ALL of them, you idiot.
...and even you know it.
It's the FACTS, Fool - and even YOU know it.
punking out.
The evidence against him are business records
Hey fucker, I gave you the facts - asking for the same thing is an example of denial.
provided not a single actual fact.
Here are the facts, AGAIN!
https://justthenews.com/accountability/russia-and-ukraine-scandals/durham-bombshell-fbi-text-message-shows-clinton-lawyer
"Jim – it's Michael Sussmann. I have something time-sensitive (and >>>>>> sensitive) I need to discuss," Sussmann texted Baker on Sept. 18, 2016,
according to the new court filing. "Do you have availability for a short
meeting tomorrow? I'm coming on my own – not on behalf of a client or
company – want to help the Bureau. Thanks."
Where's the proof that he was acting on behalf of anyone.
IIRC, he found evidence that suggested computers related to Trump were
in communication with Russia.
Should he have kept that a secret?
And you remember that he was found innocent of having lied to the FBI >>>>>> about that...
...right, Sunshine?
You're joking, right? The evidence is in plain sight:
https://justthenews.com/sites/default/files/2022-04/04519147331.pdf >>>> Sorry, Sunshine... ...but providing an entire 48 page document without >>>> quoting anything is just another dodge.
What evidence are you referring to?
Sussman was found innocent of having lied, Sunshine.
That is a fact.
You ASKED for the facts and I GAVE you the facts, Fool. That entire document PROVES that Sussman was acting for Shrillary.
...and you continue to ignore that he was found innocent of lying to the >> FBI about who he was working for when he spoke to them.
'Michael Sussmann found not guilty of charge brought by Special
Prosecutor John Durham
WASHINGTON – The jury on Tuesday found Michael Sussmann not guilty of >> making a false statement to the FBI in September 2016 when he said he
was not working on behalf of any client, when he brought information
alleging a covert communications channel between the Trump Organization >> and Russia’s Alfa Bank. '
<https://www.foxnews.com/politics/michael-sussmann-not-guilty-special-prosecutor-john-durham>
There are FORTY EIGHT PAGES that make my point, Fool!And yet you cannot post a single sentence.
Got it.
You get that he was found not guilty, right?
On Sunday, April 30, 2023 at 6:20:58 PM UTC-7, Alan wrote:
On 2023-04-30 17:07, Tommy wrote:
On Friday, April 28, 2023 at 9:38:03 PM UTC-7, Alan wrote:
On 2023-04-27 17:38, Tommy wrote:
On Wednesday, April 26, 2023 at 12:47:25 AM UTC-7, Alan wrote:And yet you cannot quote a single passage that makes that point...
On 2023-04-25 19:26, Tommy wrote:
On Tuesday, April 25, 2023 at 7:14:53 PM UTC-7, Alan wrote:quoting anything is just another dodge.
On 2023-04-25 19:07, Tommy wrote:
On Tuesday, April 25, 2023 at 5:41:37 PM UTC-7, Alan wrote: >>>>>>>> On 2023-04-25 17:27, Tommy wrote:Sorry... ...but:
On Saturday, April 15, 2023 at 11:50:52 AM UTC-7, Alan wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On 2023-04-15 10:42, Tommy wrote:Nope. When asked for a single fact that you claim is in dispute, you
On Wednesday, April 12, 2023 at 10:14:41 PM UTC-7, Alan wrote:Nope. Saying "all of them" when asked for an example of something is
On 2023-04-12 21:44, Tommy wrote:
On Thursday, April 6, 2023 at 9:15:59 PM UTC-7, Alan wrote:That's a cop-out, Sunshine...
On 2023-04-06 21:09, Tommy wrote:
On Wednesday, April 5, 2023 at 7:05:13 PM UTC-7, Alan wrote:Such as?
On 2023-04-05 16:56, Tommy wrote:
On Tuesday, April 4, 2023 at 10:36:29 PM UTC-7, Alan wrote:in New York State...
On 2023-04-04 22:34, Tommy wrote:Who knows? They might have thought getting a conviction of Shrillary
On Tuesday, April 4, 2023 at 5:03:33 PM UTC-7, Alan wrote:So if that's the case, why didn't Trump's DoJ bring charges?
On 2023-04-04 17:02, Tommy wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Friday, March 31, 2023 at 6:17:43 PM UTC-7, Alan wrote:
On 2023-03-31 18:12, Tommy wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thursday, March 30, 2023 at 5:56:56 PM UTC-7, Alan
wrote:
On 2023-03-30 17:47, Tommy wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "In a bombshell court filing late Monday night, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Durham for the first time suggested Hillary Clinton's
campaign, her researchers and others formed a "joint
venture or conspiracy" for the purpose of weaving the
collusion story to harm Trump's election chances and
then the start of his presidency." >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
https://justthenews.com/accountability/russia-and-ukraine-scandals/durham-bombshell-fbi-text-message-shows-clinton-lawyer
in NY was as likely as seeing Schumer vote for Trump. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You don't understand that a FEDERAL case wouldn't have to have been held
...right?
Don't you mean the ALLEGED crimes, Fool? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes, Sunshine.
And show me where the statute of limitations on Trump's crimes has
expired, Sunshine.
Alleged crimes.
Although since he doesn't deny making the payments... >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
...and his co-conspirator was already convicted... >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
...by his DoJ...
...of the underlying crimes...
...I don't think they'll be "alleged" for long. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
:-)
You get that almost no actual facts in the case are in dispute, right?
No, ALL of these "facts" are in dispute. You DO realize that it is the duty of the prosecutor to PROVE these allegations BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT before a jury of his peers (not his persecutors), don't you?
Give an example.
ALL of them, you idiot.
...and even you know it.
It's the FACTS, Fool - and even YOU know it.
punking out.
The evidence against him are business records
Hey fucker, I gave you the facts - asking for the same thing is an example of denial.
provided not a single actual fact.
Here are the facts, AGAIN!
https://justthenews.com/accountability/russia-and-ukraine-scandals/durham-bombshell-fbi-text-message-shows-clinton-lawyer
"Jim – it's Michael Sussmann. I have something time-sensitive (and
sensitive) I need to discuss," Sussmann texted Baker on Sept. 18, 2016,
according to the new court filing. "Do you have availability for a short
meeting tomorrow? I'm coming on my own – not on behalf of a client or
company – want to help the Bureau. Thanks."
Where's the proof that he was acting on behalf of anyone.
IIRC, he found evidence that suggested computers related to Trump were
in communication with Russia.
Should he have kept that a secret?
And you remember that he was found innocent of having lied to the FBI
about that...
...right, Sunshine?
You're joking, right? The evidence is in plain sight:
https://justthenews.com/sites/default/files/2022-04/04519147331.pdf >>>> Sorry, Sunshine... ...but providing an entire 48 page document without
What evidence are you referring to?
Sussman was found innocent of having lied, Sunshine.
That is a fact.
You ASKED for the facts and I GAVE you the facts, Fool. That entire document PROVES that Sussman was acting for Shrillary.
...and you continue to ignore that he was found innocent of lying to the
FBI about who he was working for when he spoke to them.
'Michael Sussmann found not guilty of charge brought by Special
Prosecutor John Durham
WASHINGTON – The jury on Tuesday found Michael Sussmann not guilty of >> making a false statement to the FBI in September 2016 when he said he >> was not working on behalf of any client, when he brought information
alleging a covert communications channel between the Trump Organization >> and Russia’s Alfa Bank. '
<https://www.foxnews.com/politics/michael-sussmann-not-guilty-special-prosecutor-john-durham>
There are FORTY EIGHT PAGES that make my point, Fool!And yet you cannot post a single sentence.
Got it.
You get that he was found not guilty, right?I posted FORTY EIGHT PAGES, Fool - how much MORE do you need???????
On Sunday, April 30, 2023 at 6:20:58 PM UTC-7, Alan wrote:
On 2023-04-30 17:07, Tommy wrote:
On Friday, April 28, 2023 at 9:38:03 PM UTC-7, Alan wrote:And yet you cannot post a single sentence.
On 2023-04-27 17:38, Tommy wrote:
On Wednesday, April 26, 2023 at 12:47:25 AM UTC-7, Alan wrote:And yet you cannot quote a single passage that makes that point...
On 2023-04-25 19:26, Tommy wrote:
On Tuesday, April 25, 2023 at 7:14:53 PM UTC-7, Alan wrote:
On 2023-04-25 19:07, Tommy wrote:
On Tuesday, April 25, 2023 at 5:41:37 PM UTC-7, Alan wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On 2023-04-25 17:27, Tommy wrote:Sorry... ...but:
On Saturday, April 15, 2023 at 11:50:52 AM UTC-7, Alan wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> On 2023-04-15 10:42, Tommy wrote:Nope. When asked for a single fact that you claim is in dispute, you >>>>>>>>>> provided not a single actual fact.
On Wednesday, April 12, 2023 at 10:14:41 PM UTC-7, Alan wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2023-04-12 21:44, Tommy wrote:Nope. Saying "all of them" when asked for an example of something is
On Thursday, April 6, 2023 at 9:15:59 PM UTC-7, Alan wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2023-04-06 21:09, Tommy wrote:That's a cop-out, Sunshine...
On Wednesday, April 5, 2023 at 7:05:13 PM UTC-7, Alan wrote:Such as?
On 2023-04-05 16:56, Tommy wrote:
On Tuesday, April 4, 2023 at 10:36:29 PM UTC-7, Alan wrote:in New York State...
On 2023-04-04 22:34, Tommy wrote:Who knows? They might have thought getting a conviction of Shrillary
On Tuesday, April 4, 2023 at 5:03:33 PM UTC-7, Alan wrote:So if that's the case, why didn't Trump's DoJ bring charges?
On 2023-04-04 17:02, Tommy wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Friday, March 31, 2023 at 6:17:43 PM UTC-7, Alan wrote:
On 2023-03-31 18:12, Tommy wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thursday, March 30, 2023 at 5:56:56 PM UTC-7, Alan
wrote:
On 2023-03-30 17:47, Tommy wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "In a bombshell court filing late Monday night, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Durham for the first time suggested Hillary Clinton's
campaign, her researchers and others formed a "joint
venture or conspiracy" for the purpose of weaving the
collusion story to harm Trump's election chances and
then the start of his presidency." >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
https://justthenews.com/accountability/russia-and-ukraine-scandals/durham-bombshell-fbi-text-message-shows-clinton-lawyer
in NY was as likely as seeing Schumer vote for Trump. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You don't understand that a FEDERAL case wouldn't have to have been held
...right?
Yes, Sunshine.Don't you mean the ALLEGED crimes, Fool?
And show me where the statute of limitations on Trump's crimes has
expired, Sunshine.
Alleged crimes.
Although since he doesn't deny making the payments... >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
...and his co-conspirator was already convicted... >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
...by his DoJ...
...of the underlying crimes...
...I don't think they'll be "alleged" for long. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
:-)
You get that almost no actual facts in the case are in dispute, right?
No, ALL of these "facts" are in dispute. You DO realize that it is the duty of the prosecutor to PROVE these allegations BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT before a jury of his peers (not his persecutors), don't you?
Give an example.
ALL of them, you idiot.
...and even you know it.
It's the FACTS, Fool - and even YOU know it.
punking out.
The evidence against him are business records
Hey fucker, I gave you the facts - asking for the same thing is an example of denial.
Here are the facts, AGAIN!
https://justthenews.com/accountability/russia-and-ukraine-scandals/durham-bombshell-fbi-text-message-shows-clinton-lawyer
"Jim – it's Michael Sussmann. I have something time-sensitive (and >>>>>>>> sensitive) I need to discuss," Sussmann texted Baker on Sept. 18, 2016,
according to the new court filing. "Do you have availability for a short
meeting tomorrow? I'm coming on my own – not on behalf of a client or
company – want to help the Bureau. Thanks."
Where's the proof that he was acting on behalf of anyone.
IIRC, he found evidence that suggested computers related to Trump were >>>>>>>> in communication with Russia.
Should he have kept that a secret?
And you remember that he was found innocent of having lied to the FBI >>>>>>>> about that...
...right, Sunshine?
You're joking, right? The evidence is in plain sight:
https://justthenews.com/sites/default/files/2022-04/04519147331.pdf >>>>>> Sorry, Sunshine... ...but providing an entire 48 page document without >>>>>> quoting anything is just another dodge.
What evidence are you referring to?
Sussman was found innocent of having lied, Sunshine.
That is a fact.
You ASKED for the facts and I GAVE you the facts, Fool. That entire document PROVES that Sussman was acting for Shrillary.
...and you continue to ignore that he was found innocent of lying to the >>>> FBI about who he was working for when he spoke to them.
'Michael Sussmann found not guilty of charge brought by Special
Prosecutor John Durham
WASHINGTON – The jury on Tuesday found Michael Sussmann not guilty of >>>> making a false statement to the FBI in September 2016 when he said he
was not working on behalf of any client, when he brought information
alleging a covert communications channel between the Trump Organization >>>> and Russia’s Alfa Bank. '
<https://www.foxnews.com/politics/michael-sussmann-not-guilty-special-prosecutor-john-durham>
There are FORTY EIGHT PAGES that make my point, Fool!
Got it.
You get that he was found not guilty, right?
I posted FORTY EIGHT PAGES, Fool - how much MORE do you need???????
On Sunday, April 30, 2023 at 6:23:38 PM UTC-7, Tommy wrote:
On Sunday, April 30, 2023 at 6:20:58 PM UTC-7, Alan wrote:
On 2023-04-30 17:07, Tommy wrote:I posted FORTY EIGHT PAGES, Fool - how much MORE do you need???????
On Friday, April 28, 2023 at 9:38:03 PM UTC-7, Alan wrote:And yet you cannot post a single sentence.
On 2023-04-27 17:38, Tommy wrote:
On Wednesday, April 26, 2023 at 12:47:25 AM UTC-7, Alan wrote:And yet you cannot quote a single passage that makes that point...
On 2023-04-25 19:26, Tommy wrote:
On Tuesday, April 25, 2023 at 7:14:53 PM UTC-7, Alan wrote: >>>>>>>>> On 2023-04-25 19:07, Tommy wrote:
On Tuesday, April 25, 2023 at 5:41:37 PM UTC-7, Alan wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> On 2023-04-25 17:27, Tommy wrote:Sorry... ...but:
On Saturday, April 15, 2023 at 11:50:52 AM UTC-7, Alan wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2023-04-15 10:42, Tommy wrote:Nope. When asked for a single fact that you claim is in dispute, you
On Wednesday, April 12, 2023 at 10:14:41 PM UTC-7, Alan wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2023-04-12 21:44, Tommy wrote:Nope. Saying "all of them" when asked for an example of something is
On Thursday, April 6, 2023 at 9:15:59 PM UTC-7, Alan wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2023-04-06 21:09, Tommy wrote:That's a cop-out, Sunshine...
On Wednesday, April 5, 2023 at 7:05:13 PM UTC-7, Alan wrote:Such as?
On 2023-04-05 16:56, Tommy wrote:
On Tuesday, April 4, 2023 at 10:36:29 PM UTC-7, Alan wrote:in New York State...
On 2023-04-04 22:34, Tommy wrote:Who knows? They might have thought getting a conviction of Shrillary
On Tuesday, April 4, 2023 at 5:03:33 PM UTC-7, Alan wrote:So if that's the case, why didn't Trump's DoJ bring charges?
On 2023-04-04 17:02, Tommy wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Friday, March 31, 2023 at 6:17:43 PM UTC-7, Alan wrote:
On 2023-03-31 18:12, Tommy wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thursday, March 30, 2023 at 5:56:56 PM UTC-7, Alan
wrote:
On 2023-03-30 17:47, Tommy wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "In a bombshell court filing late Monday night, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Durham for the first time suggested Hillary Clinton's
campaign, her researchers and others formed a "joint
venture or conspiracy" for the purpose of weaving the
collusion story to harm Trump's election chances and
then the start of his presidency." >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
https://justthenews.com/accountability/russia-and-ukraine-scandals/durham-bombshell-fbi-text-message-shows-clinton-lawyer
in NY was as likely as seeing Schumer vote for Trump. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You don't understand that a FEDERAL case wouldn't have to have been held
...right?
Don't you mean the ALLEGED crimes, Fool? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes, Sunshine.
And show me where the statute of limitations on Trump's crimes has
expired, Sunshine.
Alleged crimes.
Although since he doesn't deny making the payments... >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
...and his co-conspirator was already convicted... >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
...by his DoJ...
...of the underlying crimes...
...I don't think they'll be "alleged" for long. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
:-)
You get that almost no actual facts in the case are in dispute, right?
No, ALL of these "facts" are in dispute. You DO realize that it is the duty of the prosecutor to PROVE these allegations BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT before a jury of his peers (not his persecutors), don't you?
Give an example.
ALL of them, you idiot.
...and even you know it.
It's the FACTS, Fool - and even YOU know it.
punking out.
The evidence against him are business records
Hey fucker, I gave you the facts - asking for the same thing is an example of denial.
provided not a single actual fact.
Here are the facts, AGAIN!
https://justthenews.com/accountability/russia-and-ukraine-scandals/durham-bombshell-fbi-text-message-shows-clinton-lawyer
"Jim – it's Michael Sussmann. I have something time-sensitive (and >>>>>>>>> sensitive) I need to discuss," Sussmann texted Baker on Sept. 18, 2016,
according to the new court filing. "Do you have availability for a short
meeting tomorrow? I'm coming on my own – not on behalf of a client or
company – want to help the Bureau. Thanks."
Where's the proof that he was acting on behalf of anyone.
IIRC, he found evidence that suggested computers related to Trump were
in communication with Russia.
Should he have kept that a secret?
And you remember that he was found innocent of having lied to the FBI >>>>>>>>> about that...
...right, Sunshine?
You're joking, right? The evidence is in plain sight:
https://justthenews.com/sites/default/files/2022-04/04519147331.pdf >>>>>>> Sorry, Sunshine... ...but providing an entire 48 page document without >>>>>>> quoting anything is just another dodge.
What evidence are you referring to?
Sussman was found innocent of having lied, Sunshine.
That is a fact.
You ASKED for the facts and I GAVE you the facts, Fool. That entire document PROVES that Sussman was acting for Shrillary.
...and you continue to ignore that he was found innocent of lying to the >>>>> FBI about who he was working for when he spoke to them.
'Michael Sussmann found not guilty of charge brought by Special
Prosecutor John Durham
WASHINGTON – The jury on Tuesday found Michael Sussmann not guilty of >>>>> making a false statement to the FBI in September 2016 when he said he >>>>> was not working on behalf of any client, when he brought information >>>>> alleging a covert communications channel between the Trump Organization >>>>> and Russia’s Alfa Bank. '
<https://www.foxnews.com/politics/michael-sussmann-not-guilty-special-prosecutor-john-durham>
There are FORTY EIGHT PAGES that make my point, Fool!
Got it.
You get that he was found not guilty, right?
And "not guilty" in NY means he just wasn't caught red-handed with a smoking gun.
On 2023-04-30 18:25, Tommy wrote:
On Sunday, April 30, 2023 at 6:23:38 PM UTC-7, Tommy wrote:
On Sunday, April 30, 2023 at 6:20:58 PM UTC-7, Alan wrote:
On 2023-04-30 17:07, Tommy wrote:I posted FORTY EIGHT PAGES, Fool - how much MORE do you need???????
On Friday, April 28, 2023 at 9:38:03 PM UTC-7, Alan wrote:And yet you cannot post a single sentence.
On 2023-04-27 17:38, Tommy wrote:
On Wednesday, April 26, 2023 at 12:47:25 AM UTC-7, Alan wrote: >>>>>>> On 2023-04-25 19:26, Tommy wrote:And yet you cannot quote a single passage that makes that point... >>>>>
On Tuesday, April 25, 2023 at 7:14:53 PM UTC-7, Alan wrote: >>>>>>>>> On 2023-04-25 19:07, Tommy wrote:quoting anything is just another dodge.
On Tuesday, April 25, 2023 at 5:41:37 PM UTC-7, Alan wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> On 2023-04-25 17:27, Tommy wrote:Sorry... ...but:
On Saturday, April 15, 2023 at 11:50:52 AM UTC-7, Alan wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2023-04-15 10:42, Tommy wrote:Nope. When asked for a single fact that you claim is in dispute, you
On Wednesday, April 12, 2023 at 10:14:41 PM UTC-7, Alan wrote:Nope. Saying "all of them" when asked for an example of something is
On 2023-04-12 21:44, Tommy wrote:
On Thursday, April 6, 2023 at 9:15:59 PM UTC-7, Alan wrote:That's a cop-out, Sunshine...
On 2023-04-06 21:09, Tommy wrote:
On Wednesday, April 5, 2023 at 7:05:13 PM UTC-7, Alan wrote:Such as?
On 2023-04-05 16:56, Tommy wrote:
On Tuesday, April 4, 2023 at 10:36:29 PM UTC-7, Alan wrote:in New York State...
On 2023-04-04 22:34, Tommy wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tuesday, April 4, 2023 at 5:03:33 PM UTC-7, Alan wrote:Who knows? They might have thought getting a conviction of Shrillary
So if that's the case, why didn't Trump's DoJ bring charges?On 2023-04-04 17:02, Tommy wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Friday, March 31, 2023 at 6:17:43 PM UTC-7, Alan wrote:
On 2023-03-31 18:12, Tommy wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thursday, March 30, 2023 at 5:56:56 PM UTC-7, Alan
wrote:
On 2023-03-30 17:47, Tommy wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "In a bombshell court filing late Monday night, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Durham for the first time suggested Hillary Clinton's
campaign, her researchers and others formed a "joint
venture or conspiracy" for the purpose of weaving the
collusion story to harm Trump's election chances and
then the start of his presidency." >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
https://justthenews.com/accountability/russia-and-ukraine-scandals/durham-bombshell-fbi-text-message-shows-clinton-lawyer
in NY was as likely as seeing Schumer vote for Trump. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You don't understand that a FEDERAL case wouldn't have to have been held
...right?
Don't you mean the ALLEGED crimes, Fool? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes, Sunshine.
And show me where the statute of limitations on Trump's crimes has
expired, Sunshine.
Alleged crimes.
Although since he doesn't deny making the payments... >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
...and his co-conspirator was already convicted... >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
...by his DoJ...
...of the underlying crimes...
...I don't think they'll be "alleged" for long. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
:-)
You get that almost no actual facts in the case are in dispute, right?
No, ALL of these "facts" are in dispute. You DO realize that it is the duty of the prosecutor to PROVE these allegations BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT before a jury of his peers (not his persecutors), don't you?
Give an example.
ALL of them, you idiot.
...and even you know it.
It's the FACTS, Fool - and even YOU know it.
punking out.
The evidence against him are business records
Hey fucker, I gave you the facts - asking for the same thing is an example of denial.
provided not a single actual fact.
Here are the facts, AGAIN!
https://justthenews.com/accountability/russia-and-ukraine-scandals/durham-bombshell-fbi-text-message-shows-clinton-lawyer
"Jim – it's Michael Sussmann. I have something time-sensitive (and
sensitive) I need to discuss," Sussmann texted Baker on Sept. 18, 2016,
according to the new court filing. "Do you have availability for a short
meeting tomorrow? I'm coming on my own – not on behalf of a client or
company – want to help the Bureau. Thanks."
Where's the proof that he was acting on behalf of anyone. >>>>>>>>>
IIRC, he found evidence that suggested computers related to Trump were
in communication with Russia.
Should he have kept that a secret?
And you remember that he was found innocent of having lied to the FBI
about that...
...right, Sunshine?
You're joking, right? The evidence is in plain sight:
https://justthenews.com/sites/default/files/2022-04/04519147331.pdf >>>>>>> Sorry, Sunshine... ...but providing an entire 48 page document without
What evidence are you referring to?
Sussman was found innocent of having lied, Sunshine.
That is a fact.
You ASKED for the facts and I GAVE you the facts, Fool. That entire document PROVES that Sussman was acting for Shrillary.
...and you continue to ignore that he was found innocent of lying to the
FBI about who he was working for when he spoke to them.
'Michael Sussmann found not guilty of charge brought by Special
Prosecutor John Durham
WASHINGTON – The jury on Tuesday found Michael Sussmann not guilty of
making a false statement to the FBI in September 2016 when he said he >>>>> was not working on behalf of any client, when he brought information >>>>> alleging a covert communications channel between the Trump Organization
and Russia’s Alfa Bank. '
<https://www.foxnews.com/politics/michael-sussmann-not-guilty-special-prosecutor-john-durham>
There are FORTY EIGHT PAGES that make my point, Fool!
Got it.
You get that he was found not guilty, right?
And "not guilty" in NY means he just wasn't caught red-handed with a smoking gun.It means he's not guilty, Sunshine.
And as usual, you can't follow the basic facts.
Sussman's trial took place in Washington, D.C.
It means he's not guilty, Sunshine.I posted FORTY EIGHT PAGES, Fool - how much MORE do you need???????And yet you cannot post a single sentence.And yet you cannot quote a single passage that makes that point... >>>>>>>quoting anything is just another dodge."Jim – it's Michael Sussmann. I have something time-sensitive (and
sensitive) I need to discuss," Sussmann texted Baker on Sept. 18, 2016,
according to the new court filing. "Do you have availability for a short
meeting tomorrow? I'm coming on my own – not on behalf of a client or
company – want to help the Bureau. Thanks."
Where's the proof that he was acting on behalf of anyone. >>>>>>>>>>>
IIRC, he found evidence that suggested computers related to Trump were
in communication with Russia.
Should he have kept that a secret?
And you remember that he was found innocent of having lied to the FBI
about that...
...right, Sunshine?
You're joking, right? The evidence is in plain sight:
https://justthenews.com/sites/default/files/2022-04/04519147331.pdf >>>>>>>>> Sorry, Sunshine... ...but providing an entire 48 page document without
What evidence are you referring to?
Sussman was found innocent of having lied, Sunshine.
That is a fact.
You ASKED for the facts and I GAVE you the facts, Fool. That entire document PROVES that Sussman was acting for Shrillary.
...and you continue to ignore that he was found innocent of lying to the
FBI about who he was working for when he spoke to them.
'Michael Sussmann found not guilty of charge brought by Special
Prosecutor John Durham
WASHINGTON – The jury on Tuesday found Michael Sussmann not guilty of >>>>>>> making a false statement to the FBI in September 2016 when he said he >>>>>>> was not working on behalf of any client, when he brought information >>>>>>> alleging a covert communications channel between the Trump Organization >>>>>>> and Russia’s Alfa Bank. '
<https://www.foxnews.com/politics/michael-sussmann-not-guilty-special-prosecutor-john-durham>
There are FORTY EIGHT PAGES that make my point, Fool!
Got it.
You get that he was found not guilty, right?
And "not guilty" in NY means he just wasn't caught red-handed with a smoking gun.
And as usual, you can't follow the basic facts.
Sussman's trial took place in Washington, D.C.
"Not guilty" definitely DOES NOT mean "innocent."
On 2023-05-01 08:56, Tommy wrote:
It means he's not guilty, Sunshine.I posted FORTY EIGHT PAGES, Fool - how much MORE do you need???????And yet you cannot post a single sentence.And yet you cannot quote a single passage that makes that point... >>>>>>>Sorry, Sunshine... ...but providing an entire 48 page document without"Jim – it's Michael Sussmann. I have something time-sensitive (and
sensitive) I need to discuss," Sussmann texted Baker on Sept. 18, 2016,
according to the new court filing. "Do you have availability for a short
meeting tomorrow? I'm coming on my own – not on behalf of a client or
company – want to help the Bureau. Thanks."
Where's the proof that he was acting on behalf of anyone. >>>>>>>>>>>
IIRC, he found evidence that suggested computers related to Trump were
in communication with Russia.
Should he have kept that a secret?
And you remember that he was found innocent of having lied to the FBI
about that...
...right, Sunshine?
You're joking, right? The evidence is in plain sight:
https://justthenews.com/sites/default/files/2022-04/04519147331.pdf
quoting anything is just another dodge.
What evidence are you referring to?
Sussman was found innocent of having lied, Sunshine.
That is a fact.
You ASKED for the facts and I GAVE you the facts, Fool. That entire document PROVES that Sussman was acting for Shrillary.
...and you continue to ignore that he was found innocent of lying to the
FBI about who he was working for when he spoke to them.
'Michael Sussmann found not guilty of charge brought by Special >>>>>>> Prosecutor John Durham
WASHINGTON – The jury on Tuesday found Michael Sussmann not guilty of
making a false statement to the FBI in September 2016 when he said he
was not working on behalf of any client, when he brought information >>>>>>> alleging a covert communications channel between the Trump Organization
and Russia’s Alfa Bank. '
<https://www.foxnews.com/politics/michael-sussmann-not-guilty-special-prosecutor-john-durham>
There are FORTY EIGHT PAGES that make my point, Fool!
Got it.
You get that he was found not guilty, right?
And "not guilty" in NY means he just wasn't caught red-handed with a smoking gun.
And as usual, you can't follow the basic facts.
Sussman's trial took place in Washington, D.C.
"Not guilty" definitely DOES NOT mean "innocent."Your non-acknowledgement of your basic failure on the facts of the trial acknowledged.
Your inability to provide a single sentence that supports your claim acknowledged.
:-)
On Monday, May 1, 2023 at 9:11:24 AM UTC-7, Alan wrote:
On 2023-05-01 08:56, Tommy wrote:
Your non-acknowledgement of your basic failure on the facts of the trialIt means he's not guilty, Sunshine.And "not guilty" in NY means he just wasn't caught red-handed with a smoking gun.I posted FORTY EIGHT PAGES, Fool - how much MORE do you need??????? >>>>>And yet you cannot post a single sentence.And yet you cannot quote a single passage that makes that point... >>>>>>>>>Sorry, Sunshine... ...but providing an entire 48 page document without"Jim – it's Michael Sussmann. I have something time-sensitive (and
sensitive) I need to discuss," Sussmann texted Baker on Sept. 18, 2016,
according to the new court filing. "Do you have availability for a short
meeting tomorrow? I'm coming on my own – not on behalf of a client or
company – want to help the Bureau. Thanks."
Where's the proof that he was acting on behalf of anyone. >>>>>>>>>>>>>
IIRC, he found evidence that suggested computers related to Trump were
in communication with Russia.
Should he have kept that a secret?
And you remember that he was found innocent of having lied to the FBI
about that...
...right, Sunshine?
You're joking, right? The evidence is in plain sight:
https://justthenews.com/sites/default/files/2022-04/04519147331.pdf
quoting anything is just another dodge.
What evidence are you referring to?
Sussman was found innocent of having lied, Sunshine.
That is a fact.
You ASKED for the facts and I GAVE you the facts, Fool. That entire document PROVES that Sussman was acting for Shrillary.
...and you continue to ignore that he was found innocent of lying to the
FBI about who he was working for when he spoke to them.
'Michael Sussmann found not guilty of charge brought by Special >>>>>>>>> Prosecutor John Durham
WASHINGTON – The jury on Tuesday found Michael Sussmann not guilty of
making a false statement to the FBI in September 2016 when he said he >>>>>>>>> was not working on behalf of any client, when he brought information >>>>>>>>> alleging a covert communications channel between the Trump Organization
and Russia’s Alfa Bank. '
<https://www.foxnews.com/politics/michael-sussmann-not-guilty-special-prosecutor-john-durham>
There are FORTY EIGHT PAGES that make my point, Fool!
Got it.
You get that he was found not guilty, right?
And as usual, you can't follow the basic facts.
Sussman's trial took place in Washington, D.C.
"Not guilty" definitely DOES NOT mean "innocent."
acknowledged.
Your inability to provide a single sentence that supports your claim
acknowledged.
:-)
You are a STUPID FOOL! The evidence comprises ALL of those FORTY EIGHT PAGES, you IDIOT!! A single sentence would be taking it OUT OF CONTEXT. Are you REALLY this stupid? REALLY????
On 2023-05-01 18:00, Tommy wrote:
On Monday, May 1, 2023 at 9:11:24 AM UTC-7, Alan wrote:
On 2023-05-01 08:56, Tommy wrote:
Your non-acknowledgement of your basic failure on the facts of the trial >> acknowledged.It means he's not guilty, Sunshine.And "not guilty" in NY means he just wasn't caught red-handed with a smoking gun.I posted FORTY EIGHT PAGES, Fool - how much MORE do you need??????? >>>>>And yet you cannot post a single sentence.And yet you cannot quote a single passage that makes that point... >>>>>>>>>Sorry, Sunshine... ...but providing an entire 48 page document without"Jim – it's Michael Sussmann. I have something time-sensitive (and
sensitive) I need to discuss," Sussmann texted Baker on Sept. 18, 2016,
according to the new court filing. "Do you have availability for a short
meeting tomorrow? I'm coming on my own – not on behalf of a client or
company – want to help the Bureau. Thanks."
Where's the proof that he was acting on behalf of anyone. >>>>>>>>>>>>>
IIRC, he found evidence that suggested computers related to Trump were
in communication with Russia.
Should he have kept that a secret?
And you remember that he was found innocent of having lied to the FBI
about that...
...right, Sunshine?
You're joking, right? The evidence is in plain sight: >>>>>>>>>>>> https://justthenews.com/sites/default/files/2022-04/04519147331.pdf
quoting anything is just another dodge.
What evidence are you referring to?
Sussman was found innocent of having lied, Sunshine.
That is a fact.
You ASKED for the facts and I GAVE you the facts, Fool. That entire document PROVES that Sussman was acting for Shrillary.
...and you continue to ignore that he was found innocent of lying to the
FBI about who he was working for when he spoke to them.
'Michael Sussmann found not guilty of charge brought by Special >>>>>>>>> Prosecutor John Durham
WASHINGTON – The jury on Tuesday found Michael Sussmann not guilty of
making a false statement to the FBI in September 2016 when he said he
was not working on behalf of any client, when he brought information
alleging a covert communications channel between the Trump Organization
and Russia’s Alfa Bank. '
<https://www.foxnews.com/politics/michael-sussmann-not-guilty-special-prosecutor-john-durham>
There are FORTY EIGHT PAGES that make my point, Fool!
Got it.
You get that he was found not guilty, right?
And as usual, you can't follow the basic facts.
Sussman's trial took place in Washington, D.C.
"Not guilty" definitely DOES NOT mean "innocent."
Your inability to provide a single sentence that supports your claim
acknowledged.
:-)
You are a STUPID FOOL! The evidence comprises ALL of those FORTY EIGHT PAGES, you IDIOT!! A single sentence would be taking it OUT OF CONTEXT. Are you REALLY this stupid? REALLY????So give us an entire paragraph, Sunshine.
You can't, and you know it.
On Monday, May 1, 2023 at 9:21:13 PM UTC-7, Alan wrote:
On 2023-05-01 18:00, Tommy wrote:
On Monday, May 1, 2023 at 9:11:24 AM UTC-7, Alan wrote:So give us an entire paragraph, Sunshine.
On 2023-05-01 08:56, Tommy wrote:
Your non-acknowledgement of your basic failure on the facts of the trial >>>> acknowledged.It means he's not guilty, Sunshine.And "not guilty" in NY means he just wasn't caught red-handed with a smoking gun.I posted FORTY EIGHT PAGES, Fool - how much MORE do you need??????? >>>>>>>And yet you cannot post a single sentence.And yet you cannot quote a single passage that makes that point... >>>>>>>>>>>Sorry, Sunshine... ...but providing an entire 48 page document without"Jim – it's Michael Sussmann. I have something time-sensitive (and
sensitive) I need to discuss," Sussmann texted Baker on Sept. 18, 2016,
according to the new court filing. "Do you have availability for a short
meeting tomorrow? I'm coming on my own – not on behalf of a client or
company – want to help the Bureau. Thanks."
Where's the proof that he was acting on behalf of anyone. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
IIRC, he found evidence that suggested computers related to Trump were
in communication with Russia.
Should he have kept that a secret?
And you remember that he was found innocent of having lied to the FBI
about that...
...right, Sunshine?
You're joking, right? The evidence is in plain sight: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://justthenews.com/sites/default/files/2022-04/04519147331.pdf
quoting anything is just another dodge.
What evidence are you referring to?
Sussman was found innocent of having lied, Sunshine. >>>>>>>>>>>>>
That is a fact.
You ASKED for the facts and I GAVE you the facts, Fool. That entire document PROVES that Sussman was acting for Shrillary.
...and you continue to ignore that he was found innocent of lying to the
FBI about who he was working for when he spoke to them.
'Michael Sussmann found not guilty of charge brought by Special >>>>>>>>>>> Prosecutor John Durham
WASHINGTON – The jury on Tuesday found Michael Sussmann not guilty of
making a false statement to the FBI in September 2016 when he said he
was not working on behalf of any client, when he brought information
alleging a covert communications channel between the Trump Organization
and Russia’s Alfa Bank. '
<https://www.foxnews.com/politics/michael-sussmann-not-guilty-special-prosecutor-john-durham>
There are FORTY EIGHT PAGES that make my point, Fool!
Got it.
You get that he was found not guilty, right?
And as usual, you can't follow the basic facts.
Sussman's trial took place in Washington, D.C.
"Not guilty" definitely DOES NOT mean "innocent."
Your inability to provide a single sentence that supports your claim
acknowledged.
:-)
You are a STUPID FOOL! The evidence comprises ALL of those FORTY EIGHT PAGES, you IDIOT!! A single sentence would be taking it OUT OF CONTEXT. Are you REALLY this stupid? REALLY????
You can't, and you know it.
You can either read the full indictment or STFU, your choice, not mine.
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 300 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 61:58:13 |
| Calls: | 6,712 |
| Files: | 12,244 |
| Messages: | 5,355,894 |