RickWA
Snagglesooth
It’s so ridiculous at this point. These guys are pathetic. :-/As a Possum playing dead
It’s so ridiculous at this point. These guys are pathetic. :-/As a Possum playing dead
It's why I post around them instead of to them nowIt’s so ridiculous at this point. These guys are pathetic. :-/
Geeze. I remember razzing “mercurial1” (and his other 10 names) about posting around folks - but that gassbag was apparently ahead of the curve on this. :-/It's why I post around them instead of to them now
Let the record show that you’re babbling like a lunatic. In all caps.Let THE PJ RECORD SHOW THAT BUGSY WILL NOT OWN HIS WORDS.
…as usual
I have been very clear on this. You made a specific universal declaration. Do you stand by your words? A person cannot be indicted of a thing of which he is innocent. You wrote this. Is it true?Let the record show that you’re babbling like a lunatic. In all caps.
;-)
Give it a rest. Stop embarrassing yourself. Move on.I have been very clear on this. You made a specific universal declaration. Do you stand by your words? A person cannot be indicted of a thing of which he is innocent. You wrote this. Is it true?
Indeed. You are exposed. Again.Give it a rest. Stop embarrassing yourself. Move on.
What is the crime? Your post is more applicable to Trump and his lawyers.People inside the Clinton campaign:
Today, Special Counsel John Durham provided a “discovery Update” to the court in the Michael Sussmann case. In this filing, available here, he disclosed that his team has obtained a tremendous amount of information ranging from a variety of sources – including Perkins Coie, the Hillary Clinton Campaign, and former DNC/Clinton lawyer Mark Elias.
Durham: DNC lawyer Marc Elias has given grand jury testimony (substack.com)
In addition to Clinton Campaign attorney Mark Elias. And the left is all like "nothing to see here, now move along!"
But wait, there's more:
“Under the Crime-fraud exception, communications are not privileged when the client consults an attorney for advice that will serve him in the commission of a fraud or Crime.” In re Grand Jury Investigation, 810 F.3d 1110, 1113 (9th Cir. 2016) (citations omitted). To meet this burden, Durham had to show two things:
This could get really interesting...
- That the client was engaged in or planning a criminal or fraudulent scheme when it sought the advice of counsel to further the scheme.
- That Durham demonstrated the attorney-client communications for which production is sought are sufficiently related to and were made in furtherance of the intended, or present, continuing illegality. Id.
More like it is unlikely to indict them and almost impossible to convict.Yes or no. Your statement…committed to writing and posted on a public forum is true?
Is it true? Did you write a true thing here? Answer it, Bugsy.
“ Not even Baghdad Barr and his fellow crooked hacks in the DOJ could indict any Hillary people. It’s impossible to indict people who don’t commit crimes.”
No edits made. Is it true?
Something bugs will never post to a leftist yet it's good to see he thinks leftist are lunatic that post in all capsI have been very clear on this. You made a specific universal declaration. Do you stand by your words? A person cannot be indicted of a thing of which he is innocent. You wrote this. Is it true?
as he still is here in PJ as in Ballot BoxGeeze. I remember razzing “mercurial1” (and his other 10 names) about posting around folks - but that gassbag was apparently ahead of the curve on this. :-/
You are missing a rather huge point here Jack - the indictments of Trumpies were for small potato process crimes or stuff they had done that had nothing to do with the campaign (or Trump). The indications here are that these indictments will involve top level Clinton campaign people conspiring to manufacture fake evidence of Trump working with the Russians in an effort to steal an election (and later to hobble his Administration). You want to talk sedition, that there is rather seditious activity. Was Hillary in on it? You know damn well she was, but you won't admit it. Will the underlings take the fall for her? Maybe, but there's not much she can do for or to them at this point, so it's at least worth speculating what it will be like if she goes on trial.Let’s see if Durham can get some indictments and convictions against any of Hillary’s buddies like Mueller got against the Trump mob. If so, fine with me. But so far all I have seen is a bunch of hot air blowing out the asses of right wing radio and tv jocks, ad repeated here on the internets.
Even more importantly, if any Democrat sacred cows do get nailed, let’s see if Biden’s DOJ steps in and goes to bat for the crooks like Barr did for Trumps crooked buddies. Let’s see a if Biden summarily pardons the crooks like Trump did.
Indictments and convictions and jail time are where it’s at regarding criminal accusations. Bring em on or all these rumors and innuendo are just a bunch of crap. Nothing would make me happier than seeing Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump heading up the river in the back of a white van.
You guys have been accusing Hillary Clinton of everything from mass murder, child sex trafficking and everything in the book for decades and haven’t even indicted her for jaywalking as of yet.
Then as soon as Biden looked like he might be the Democratic nominee all of a sudden he and his family became the worst master criminals in US History. Yet, no indictments, much less convictions. See what I mean? Do you understand why most people are of the opinion that all of these attacks are a bunch of crap?
So you think they are rolling over on ol' Hilly? We can only hope!Huh? They didn’t plead the 5th?
;-)
Why bother manufacturing fake evidence of Trump working with the Russians when there was rock solid proof of longtime ongoing cooperation?You are missing a rather huge point here Jack - the indictments of Trumpies were for small potato process crimes or stuff they had done that had nothing to do with the campaign (or Trump). The indications here are that these indictments will involve top level Clinton campaign people conspiring to manufacture fake evidence of Trump working with the Russians in an effort to steal an election (and later to hobble his Administration). You want to talk sedition, that there is rather seditious activity. Was Hillary in on it? You know damn well she was, but you won't admit it. Will the underlings take the fall for her? Maybe, but there's not much she can do for or to them at this point, so it's at least worth speculating what it will be like if she goes on trial.
There’s nothing to roll over on.So you think they are rolling over on ol' Hilly? We can only hope!
Almost all of them convicted of crimes relating to hiding dealings with the Russian or the fruits of the Russian crimes during the 2016 campaign. Those crimes are called “small potatoes” in Trumplandia.You are missing a rather huge point here Jack - the indictments of Trumpies were for small potato process crimes or stuff they had done that had nothing to do with the campaign (or Trump). The indications here are that these indictments will involve top level Clinton campaign people conspiring to manufacture fake evidence of Trump working with the Russians in an effort to steal an election (and later to hobble his Administration). You want to talk sedition, that there is rather seditious activity. Was Hillary in on it? You know damn well she was, but you won't admit it. Will the underlings take the fall for her? Maybe, but there's not much she can do for or to them at this point, so it's at least worth speculating what it will be like if she goes on trial.
When and if Durham or anyone else produces indictments on these matters, I will be glad to read them and render an opinion on them. If Hillary was in on such activity (and I don’t know damn well she was or if anybody else was either) then she should be indicted. Until then, like I said, it’s just a bunch of hot air.You are missing a rather huge point here Jack - the indictments of Trumpies were for small potato process crimes or stuff they had done that had nothing to do with the campaign (or Trump). The indications here are that these indictments will involve top level Clinton campaign people conspiring to manufacture fake evidence of Trump working with the Russians in an effort to steal an election (and later to hobble his Administration). You want to talk sedition, that there is rather seditious activity. Was Hillary in on it? You know damn well she was, but you won't admit it. Will the underlings take the fall for her? Maybe, but there's not much she can do for or to them at this point, so it's at least worth speculating what it will be like if she goes on trial.
Judicial Watch: Clinton IT staffer pleads 5th 125 consecutive times | CNN PoliticsThere’s nothing to roll over on.
People who don’t commit crimes have no need to plead the 5th. Trump’s evil spawn and his other toadies relentlessly plead the 5th.
Seeing the pattern yet?
A bit long but wasted on the deaf and dumb Dems, who like larvae thinking they might become butterflies some day.People inside the Clinton campaign:
Today, Special Counsel John Durham provided a “discovery Update” to the court in the Michael Sussmann case. In this filing, available here, he disclosed that his team has obtained a tremendous amount of information ranging from a variety of sources – including Perkins Coie, the Hillary Clinton Campaign, and former DNC/Clinton lawyer Mark Elias.
Durham: DNC lawyer Marc Elias has given grand jury testimony (substack.com)
In addition to Clinton Campaign attorney Mark Elias. And the left is all like "nothing to see here, now move along!"
But wait, there's more:
“Under the Crime-fraud exception, communications are not privileged when the client consults an attorney for advice that will serve him in the commission of a fraud or Crime.” In re Grand Jury Investigation, 810 F.3d 1110, 1113 (9th Cir. 2016) (citations omitted). To meet this burden, Durham had to show two things:
This could get really interesting...
- That the client was engaged in or planning a criminal or fraudulent scheme when it sought the advice of counsel to further the scheme.
- That Durham demonstrated the attorney-client communications for which production is sought are sufficiently related to and were made in furtherance of the intended, or present, continuing illegality. Id.
Maybe more Democrats and Independents would take more notice if Hillary Clinton or other Democrats were actually indicted and convicted of serious crimes like several of Trump’s cronies were. That woud really be something.A bit long but wasted on the deaf and dumb Dems, who like larvae thinking they might become butterflies some day.