First, let me give my brief understanding of what’s going on. Basically, we’re watching the DC Establishment continue its efforts to remove Donald Trump from public life. That’s the meaning of the J6 Insurrection narrative, it’s also the meaning of the way the Sussmann case was handled. It’s the meaning of the news blackout, and it’s the meaning of the continued disinformation campaign regarding all things Russia and about election fraud.
She stepped waaay past what her duties and obligations were as a juror. Husband and I have often discussed (after he’s been a juror several times and I once), that we would choose to NOT have a trial by our peers. For the most part jury pools appear to be full of folks incapable of rational or critical thinking. Rather, they seem to think they are there to deliver a message of some sort. Would love to know what that foreperson’s “bigger things” were. I suspect it has to do with stopping those who still believe in America first (so yes, ties into TDS) or hold traditional conservative values.
Or maybe they were simply bought and paid for or threatened in some way? God only knows.
Well, I don't think they'll be holding any of these thugs accountable in the District of Corruption. But this trial went a long way in proving both Trump's and Flynn's civil cases that the Clinton cabal leveled unsubstantiated attacks that slandered and libeled them with the assistance of the FBI/DOJ and the MSM. I don't recall where their lawsuits were filed, but I doubt it was in DC if they have good legal representation.
Yes, we win by losing. Facts are established and brought to public attention, and the only answer is "what does it matter?" Now what remains is for the American public to be sufficiently outraged over the transformation of their lives for the worse, and there will be ample material to justify their anger. WE will have our day in Court.
The problem is the definition of the public. I think only a very narrow “public” has any knowledge about any of this even happening. That’s a major problem
I’m tired of the gaslighting too! Can someone explain how any conviction can be obtained, regardless of the overwhelming evidence, in D.C. or its environs?
“Justice?” We’re long past it; rather, we’re well into a new “ordre moral,” or moral order (similar to Mark’s discussion of virtue vs values). This new order reigns, everywhere. Yes, Trump was a fly in the ointment, and he was the only “predication” the DS needed…
Durham wins by losing should be the headline.
It's very easy to criticize both Putin and Durham as losers, but maybe they had limited, realistic goals which they have more than achieved.
Putin is a loser? Who outside of the lying DC echo chamber says that? He is giving the US a lesson in winning. May we all be such losers as Putin.
https://redstate.com/nick-arama/2022/05/31/sussmann-juror-is-talking-and-its-an-eye-opener-n572978
She stepped waaay past what her duties and obligations were as a juror. Husband and I have often discussed (after he’s been a juror several times and I once), that we would choose to NOT have a trial by our peers. For the most part jury pools appear to be full of folks incapable of rational or critical thinking. Rather, they seem to think they are there to deliver a message of some sort. Would love to know what that foreperson’s “bigger things” were. I suspect it has to do with stopping those who still believe in America first (so yes, ties into TDS) or hold traditional conservative values.
Or maybe they were simply bought and paid for or threatened in some way? God only knows.
Well, I don't think they'll be holding any of these thugs accountable in the District of Corruption. But this trial went a long way in proving both Trump's and Flynn's civil cases that the Clinton cabal leveled unsubstantiated attacks that slandered and libeled them with the assistance of the FBI/DOJ and the MSM. I don't recall where their lawsuits were filed, but I doubt it was in DC if they have good legal representation.
Yes, we win by losing. Facts are established and brought to public attention, and the only answer is "what does it matter?" Now what remains is for the American public to be sufficiently outraged over the transformation of their lives for the worse, and there will be ample material to justify their anger. WE will have our day in Court.
The problem is the definition of the public. I think only a very narrow “public” has any knowledge about any of this even happening. That’s a major problem
I’m tired of the gaslighting too! Can someone explain how any conviction can be obtained, regardless of the overwhelming evidence, in D.C. or its environs?
Your definition of 'losing' lacks depth. A guilty verdict was never going to change the price of gas. Or the cost of a bus ride.
“Justice?” We’re long past it; rather, we’re well into a new “ordre moral,” or moral order (similar to Mark’s discussion of virtue vs values). This new order reigns, everywhere. Yes, Trump was a fly in the ointment, and he was the only “predication” the DS needed…
And now the two-tier justice system is even more visible.