Hillary Clinton's Lawyer Goes on Trial for Attempting to Ruin Donald Trump in 2016 and 2017.

If the jury rumors are true then its what we expected no way does a trail of bread crumbs get linked to hillary she knows where the bodies are buried.

originally posted by: scraedtosleep
a reply to: Sookiechacha

Well, this is going to put a kink in Trump's RICO lawsuit dreams!

How so?

Trump needs a conviction to move forward with a RICO lwsuit. This case was the first brick in the wall, needed to establish his claims of racketeering and collusion. It's going to hard moving forward without a conviction, now that Sussmann has been acquitted.

originally posted by: network dude

originally posted by: Sookiechacha

originally posted by: Xcalibur254
a reply to: carewemust

And he's been acquitted.

Sussmann acquitted on charge brought by special counsel Durham

Well, this is going to put a kink in Trump's RICO lawsuit dreams!

Do you think justice was served and he didn't lie to the FBI?

Do you think the jury was somehow tainted?

On a final note, I'll say this tho...

While leftist celebrate a hollow victory composed of obama appointees and clinton donors, we now know the truth about the fabricated russion hoax.

It was all orchestrated and signed off by Hillary Clinton, FACTS.

So, if you were someone who screeched that Trump was a russian asset, y'all were DUPED and LIED to, infact, a few of y'all are in this very thread as we speak.

Do we expect an apology for your ignorance?

Nope. Live with it, because WE know that you were DUPED and LIED to.

a reply to: Sookiechacha

Somwhow??? IT WAS TAINTED!! LMFAO!!! Gosh, you're so dense sometimes.

lol

Oj has been found innocent!

lol

a reply to: Sookiechacha

I dont think a conviction is actually key. Testimonies under oath are though.


Not that I think this vector (RICO) will actually work though.

a reply to: Arnie123

Nope. Live with it, because WE know that you were DUPED and LIED to.

I don't think anyone cares about what you think you know.


Your narrative really needed this guy to found guilty didn't it?

originally posted by: scraedtosleep
a reply to: Arnie123

Nope. Live with it, because WE know that you were DUPED and LIED to.

I don't think anyone cares about what you think you know.


Your narrative really needed this guy to found guilty didn't it?

You missed the point, totally expected, you're not the brightest, are you?

Just by your response to my post about calling out the dullards that fell for a lie, let me guess?? Struck a nerve?

Yeah, yea, I got it, you were one that screeched that too, however, my overall point was, despite the acquittal, his testimomy undet Oath is of real value.

You following? Or should I break it down further for you, I can always draw it out in crayons 😏

a reply to: JinMI

dont think a conviction is actually key.

As I'm reading it, violation has to have been established and a final judgement rendered in favor of the United States.

(c)Any person injured in his business or property by reason of a violation of section 1962 of this chapter may sue therefor in any appropriate United States district court and shall recover threefold the damages he sustains and the cost of the suit, including a reasonable attorney’s fee, except that no person may rely upon any conduct that would have been actionable as fraud in the purchase or sale of securities to establish a violation of section 1962. The exception contained in the preceding sentence does not apply to an action against any person that is criminally convicted in connection with the fraud, in which case the statute of limitations shall start to run on the date on which the conviction becomes final.
(d)A final judgment or decree rendered in favor of the United States in any criminal proceeding brought by the United States under this chapter shall estop the defendant from denying the essential allegations of the criminal offense in any subsequent civil proceeding brought by the United States.

www.law.cornell.edu...

a reply to: Sookiechacha

Yes, the fifth ammendment still applies.

Because testimony is forever.

a reply to: Arnie123

his testimomy undet Oath is of real value.

You need that to be true don't you.

Why do you let propaganda and hearsay get you so emotional?

a reply to: JinMI

Hillary's lawyer found innocent of course..

originally posted by: Arnie123
a reply to: Sookiechacha

Somwhow??? IT WAS TAINTED!! LMFAO!!! Gosh, you're so dense sometimes.

So, you think the jury was rigged. I think I'm beginning to see a pattern here.

a reply to: Sookiechacha

Fact: The people of D.C. are primarily Extremely Liberal Democrats. (14 year old can kill baby w/o parental consent)

Fact: The people of D.C. worship Democrat politicians. Even Hillary Clinton.

Fact: Clinton campaign advisor ROBBIE MOOK intentionally told the jury that if Sussman was found guilty, that opens the path to Hillary.

Fact: The people of D.C. are primarily Extremely Liberal Democrats. (Little integrity. Absence of morals.)

a reply to: carewemust

You make it sound like some kind of cult.

originally posted by: Sookiechacha

originally posted by: Arnie123
a reply to: Sookiechacha

Somwhow??? IT WAS TAINTED!! LMFAO!!! Gosh, you're so dense sometimes.

So, you think the jury was rigged. I think I'm beginning to see a pattern here.

It was and the pattern longed recognized.

However, like I said prior, the testimony is key.

originally posted by: scraedtosleep
a reply to: Arnie123

his testimomy undet Oath is of real value.

You need that to be true don't you.

Why do you let propaganda and hearsay get you so emotional?

So, sussman lied under oath, too?

originally posted by: carewemust

I'll add any significant trial developments to this thread, and you're welcome to add your input as well, ATS members.

apparently not guilty verdict

originally posted by: Sookiechacha

originally posted by: Arnie123
a reply to: Sookiechacha

Somwhow??? IT WAS TAINTED!! LMFAO!!! Gosh, you're so dense sometimes.

So, you think the jury was rigged. I think I'm beginning to see a pattern here.

I hope you actually know the facts with the jury, if not, I advise looking into it. And when you do, for one of those rhetorical exercises, I'd ask that you transpose "Clinton" for "Trump", and think if you would agree with the jury selection.

Or you could pretend you hold the moral high ground.

a reply to: network dude

Just a taste of how bias may have played a role:

Asked if she thought the prosecution was worthwhile, the foreperson said: “Personally, I don’t think it should have been prosecuted because I think we have better time or resources to use or spend to other things that affect the nation as a whole than a possible lie to the FBI. We could spend that time more wisely.”