She overcharged on purpose knowing the outcome ohh wise one! Michael Sussman another one. You said she didn’t ohh wise one, I just proved you wrong.
That he will be convicted of another felony. You are terrible at this.
Sussman was charged and prosecuted by Durham
You make things up and expect everyone to just nod along to your fantasies.
And Maureen Comey was on the prosecution team ohh wise one!
Right but the lead trial attorney and prosecutor was Durham.
“She was on the team therefore she got him a free ride” is an absolute joke of a try.
You really are terrible at this but i would def start self publishing if i were you
That’s the kind of question you can ask when someone says 95%.
1 Like
move those goalposts baby! She was accused of throwing the case which is why she was fired. Is it possible for someone to undermine a case intentionally? Yes! There is no but, she was a prosecutor in that case. You said she never was involved in high profile liberal cases that went south! Again you’re the one making up stuff. If she was responsible for certain things on that team and botched it intentionally it doesn’t matter whether she was head prosecutor or not, she was part of the team. She was a plant. Her own father was trying to prevent this from even going to court. Sessions, Durham, Mueller and Horowitz are getting investigated for botching this intentionally by another Special Council. Sussman should have absolutely 100% went to jail. The prosecution (Comey) held on to evidence till it couldn’t be used in court because of statute of limitations. If I am a betting man Comey and his daughter undermined this whole thing together. How do you know this won’t be investigated by the special council? You don’t. Perkins Coie is under that purview. The same law firm that convinced PA judges to violate its own states voting laws in 2020. Seems like Dems do a lot of Corruption in regards to elections of late and rely on Elias and Sussman. They tried to undermine the 2016 and 2020 elections.
1 Like
Counter-revolutionary talk!
I didn’t move any goal posts. You are adding details now and You made all of this up. All of it.
You have zero evidence for any of it. Just a lot of “IF”. Nobody blamed her for the sussman loss. Durham wanted a win so bad he screwed up.
But now that’s on her 
Seriously dude. I’ll contribute to the book writing fund. Let me know.
You said she wasn’t prosecuting High profile liberal cases and I gave examples of how her and the team around her threw them. It’s an actual fact that her and Durham sat on damning evidence that could have sent Sussman to jail, it’s an undeniable fact. It’s also a fact her dad didn’t want this going forward he was working with clapper and Brennan. You just don’t like the evidence. No he and her are being accused of throwing that case, what do you not understand about that. They sat on damning evidence till it could no longer be used and was inadmissible in court. Over prosecuting and sitting on evidence till the statute of limitations runs out is a form of throwing a case, it doesn’t matter how you feel about it. Their entire case hinged on evidence they intentionally let the statute of limitations run out on. It was an intentional botch. You live in Lala land and move goal posts constantly. First it was she was never involved, now it’s well she wasn’t lead prosecutor. Sussman had communications admitting he did it, but because they let the statute of limitations run out on the communications and didn’t put it in their evidence log from the outset the whole thing went south. It was intentional. This is why she was fired, she was backdooring things with the help of pops and his friends. Who sits on evidence till it can no longer be used? People who want to botch a case.
No you didn’t. Because she wasn’t the prosecutor on those cases. It wasn’t her team. It was Durham. You are trying so hard.
The rest of your rant is just that. Time and time again you prove that there is reality and then whatever alternate world you get your news from
She was part of the prosecution team genius! Which makes her a prosecutor on the case. That’s like saying Shapiro wasn’t part of OJs dream team because Cochran did all the talking. Goal posts baby!
Part of it. Sure. No it doesn’t make her anything with regards to who lost the case. That’s all Durham. Until you come up with evidence. It’s just more of your silly imagination that always needs to add stuff to reality to make it that much more interesting
It makes for good books. Doesn’t make for good debate.
If you are a prosecutor on a team, you are part of the prosecution it’s not hard to understand. Her dad was working with Brennan and Clapper to undermine cases like the one she was on, dude just stop. It doesn’t matter how much you contort, they held on to evidence till it couldn’t be used, and she was part of that team. Diddy is just another example. You don’t need to be lead prosecutor to butcher a case.
1 Like
Yes thank you for repeating what i said. The case was prosecuted by Durham
Diddy is a convicted felon facing possibly years in prison. She overcharged. That’s about where it ends. It’s amazing that you not only make something up you also start defending it as fact. Which either means you are a poe or you buy into your own nonsense. I can’t tell which one.
You truly don’t get it do you! One person on your prosecution team can tank the whole case, it doesn’t even have to be the lead prosecutor and you’re ignoring all the other anecdotal evidence surrounding Sussman. Overcharging is a way to tank a case intentionally. So is withholding evidence and not admitting it till you know it no longer help you lock up Sussman. Sharp’s biggest mistake was not letting Chris take over. You are a team of prosecutors. You all win and you all lose, and one person can tank it intentionally if they intentionally don’t do their job. She should have never even been on the prosecution. Her father alone was a conflict of interest. Durhams excuse was the FBI handed it to him too late, lmao Comeys daughter was on his team. His statement is a contradiction. So if the FBI handed it too late it only means Comeys daughter was colluding with them to ensure the case failed. Either situation shows intent to tank. Her dad is the former FBI director and he couldn’t make a few calls to get his daughter the evidence that existed when he himself was director to help her sink sussman? Comey was personally helping Brennan and Clapper spy on Trump. He even bragged about taking advantage of them. And you think his daughter would do her best to sink someone who colluded with her dad? The allegation is Sussman was involved peddling the Dossier to the FBI while Comey was director, his daughter had intent to ensure the case failed. The information the prosecution withheld was conversations of Sussman telling the Feds the Dossier was real and verified. He also lied of who it came from. Maureen Comey had every reason to sink this. Please tell me why Comeys daughter was Prosecuting government Russian collusion her very own dad was involved in?
1 Like
No I’m not. In order for a Democrat to be prosecuted, they have to find a basement full of Arab gold. Garland’s goons protect their own.
That doesn’t make any sense. Garland wasn’t the AG until almost 4 years after the whistleblower came forward. Two Republican AG’s under a Republican President were.
There must be a pretty good reason why no action was taken.
Implying it was a bunch of dirty libs who made the decision between 2017 and 2021 seems unlikely.
I assume it will all come out in court. Unless you think Schiff doesn’t have a basement full of Arab gold in which case, oh well.
It makes sense if those two AGs were actually swamp creatures. Trump was too trusting the first time around of recommendations on who he should nominate.
1 Like
Pretty convenient.
No True Scotsman.
The uniparty has been around for a long time, and don’t forget FBI Director Wray. But a relative observation says you will know them by their fruits.
1 Like
