TRM said:

---

They won't get shut down yet. They still have Danchenko, but they better file charges on Joffe and others soon.

---

TRM said:

---

They won't get shut down yet. They still have Danchenko, but they better file charges on Joffe and others soon.

---

The fact that he brought it thru a long speaking indictment in the manner in which he did, and then spent a lot of time tying the three components together -- Dem Campaign operatives, Oppo Researchers, and FBI -- suggests that was really his goal all along.

— Shipwreckedcrew.substack.com (@shipwreckedcrew) May 31, 2022

The fact that he didn't suggests he likely never will, and that he's really headed for a Report. But he still has time left under the SOL -- he knows better than anyone what the overt acts might be that extend any such conspiracy beyond what is publicly known. https://t.co/J4c901Li0z

— Shipwreckedcrew.substack.com (@shipwreckedcrew) May 31, 2022

SamjamAg said:

---

I believe the jury instruction that he had to repeat the lie in the meeting is where the jury found room to acquit. The prosecution should have fought harder to include text message as part of the lie.

---

SamjamAg said:

---

I believe the jury instruction that he had to repeat the lie in the meeting is where the jury found room to acquit. The prosecution should have fought harder to include text message as part of the lie.

---

VegasAg86 said:

---

SamjamAg said:

---

I believe the jury instruction that he had to repeat the lie in the meeting is where the jury found room to acquit. The prosecution should have fought harder to include text message as part of the lie.

---

It depends. If they said it wasn't material, when or how many times he said it doesn't matter.

---

aggiehawg said:

---

SamjamAg said:

---

I believe the jury instruction that he had to repeat the lie in the meeting is where the jury found room to acquit. The prosecution should have fought harder to include text message as part of the lie.

---

Jury instruction removed the standard language "On or about, such and such date," to put in a date certain that was the meeting and not the text from the day before. So the jury was told to ignore the text in that instruction.

---

Line Ate Member said:

---

VegasAg86 said:

---

SamjamAg said:

---

I believe the jury instruction that he had to repeat the lie in the meeting is where the jury found room to acquit. The prosecution should have fought harder to include text message as part of the lie.

---

It depends. If they said it wasn't material, when or how many times he said it doesn't matter.

---

So if everyone that received the information said it wasn't material, then why was a full blown investigation opened.

It almost seems like they put all eggs into the basket of getting the SC disbanded after a failed trial attempt. I would argue that by having this case acquitted, it creates all sorts of issues for people above them who decided to start the investigation on non-material based information.

Am I wrong in thinking that?

---

“It was the government’s job to prove it and they succeeded in some ways and not in others,” she continued. “We broke it down and it did not pan out in the government’s favor.”

The woman, who did not give her name, declined to say how she thought the government succeeded.

— Jeff Mordock (@JeffMordock) May 31, 2022

will25u said:

---

“It was the government’s job to prove it and they succeeded in some ways and not in others,” she continued. “We broke it down and it did not pan out in the government’s favor.”

The woman, who did not give her name, declined to say how she thought the government succeeded.

— Jeff Mordock (@JeffMordock) May 31, 2022

---

Quote:

---

If that was a Trump attorney that went to the FBI and misrepresented themselves with info about Hillary, they'd be crying from the rafters to prosecute them.

---

aggiehawg said:

---

93MarineHorn said:

---

So it was jury nullification. Nice.

---

Yeah. Jury went into it not even trying to be impartial. Then judge messed up the jury instructions on purpose to give them an obvious out to vote to acquit.

---

BMX Bandit said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

93MarineHorn said:

---

So it was jury nullification. Nice.

---

Yeah. Jury went into it not even trying to be impartial. Then judge messed up the jury instructions on purpose to give them an obvious out to vote to acquit.

---

you talking about the "on or about" date issue? didn't Durham agree to that?

---

BMX Bandit said:

---

I was going off this poster saying Durham agreed:

https://texags.com/forums/16/topics/2912732/replies/62149014

---

BMX Bandit said:

---

so if judge screwed up instruction on purpose to get an acquittal, and Durham agreed to it, that would seem to make Durham incompetent, no?


( I don't think Durham incompetent, but thats the only conclusion if one thinks judge sabotaged the instructions)

---

Scruffy said:

---

So why was Flynn dragged through the courts if lying to the FBI isn't a crime?

---

kag00 said:

---

will25u said:

---

“It was the government’s job to prove it and they succeeded in some ways and not in others,” she continued. “We broke it down and it did not pan out in the government’s favor.”

The woman, who did not give her name, declined to say how she thought the government succeeded.

— Jeff Mordock (@JeffMordock) May 31, 2022

---

Is this out system of justice now? Jurors can simply ignore the law because they don't think the case was worthy of the effort? If you think they are innocent then say so. Don't subvert the entire system because your don't like the prosecution.

---

Scruffy said:

---

So why was Flynn dragged through the courts if lying to the FBI isn't a crime?

---