Kool said:
B.S. post about Hawg above. Hopefully it gets taken down.
Hawg is The Woman around here. She does the work that I have neither the time nor the attention span nor the legal acumen to do. To insult her because a jury didn't make what I would consider to be a slam dunk conviction is absolutely wrong.
It is indeed frustrating. I get it. There appear to be two separate systems of justice in the world - one for conservatives and one for liberals. One need go no further than to look at the sharp contrast between those who ransacked our nation during the summer of 2020 versus the treatment of those who were peacefully protesting (not the idiots who destroyed public property, they should be prosecuted) on January 6th.
I think we need to consider the Judges Instructions as well...
If he said to the jury, "unless the gloves fit, you must acquit" (humor) or, "If the witness testimony included the words, 'yes, he lied', then you can find him guilty.
Most of the testimony I saw implicated FBI desire to keep him around as an informant, even paying him. The surprising thing is as an operative, the FBI kept him around. If the shoe were on the other foot...
But, what I did read is that Durham established a few other bases for pursuing other targets...I am not sure he is "done". If he has indicated other targets to Garland, we may see additional action. And if any of those targets cross the thin red line, Garland may shut him down...
