A serious question for Sam Stone on Factual Errors

[Lance_Turbo]

Another Durham conspiracy masquerading as an indictment has gone down in flames.

@Sam_Stone

As for it being one of the ‘weakest’ cases he’s seen, apparently a Grand Jury did not agree. So fhere will be a trial, and we’ll find out how weak the case is then.

Sam was actually referring to the last trial in this post. but has declined to answer if we found out how weak the case was.

I believe he, contrary to facts and evidence, still believes that the Clinton campaign was behind the Alfa Bank story and that Sussmann was acquitted narrowly because Durham couldn’t prove materiality beyond a reasonable doubt. None of that is true. 0%.

Sam had this to say about the Danchenko indictment…

@Sam_Stone

So, the Democrats hired a foreign spy, who in turn hired a suspected Russian agent to collect dirt on a Presidential candidate using contacts in the Kremlin.

…and this…

@Sam_Stone

One of the new facts in this indictment is that Danchenko was working with a person with direct ties to Hillary Clinton. This person actually provided some of the material used in the Steele Dossier. That means that Hillary didn’t just commission a fake dossier, but that her people helped create it. There was also a quid pro quo, as there are emails from Danchenko to others saying he expects a big political reward when Hillary is elected.

…among other things.

Some of these things were obviously false when he originally posted them, but, after the Danchenko laid the facts bare, we can see that pretty much everything in those posts is completely false.

Will Sam acknowledge the reality of the situation now, or, like in the Sussmann case, will he choose to continue to believe lies?