- Jan 16, 2002
Does the afoaf /surfdog bet have an expiration date?
Is there a public record of conviction?
Is there a public record of conviction?
That's old news.
Order Setting Conditions of Release – #10 in United States v. CLINESMITH (D.D.C., 1:20-cr-00165) – CourtListener.comORDER Setting Conditions of Release as to KEVIN CLINESMITH (1) Personal Recognizance Bond (PR). Signed by Judge James E. Boasberg on 8/19/20 and 8/21/2020. (Attachments: # 1 Appearance Bond) (znbn) (Entered: 08/25/2020)www.courtlistener.com
here you go, Page 1, item number 4 in the conditions for release....
that says loud and clear, return to court on the (previously set) sentencing date
and, if convicted, must surrender as directed
the courts had not convicted him yet by virtue of the court's own documents and language
that document was filed with the courts on August 19th, citing a December 10th sentencing date
jesus fkn christ...please stop talking out your ass all the time
Read the statement above VERY slowly and carefully.like I said, more bullshit...completely ignored the document and content therein
the August 19th alludes to sentencing and conviction date on December 10th which was further delayed
you just posted more tripe, bolded it to make it look like it meant something, and tried to act like all the bullshit you've posted refutes the very specific and very clear language I pointed out to you. nothing you have ever posted confirms conviction.
a conviction is a very clear state in a case. it is marked by very clear filings in the court. there was no conviction at the time specified in the wager
the clinesmith case is a fkn joke, Durham didn't find sh!t, there was no conspiracy or wrong doing in the
CIA or the FBI as it related to crossfire hurricane (as evidenced by the lack of convictions and repeated statements by the DOJ, who's running Durham's case, on the matter)
the entirety of your bet fell flat on its face...
you have zero fkn integrity, dude
View attachment 104652
because there are different types of release
Flynn, Manafort, Stone, etc caught lying under oath: “pRoceSS crImEs!!!”it's so funny...the bet was that Durham was going to uncover all this wrongdoing
Durham found NO FISA court violations
Durham found NO FBI wrongdoing in Crossfire Hurricane
Durham found NO DOJ wrongdoing in special counsel investigation
Durham found NO DNI wrongdoing for Ukraine whisteblower escalation
Durham found some poor, lowly clerk who amended a document to be (what he though)
MORE specific and factually correct, but which, as it turns out, was wrong. The document
itself was NOT a lynchpin in Crossfire Hurricane, the FISA warrants that were granted and
renewed, or the Special Counsel investigation.
he made a professional mistake; there was no conspiracy or malice
the spirit of the bet fails on that point alone, IMO. Durham found nothing that comports with
the wide-ranging conspiracy to that Surfdog was constantly blathering about
and then, on top of the utter failure of the Durham investigation to uncover any wrongdoing,
his bet fails to meet the time criteria:
a conviction by the end of September
he originally asked for charges, but I said no, because Barr could have charged anyone for
anything, plausibly...and a conviction is a very clear condition that would require the case be
completely adjudicated by the courts...or so one would think, but then again I underestimated
Surfdog's inability to accept reality.
a plea agreement was submitted to the court on August 19th. the problem is that the plea agreement
is NOT A CONVICTION. the court has to accept the plea agreement, convict, and then sentence.
the simple submission of the plea to the courts is not instantly/automatically a conviction because
the court requires time to review and certify the terms of the plea agreement; the prosecutors do not
unilaterally set the terms. plea agreements are always made pending approval by the courts.
this is precisely what was going on in the intervening months between submission of the agreement
and the December 10th appearance date (which was ultimately delayed until late January.)
everything that I've stated here can be substantiated and corroborated directly....it does not require
deduction or inference or indirect implication....he'll argue until he's blue in the face that submitting
a plea agreement is tantamount to a conviction, admittedly I can see some merit to this argument,
but it isn't a conviction and it doesn't satisfy the terms of the bet.
Pretrial supervision conditions are issued early on - and before the plea - so your point on this one misses the mark. Your best argument is that there's no conviction until the plea is certified. But even then, the timing of how this all could work makes the bet too vague. It was possible that he could have plead and been sentenced on the same day. It was also possible that he could plead and then be sentenced several months later. Neither of you anticipated any of this in the original bet, I'm sure. In fact, I don't expect either of you anticipated a plea at all.latest cases documents posted:
Unopposed MOTION for Return of Passport by KEVIN CLINESMITH. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Shur, Justin) (Entered: 02/04/2021)www.courtlistener.com
On August 19, 2020, Mr. Clinesmith made his initial appearance before this Court. He pleaded guilty, Dkt. 8, and was ordered released on his own recognizance with pretrial supervision conditions, Dkt. 10. Pursuant to those conditions, on August 25, 2020, Mr. Clinesmith surrendered his passport to Pretrial Services. Dkt. 41. On January 29, 2021, Mr. Clinesmith was sentenced to 12 months probation. See Minute Order Jan. 29, 2021.
interesting that the court documents indicated that he was released with "pretrial supervision conditions"
it's almost like August 19th was not his actual trial nor indicative of a conviction
any day now...
it was certainly anticipated...this is why he got (over?) a full year on the termsPretrial supervision conditions are issued early on - and before the plea - so your point on this one misses the mark. Your best argument is that there's no conviction until the plea is certified. But even then, the timing of how this all could work makes the bet too vague. It was possible that he could have plead and been sentenced on the same day. It was also possible that he could plead and then be sentenced several months later. Neither of you anticipated any of this in the original bet, I'm sure. In fact, I don't expect either of you anticipated a plea at all.
In regular jargon, Surfdog probaby wins this bet because a plea is generally considered a conviction. In technical jargon, you probably win the bet because a conviction needs to formalized on the record. In reality, neither of you win the bet because there's no way to tell what you intended regarding a plea.