Search Results: what''s his problem

This did not come about because of his girlfriend. At the trial she is not encouraging that he be connected but anger has she receive necessarily discouraged it. When having asked about what or something wrong and and what she and I possibly deserve more if he doesn't serve anything, she was up in the opinion that the courts and the jury should be like that decision. The way at this came about after so long was that the man text a crisis line and made full confession while talking about his past. Possibly he thought the statue of limitations was well past or he hadn't done anything wrong. But there seemed to be some awareness on his part that possibly he had done something wrong. The age was no issue because she was age of consent. The problem was that she requested they stop but he continued and it took her a 2nd request, him ejaculating into her and 20 seconds from first request before he stopped. She also began to give him oral everyday they saw one another and would always do so until he came, she let him do so without removing his penis. She felt it eventually became a thing expected but she made no complaint and he made no effort to ask her if she would prefer to not every day they saw one another. He faces 2nd degree sodomy, 3rd degree forcible rape and a max of 20 years in a Kentucky state penitentiary. Bail was denied and at the start of trial he has spent almost 8 months in the county correctional facility. You will decide guilty or not guilty and if guilty suggest a suitable punishment. Give this the same consideration you would if you were sitting on a jury. His life, as well as justice being served are at stake. Also possible life time sex offender registration.

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/informant-accused-feeding-fbi-bogus-biden-information-pleads-guilty-4-countsSmirnov

Smirnov had served as a "confidential human source" with the FBI.

The material also alleges that Smirnov "claimed executives associated with Burisma, including Burisma Official 1, admitted to him that they hired Businessperson 1 to ‘protect us, through his dad, from all kinds of problems,’ and later that they had specifically paid $5 million each to Public Official 1 and Businessperson 1, when Public Official 1 was still in office, so that '[Businessperson 1] will take care of all those issues through his dad,' referring to a criminal investigation being conducted by the then-Ukrainian Prosecutor General into Burisma and to 'deal with [the then-Ukrainian Prosecutor General].'"ad served as a "confidential human source" with the FBI.

The material also alleges that Smirnov "claimed executives associated with Burisma, including Burisma Official 1, admitted to him that they hired Businessperson 1 to ‘protect us, through his dad, from all kinds of problems,’ and later that they had specifically paid $5 million each to Public Official 1 and Businessperson 1, when Public Official 1 was still in office, so that '[Businessperson 1] will take care of all those issues through his dad,' referring to a criminal investigation being conducted by the then-Ukrainian Prosecutor General into Burisma and to 'deal with [the then-Ukrainian Prosecutor General]. The events Defendant first reported to the Handler in June 2020 were fabrications. In truth and fact, Defendant had contact with executives from Burisma in 2017, after the end of the Obama-Biden Administration and after the then-Ukrainian Prosecutor General had been fired in February 2016 — in other words, when Public Official 1 could not engage in any official act to influence U. S. policy and when the Prosecutor General was no longer'"