Fogbow

Chilidog wrote: ↑Sun Mar 06, 2022 8:41 am

jcolvin2 wrote: ↑Sun Mar 06, 2022 1:06 am

Chilidog wrote: ↑Sat Mar 05, 2022 10:19 pm So this dropped yesterday, and no one cares.

https://justthenews.com/sites/default/f ... Filing.pdf

Much of the response - including the reliance on Gaudin for the proposition that materiality is a jury question - reads like standard USAO fare. However, I find it odd that Durham doubles down and accuses Sussman of telling similar lies about the identity of his client to the CIA in early 2017. The statute of limitations for charging that alleged false statement expired a few weeks ago. Maybe Durham is crazy like a fox, but the whole exercise seems like Kabuki theater.

I am not a constitutional scholar by any means, but it seems to me that Durham is flirting with, if not outright violating the 6th amendment.

Help me out here.

Specificly, would Sussman's right to a speedy trial be violated by Durham's backdoor prosecution of events of the February 9 2017 meeting after the expiration of the SOL?

Secondly, why should Durham be allowed to make claims of facts based on events that can not be adjudicated? Would this not violate Sussman's right to confront the witnesses against him?

This evidence may be admissible for another purpose, such as proving motive, opportunity, intent, preparation, plan, knowledge, identity, absence of mistake, or lack of accident.

Washington (CNN)Special counsel John Durham wants to bring up the infamous Trump-Russia dossier and might even call its author Christopher Steele as a witness at the upcoming criminal trial of Hillary Clinton campaign lawyer Michael Sussmann, according to court papers filed on Monday.

Two late-night filings from Sussmann and Durham provided the first indication that the special counsel plans to introduce Steele and his politically fraught dossier from 2016 into the case.
Sussmann was charged with lying in regard to a September 2016 meeting with a senior FBI official, where he provided a tip about strange cyberactivity between the Trump Organization and a major Russian bank. Prosecutors say Sussmann falsely denied providing the tip on behalf of a client -- and was really working for the Clinton campaign at the time. He has pleaded not guilty.

Kendra wrote: ↑Fri Apr 08, 2022 7:24 pm https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics ... 1eec428144

Barr speaks.

p0rtia wrote: ↑Sat Apr 09, 2022 10:38 am

Kendra wrote: ↑Fri Apr 08, 2022 7:24 pm https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics ... 1eec428144

Barr speaks.

Atlas shrugs.

And having shrugged, moves on.

Ben-Prime wrote: ↑Sat Apr 09, 2022 2:20 pm

p0rtia wrote: ↑Sat Apr 09, 2022 10:38 am

Kendra wrote: ↑Fri Apr 08, 2022 7:24 pm https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics ... 1eec428144

Barr speaks.

Atlas shrugs.

And having shrugged, moves on.

I believe, too also, Jesus wept.

Ben-Prime wrote: ↑Sat Apr 09, 2022 2:20 pm

p0rtia wrote: ↑Sat Apr 09, 2022 10:38 am

Kendra wrote: ↑Fri Apr 08, 2022 7:24 pm https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics ... 1eec428144

Barr speaks.

Atlas shrugs.

And having shrugged, moves on.

I believe, too also, Jesus wept.

JUST IN: Judge Cooper rejected effort by Michael SUSSMANN to dismiss the case against him brought by special counsel Durham. He says Sussmann's arguments may be right but that it's an issue to decide after trial, not before.

https://politico.com/f/?id=00000180-23c ... ed6faf0000

RTH10260 wrote: ↑Wed Apr 13, 2022 1:57 pm "after trial" or "at trial" ?

The battle lines thus are drawn, but the Court cannot resolve this standoff prior to trial.
In United States v. Gaudin, the Supreme Court unanimously held that because materiality is an
element of a § 1001 offense, it is a question that generally must be answered by a jury. 515 U.S.
506, 512 (1995). Indeed, all the cases Sussmann cites where courts have found alleged false
statements to be immaterial were decided after a trial and on appeal from post-trial motions
under Rule 29. See, e.g., United States v. Johnson, 19 F.4th 248 (3d Cir. 2021); United States v.
Litvak, 808 F.3d 160 (2d Cir. 2015); United States v. Camick, 796 F.3d 1206 (10th Cir. 2015).
So, while Sussmann is correct that certain statements might be so peripheral or unimportant to a
relevant agency decision or function to be immaterial under § 1001 as matter of law, the Court is
unable to make that determination as to this alleged statement before hearing the government’s
evidence. Any such decision must therefore wait until trial.

Indeed, all the cases Sussmann cites where courts have found alleged false
statements to be immaterial were decided after a trial and on appeal from post-trial motions

Phoenix520 wrote: ↑Wed Apr 13, 2022 4:50 pm Not at, after:

Indeed, all the cases Sussmann cites where courts have found alleged false
statements to be immaterial were decided after a trial and on appeal from post-trial motions

Chilidog wrote: ↑Wed Apr 20, 2022 7:20 pm i wonder what happened today.

After five years of accusations, investigations and recriminations, a federal jury will soon grapple with one of the legal hangovers of the 2016 presidential campaign: the trial of a politically connected lawyer charged with lying when he brought the FBI a tip about possible connections between Donald Trump’s company and a Russian bank.

The trial of Michael Sussmann centers on the narrow legal question of whether he lied when he claimed — less than two months before the 2016 election — that no client had spurred him to bring the tip to authorities, and whether that information was relevant to how FBI agents investigated the matter.

But the case, which begins Monday in federal court in downtown Washington, may also serve as a kind of Rorschach test for those still smarting over the 2016 election and eager to see political opponents suffer legal consequences for what happened.

Kendra wrote: ↑Sun May 15, 2022 11:29 am Maria Harrison had Nunes and Kash Patel on her show this morning to talk about about what a great thing Durham was doing.

I can't recall specifics, I was dozing off. I did hear Patel at the end mentioning his new kid's book about the plot against trump. I couldn't even find a listing on Goodreads, which is odd because I think Amazon still owns the site and all books get listed.I wanted to put the book on a couple of unflattering lists.

Did find it on Amazon, worth looking up for the stupid, poor sales and not one review.