Chilidog wrote: ↑Sun Mar 06, 2022 8:41 am
jcolvin2 wrote: ↑Sun Mar 06, 2022 1:06 am
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?
Unless the February 2017 meeting with the CIA somehow gets incorporated into a superseding indictment as an overt act in a conspiracy (which is a possibility), any misstatements to the CIA cannot be prosecuted at this point. However, the prosecutor can seek to introduce such evidence under Rule 404(b) of the Federal Rules of Evidence, which provides an exception to the general rule that "propensity" or "character" evidence generally may not be admitted in a prosecutor's case in chief:
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.
Even if Durham is planning to argue that the 2017 "misstatement" confirms that the 2016 "misstatement" was not a mistake or an accident, it does not belong in a response to a motion to dismiss on materiality. It seems to be there solely for political purposes.