Spring forward.
To delete this message, click the X at top right.

John Durham's Investigation & Hannity's Delusional Operation Boomerang

Abandon reality, all ye who enter here. *Democracy*Under*Threat*
jcolvin2
Posts: 704
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 11:56 am
Verified:

Re: John Durham's Investigation & Hannity's Delusional Operation Boomerang

#51

Post by jcolvin2 »

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?
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.
jcolvin2
Posts: 704
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 11:56 am
Verified:

Re: John Durham's Investigation & Hannity's Delusional Operation Boomerang

#52

Post by jcolvin2 »

In his response, Durham apparently backed off a bit, correcting some of his mis-description of what Joffe was doing: https://www.emptywheel.net/2022/03/06/j ... ilerplate/
User avatar
Chilidog
Posts: 1926
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 4:36 pm

Re: John Durham's Investigation & Hannity's Delusional Operation Boomerang

#53

Post by Chilidog »

Does this vlown ever stop being a jAckass?
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.
https://www.cnn.com/2022/04/05/politics ... UXQFSOXqds
User avatar
Tiredretiredlawyer
Posts: 7541
Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2021 10:07 pm
Location: Rescue Pets Land
Occupation: 21st Century Suffragist
Verified: ✅🐴🐎🦄🌻5000 posts and counting

Re: John Durham's Investigation & Hannity's Delusional Operation Boomerang

#55

Post by Tiredretiredlawyer »

:sick:
"Mickey Mouse and I grew up together." - Ruthie Tompson, Disney animation checker and scene planner and one of the first women to become a member of the International Photographers Union in 1952.
User avatar
p0rtia
Posts: 4916
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 9:55 am

Re: John Durham's Investigation & Hannity's Delusional Operation Boomerang

#56

Post by p0rtia »

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.
User avatar
Ben-Prime
Posts: 2599
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 11:29 pm
Location: Worldwide Availability
Occupation: Managing People Who Manage Machines
Verified: ✅MamaSaysI'mBonaFide

Re: John Durham's Investigation & Hannity's Delusional Operation Boomerang

#57

Post by Ben-Prime »

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.
But the sunshine aye shall light the sky,
As round and round we run;
And the truth shall ever come uppermost,
And justice shall be done.

- Charles Mackay, "Eternal Justice"
User avatar
Tiredretiredlawyer
Posts: 7541
Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2021 10:07 pm
Location: Rescue Pets Land
Occupation: 21st Century Suffragist
Verified: ✅🐴🐎🦄🌻5000 posts and counting

Re: John Durham's Investigation & Hannity's Delusional Operation Boomerang

#58

Post by Tiredretiredlawyer »

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.
Cat yawns.
"Mickey Mouse and I grew up together." - Ruthie Tompson, Disney animation checker and scene planner and one of the first women to become a member of the International Photographers Union in 1952.
User avatar
northland10
Posts: 5596
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 6:47 pm
Location: Northeast Illinois
Occupation: Organist/Choir Director/Fundraising Data Analyst
Verified: ✅ I'm me.

Re: John Durham's Investigation & Hannity's Delusional Operation Boomerang

#59

Post by northland10 »

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.
Thanks for the ear worm.
101010 :towel:
User avatar
Kendra
Posts: 10497
Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2021 10:17 am

Re: John Durham's Investigation & Hannity's Delusional Operation Boomerang

#60

Post by Kendra »


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
User avatar
RTH10260
Posts: 14351
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 10:16 am
Location: Switzerland, near the Alps
Verified: ✔️ Eurobot

Re: John Durham's Investigation & Hannity's Delusional Operation Boomerang

#61

Post by RTH10260 »

:confuzzled: "after trial" or "at trial" ?
User avatar
Suranis
Posts: 5830
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 5:25 pm

Re: John Durham's Investigation & Hannity's Delusional Operation Boomerang

#62

Post by Suranis »

RTH10260 wrote: Wed Apr 13, 2022 1:57 pm :confuzzled: "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.
So at trial
Hic sunt dracones
User avatar
RTH10260
Posts: 14351
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 10:16 am
Location: Switzerland, near the Alps
Verified: ✔️ Eurobot

Re: John Durham's Investigation & Hannity's Delusional Operation Boomerang

#63

Post by RTH10260 »

H/T @Suranis
User avatar
Phoenix520
Posts: 4149
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 1:20 pm
Verified:

Re: John Durham's Investigation & Hannity's Delusional Operation Boomerang

#64

Post by Phoenix520 »

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
User avatar
RTH10260
Posts: 14351
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 10:16 am
Location: Switzerland, near the Alps
Verified: ✔️ Eurobot

Re: John Durham's Investigation & Hannity's Delusional Operation Boomerang

#65

Post by RTH10260 »

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
suggested more suggestive highlighting ;)
User avatar
Chilidog
Posts: 1926
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 4:36 pm

Re: John Durham's Investigation & Hannity's Delusional Operation Boomerang

#66

Post by Chilidog »

i wonder what happened today.
W. Kevin Vicklund
Posts: 2131
Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2021 4:26 pm

Re: John Durham's Investigation & Hannity's Delusional Operation Boomerang

#67

Post by W. Kevin Vicklund »

Chilidog wrote: Wed Apr 20, 2022 7:20 pm i wonder what happened today.
Durham blew more smoke* up the judge's ass.

*could end the sentence there
User avatar
Suranis
Posts: 5830
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 5:25 pm

Re: John Durham's Investigation & Hannity's Delusional Operation Boomerang

#68

Post by Suranis »

Durham kept coming.
Hic sunt dracones
User avatar
Dr. Ken
Posts: 2449
Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2021 7:12 pm
Contact:

Re: John Durham's Investigation & Hannity's Delusional Operation Boomerang

#70

Post by Dr. Ken »

ImageImagePhilly Boondoggle
User avatar
p0rtia
Posts: 4916
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 9:55 am

Re: John Durham's Investigation & Hannity's Delusional Operation Boomerang

#71

Post by p0rtia »

Halle-fucking-lujah.

Thanks, Dr. Ken.

:bighug:
User avatar
Kendra
Posts: 10497
Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2021 10:17 am

Re: John Durham's Investigation & Hannity's Delusional Operation Boomerang

#72

Post by Kendra »

https://www.washingtonpost.com/national ... p-clinton/
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.
User avatar
Slim Cognito
Posts: 6555
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 9:15 am
Location: Too close to trump
Occupation: Hats. I do hats.
Verified:

Re: John Durham's Investigation & Hannity's Delusional Operation Boomerang

#73

Post by Slim Cognito »

So it's a DC jury pool? Any IAALs want to venture educated guesses? We promise not to hold you to them.
Pup Dennis in training to be a guide dog & given to a deserving vet. Thx! ImageImageImage x4
User avatar
Kendra
Posts: 10497
Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2021 10:17 am

Re: John Durham's Investigation & Hannity's Delusional Operation Boomerang

#74

Post by Kendra »

Maria Harrison had Nunes and Kash Patel on her show this morning to talk about about what a great thing Durham was doing. :horse:

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. :lol:

Did find it on Amazon, worth looking up for the stupid, poor sales and not one review.
User avatar
p0rtia
Posts: 4916
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 9:55 am

Re: John Durham's Investigation & Hannity's Delusional Operation Boomerang

#75

Post by p0rtia »

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. :horse:

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. :lol:

Did find it on Amazon, worth looking up for the stupid, poor sales and not one review.
I've been collecting funky usages for 30 years, and I thank you without an ounce of rectitude for making my head do a loop-the-loop over "Patel...mentioning his new kid's book". His new kid is an author, my mind asked?

And they say punctuation isn't important!

:bighug:
Post Reply

Return to “The Big Lie & Aftermath of The Former Guy”