Posted on 04/25/2022 5:02:31 PM PDT by where's_the_Outrage?
Special counsel John Durham will not be allowed to present “extensive evidence” of the inaccuracy of the Trump-Russia collusion claims in his case against Michael Sussmann — unless the Democratic cybersecurity lawyer argues their accuracy first.
Sussmann was indicted last September for allegedly concealing his clients, Hillary Clinton's 2016 presidential campaign and “Tech Executive-1" Rodney Joffe, from FBI general counsel James Baker in September 2016 after Sussmann pushed since-debunked claims of a secret backchannel between the Trump Organization and Russia’s Alfa-Bank. Durham says Sussmann similarly concealed his client, Joffe, when he pushed further Trump-Russia collusion claims to the CIA in February 2017.
Judge Christopher Cooper, appointed to the federal bench by President Barack Obama, said he would not allow Durham to present detailed evidence from the CIA demonstrating the falsity of the Alfa-Bank allegations unless Sussmann first tried to argue the collusion claims were true.
Durham had said if Sussmann “were to concede or decline to dispute the fact that no secret channel of communications actually existed” between the Trump Organization email server and Alfa-Bank, then prosecutors “would not seek to offer proof concerning the ultimate accuracy and reliability of the relevant data.”
(Excerpt) Read more at msn.com ...
Thanks...
Totally agree.
Some one made an interesting observation here recently noting that there doesn’t appear to be any actual video of Durham giving a press conference or on tv. Just a couple of still photos of him.
Maybe it doesn’t matter in the grand scheme of things but it is something to consider.
Osama Obama appointee.
One side states a fact. If the fact is disputed, then both sides trot out their arguments and evidence. If the fact is accepted as a fact, there is no dispute thus no evidence need be presented.
Think of it like this. One side says water is wet. The other says no it is only damp ... now argue it out. -or- One side says water is wet. The other side says ... yep. No need to prove that water is wet as it is now an accepted fact by both sides.
Bingo!
Another of 0bama’s Affirmative Action judges.
Talking to the press is not Dunham’s job.
Oh interesting. I agree.
However, if Durham prevails, they sure can’t say it was in
the bag because of a Trump appointee or something.
I was thinking more like trying a person for murder, but not allowing the defense to provide evidence that the last person known to see the victim alive was the beneficiary on the dead person’s $150,000 life insurance policy; aka Pamela Hupp.
He seems to do it anyway, doesn’t he?
Yes, that’s good too.
The judge is wrong.
We’ll see how Durham handles it.
He’s a lot closer to Hillary than I ever thought
he’d get.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.