Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Durham limited in presenting evidence that collusion claims were untrue, judge says
Washington Examiner ^ | Apr 25, 2022 | Jerry Dunleavy

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 ...


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Crime/Corruption; Foreign Affairs; Government
KEYWORDS: 2016election; 2020election; christophercooper; dossier; durham; election2016; election2020; jerrydunleavy; joffe; johndurham; michaelsussmann; obamastooge; rodneyjoffe; russia; sussmann; trump
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-34 next last
I'm not a lawyer, but how can limiting the prosecution to present legally obtained evidence be correct?

Amazing.

1 posted on 04/25/2022 5:02:31 PM PDT by where's_the_Outrage?
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: where's_the_Outrage?

This judge should be removed from the case.

You can’t try a person for something a judge has refused the
prosecution to present evidence for, to buttress its claims.

This is like trying a guy for murder, but you are refused to
present evidence there was one, and that the defendant was
in any way related to the murder.


2 posted on 04/25/2022 5:07:30 PM PDT by DoughtyOne (I pledge allegiance the flag of the U S of A, and to the REPUBLIC for which it stands.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: where's_the_Outrage?

Because it is irrelevant to whether or not he lied about not having clients.


3 posted on 04/25/2022 5:08:32 PM PDT by Oystir
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: where's_the_Outrage?
-- ... how can limiting the prosecution to present legally obtained evidence be correct? --

Those facts aren't material to proving the alleged crime was committed.

4 posted on 04/25/2022 5:11:00 PM PDT by Cboldt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Oystir

Are you stupid? That’s the ENTIRE case


5 posted on 04/25/2022 5:11:18 PM PDT by Mr. K (No consequence of repealing obamacare is worse than obamacare itself)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Oystir

Hmmmm...
Durham engineers the basis for the defense to leverage technicalities?

Say it ain’t so.


6 posted on 04/25/2022 5:12:26 PM PDT by CTyank
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: where's_the_Outrage?

The ‘Rat persecution now is always allowed to disallow any and all defense evidence as “misinformation”.


7 posted on 04/25/2022 5:13:46 PM PDT by Paladin2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: where's_the_Outrage?

So over the weekend all the articles indicating that no way the Clintons cabal / Lawyers would be able to suppress the evidence is now moot. BLOW IT ALL UP.


8 posted on 04/25/2022 5:13:48 PM PDT by DAC21
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Mr. K

no. The case is about lying to the FBI. That’s a yes or no issue. Sorry


9 posted on 04/25/2022 5:14:23 PM PDT by Oystir
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: where's_the_Outrage?
Obama stooge.

Always have a stooge in the Left place at the Left time.

10 posted on 04/25/2022 5:17:26 PM PDT by kiryandil (China Joe and Paycheck Hunter - the Chink in America's defenses)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DAC21

If the defense becomes that the lie was not “material” then Durham is going to be ready to present evidence as to what the FBI did or didn’t do with the lie and why it was in reality material. He is prepared to show how damaging the lie was. If Sussman pleads guilty, none of the material/evidence gets released.


11 posted on 04/25/2022 5:24:26 PM PDT by Oystir
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: where's_the_Outrage?
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.”

I think that is the key to your question.

12 posted on 04/25/2022 5:26:47 PM PDT by Robert DeLong
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Robert DeLong

Correct.

Admit you lied and we can move on.


13 posted on 04/25/2022 5:39:30 PM PDT by eyedigress (Trump is my President! )
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: where's_the_Outrage?
Not talking about this ruling, but it seems that Durham is trying to limit the FBI, DOJ & CIA culpability in the coup.

They knew that the whole Russia, Russia, Russia thing was 🦬💩 and who was behind it and were thrilled to play along.

14 posted on 04/25/2022 5:46:37 PM PDT by Eagles6 (Welcome to the Matrix . Orwell's "1984" was a warning, not an instruction manual.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Mr. K

No, the case in hand is not that they lied about Trump; this case is about Sussman lying to the FBI about not representing a client when he disclosed the fake info. If he tries to say it was true in court, then Durham can pursue.

I’d like to know if he’s free to tell the rest of the truth outside of the court case later, as part of his report. It’s likely to mostly come out in (pray for it) future cases.


15 posted on 04/25/2022 5:52:42 PM PDT by _longranger81
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: DoughtyOne
"This is like trying a guy for murder, but you are refused to present evidence there was one, and that the defendant was in any way related to the murder."
Perfect analogy. ;-)
16 posted on 04/25/2022 6:07:57 PM PDT by Tunehead54 (Nothing funny here ; - )
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: where's_the_Outrage?

The fix is going in.


17 posted on 04/25/2022 6:10:05 PM PDT by ptsal (Vote R.E.D. >>>Remove Every Democrat ***)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Eagles6

Right
It sounds as if the whole illegally conspired and and with government support as a promoted plot against Trump didn’t even happen if the don’t ask don’t tell agreeing holds.
The swamp in it’s entirety is playing us and that’s dc in toto excepting few?
That giant asteroid fix needed.


18 posted on 04/25/2022 6:14:06 PM PDT by Recompennation (Don’t blame me my vote didn’t count )
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: where's_the_Outrage?

“...unless Sussmann first tried to argue the collusion claims were true.”

Ok, talk away Sussmann, anything you say in court will further be held against you. Maybe he’d be smarter to just play Mueller’s case summary instead.

Still, what a terrible court decision.


19 posted on 04/25/2022 6:17:48 PM PDT by swingdoc
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: where's_the_Outrage?

Shocked! Shocked, I tell ya.


20 posted on 04/25/2022 6:19:02 PM PDT by LS ("Castles made of sand, fall in the sea . . . eventually" (Hendrix) )
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-34 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson