Skip to comments.Judge limits some Durham evidence ahead of Sussmann trial
Posted on 05/08/2022 9:10:18 PM PDT by AnthonySoprano
Judge limits some Durham evidence ahead of Sussmann trial "Circumstantial" evidence shows Sussmann is connected to the data gathering effort, the judge said.
A federal judge is limiting some of the evidence Special Counsel John Durham can use during the trial of Democratic lawyer Michael Sussmann to show a "joint venture" involving Hillary Clinton’s 2016 presidential campaign, Democratic operatives and others.
(Excerpt) Read more at justthenews.com ...
The Judge is the husband of a Dem Activist lawyer that represented Lisa Page in the Trump Coup. In other words, this case!
Strzok, Page - now into identifying Jan 6th Protesters.
Why Durham didn’t bring a motion to have him booted is another question.
Because those motions don’t work. But more ethical judges will offer to withdraw, even if they aren’t required to. That doesn’t mean this is an unfair judge.
There is a nasty trend lately of judges ruling what arguments you may or may not use. In this case it’s against the prosecutors because democrat corruption is being looked at.
But normally the judges rule that defendants may not use certain arguments.
The defense you advance is hot his business. It is not justice if you can only make arguments the judges approve of.
That is a programmed outcome.
It doesn't? Hhmm
I sometimes get hot under the collar for things that appear
they aren’t going right, or according to “Hoyle”. Sometimes
my concerns turn out to have been justified. Sometimes not.
Honestly folks, if you had asked me eighteen months ago if
if I thought Durham would be this dogged, I’d have said no
way. I was wrong.
He’s methodically moved step by step up the the DNC and
now other’s involvement.
I’m willing to see how this goes. I don’t have a choice
anyway, but the guy has been doing better than I thought
he would have.
Old “judgey wudgey” is just looking out for his commie lib massahs. He’s got their back. They aren’t going to jail.
I’m surprised the regime hasn’t fired Durham.
I wouldn’t call Durham dogged.
He came to a bizarre theory that the people wiretapping and surveilling and inserting Spies were fooled by Politically connected people telling self serving lies. He ignored the Political motivations of those surveilling and inserting spies, and lying to Judges on sworn documents.
His single count won’t keep anyone in jail In front of a Judge who’s wife defended the leaders of the Coup.
It’s all going to fizzle and we’re mostly beyond the statute of limitations. Every day weakens interest and assures the story is a blip.
If they didn’t have Durham, they’d have to invent him.
Oh, right, they did.
In other words, he might very well walk. I wonder if Sussman walks, will everyone walk?
I’ve been trying cases, often in federal courts, for forty years, and this is not uncommon. In most instances, the judge is simply trying to limit the evidence based on relevance, and sometimes they are trying to balance the probative weigh of some evidence against its prejudicial effect. You can disagree with where they draw the line, but it is part of what a judge does to ensure a fair and efficient trial.
So the judge allowed the evidence to be presented?
What authority does a British noble have to do that?
it is part of what a judge does to ensure a fair and efficient trial.
Or what a judge does to exclude the really incriminating evidence.
Democrats For Justice = Oil & Water