John Durham Case Update: Jury Finds Michael Sussmann NOT guilty of lying to the FBI

[Nostra]

Have someone explain this to ya...

Special counsel John Durham did not have the text message when the charge was filed in September 2021, flush up against the statute of limitations. Consequently, in March 2022, when he obtained a copy of the text from James Baker (the FBI’s former general counsel who received the text from Sussmann), Durham could not go back to the grand jury to add a new charge or substantially change the indictment.​

Means nothing because of this, Fawnboi:


Evidence must also be sufficiently reliable to be admitted at trial.

 

[Faun]

Means nothing because of this, Fawnboi:


Evidence must also be sufficiently reliable to be admitted at trial.

LOLOL

I knew you wouldn't understand it.

 

[Nostra]

LOLOL

Sadly, now you're lying as you never even answered my question. You answered a question I didn't ask. Nothing you posted shows evidence discovered after an indictment is admissible.

Tran v. State​

​

If we allow evidence discovered after an indictment has been formed and served on a defendant to cure any prejudicial effect it had created, we defeat the constitutional protection afforded an individual to "ensure that criminal defendants have a fair and adequate opportunity to prepare for and defend against the charges brought against them by the government." Quang Thanh Tran , 962 So. 2d at 1241.​

Once again, a judge can allow the evidence and give the defense an "opportunity to prepare" for it.

This is why this case was dismissed. It had nothing to do with evidence after an indictment, Dumbass.

CONCLUSION​

¶ 44. We find that the Court of Appeals correctly reversed and rendered Nguyen's conviction. We find Tran's indictment was defective for failure to specify the unlawful activity

Run along, Sally.

 

[Nostra]

LOLOL

I knew you wouldn't understand it.

The judge ruled that he did not consider the time remaining to be sufficient for the defense to review the surprise discovery.

“The Special Counsel waited some eight months after it was aware of the privilege holders’ final position to seek court intervention,” added Cooper, who said that allowing the emails to be used in the trial “would prejudice Mr. Sussmann’s defense,” because his attorneys would need to devote time to reviewing and preparing for the prosecution’s use of them.[/I]

Thanks for once again proving what a hack the judge was.

 

[bendog]

You do realize it's constitutional to have "Shillary donors" sit on a jury, right?

And again, Durham lost because he couldn't prove in court that Sussmann lied.

Michael Sussmann's not guilty verdict wasn't a surprise. Here's why

The trial of attorney Michael Sussman has come to an end. Special prosecutor John Durham's case against Sussman is complicated. Here's why it ended this way.

www.foxnews.com

Thank you. That explains a lot to me. I could not figure out how the FBI could claim any intent to mislead or anyway Sussman could "hoodwink" the FBI since everyone knew he worked for the law firm representing Hillary.

I'm still not sure what was in "the email." It doesn't seem impossible that sussman did contact the FBI on his own behest, and not Clinton's campaign. Mook's testimony buoyed that because he said the campaign was talking to the press, and not the FBI, because the campaign was convinced the FBI was trying to destroy Hillary's chances of winning, which they probably successfully did.

But Durham and Barr's weeping is simply pathetic. There was no "sedition." There was good reason to suspect Trump and Putin acted in concert (Trump's own words), and a suspicion that Trump was giving Putin something in return. Compare that to 8 years of Trump leading the charge that Obama was an illegitimate president because the was not an American. Trump's first two years were hurt by Mueller's (BIPARTSANLY commissioned) investigation, but .... Putin's KGB helped Trump, and there's not disputing that fact.

 

[meaner gene]

LOLOL

Sadly, now you're lying as you never even answered my question. You answered a question I didn't ask. Nothing you posted shows evidence discovered after an indictment is admissible.

I believe the problem here is that the indictment was for Sussmann lying to Baker in their 2016 meeting. The text message would require the indictment be changed to include lying to Baker in the text message, which was prohibited under Quang Thanh Tran , 962 So. 2d at 1241.

Therefore they were trying to use the text to bolster that Sussmann lied to Baker in their meeting, by showing that lie in a text before the meeting.

But because Bakers contemporaneous statements about the meeting didn't include the lie from the text (and were only incorporated in statements from 2018 and 2019) the defense would need time to prepare for the prosecutions new allegations.

The judge concluded Durham waited too long to pull the rabbit out of the hat.

 

[bendog]

Once again, a judge can allow the evidence and give the defense an "opportunity to prepare" for it.

This is why this case was dismissed. It had nothing to do with evidence after an indictment, Dumbass.

CONCLUSION​

¶ 44. We find that the Court of Appeals correctly reversed and rendered Nguyen's conviction. We find Tran's indictment was defective for failure to specify the unlawful activity

Run along, Sally.

No it cannot be. The charge - that Sussman lied to Baker in a meeting - could not be changed after the indictment. The State COULD have moved to dismiss the entire indictment, and it could have reindicted Sussman ... but the statute of limitations was .... UP.

 

[bendog]

I believe the problem here is that the indictment was for Sussmann lying to Baker in their 2016 meeting. The text message would require the indictment be changed to include lying to Baker in the text message, which was prohibited under Quang Thanh Tran , 962 So. 2d at 1241.

Therefore they were trying to use the text to bolster that Sussmann lied to Baker in their meeting, by showing that lie in a text before the meeting.

But because Bakers contemporaneous statements about the meeting didn't include the lie from the text (and were only incorporated in statements from 2018 and 2019) the defense would need time to prepare for the prosecutions new allegations.

The judge concluded Durham waited too long to pull the rabbit out of the hat.

But in any event the State had to prove Sussman saying he was coming in on his own (and not for the campaign) had to be material, or at least Sussman intended some material misrepesentation. Durham's entire case made no sense. Unless perhaps Hillary believed the FBI would never investigate her allegations against Trump .....

 

[meaner gene]

But in any event the State had to prove Sussman saying he was coming in on his own (and not for the campaign) had to be material, or at least Sussman intended some material misrepesentation. Durham's entire case made no sense. Unless perhaps Hillary believed the FBI would never investigate her allegations against Trump .....

I also found the "material to the case" confusing. As it becomes a case of "blaming the messenger". And I don't see where any additional scrutiny because of the source, would have been more than their ordinary due diligence in handling tips they receive.

 

[meaner gene]

The Durham thing was a case of a witch hunt, that never went after the witch.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

The Durham thing was a case of a witch hunt, that never went after the witch.

Because the witch was dead long before his investigation started. This sham was the result of the most unethical AG in history refusing to accept the results of two investigations by his own staff.

 

[Nostra]

No it cannot be. The charge - that Sussman lied to Baker in a meeting - could not be changed after the indictment. The State COULD have moved to dismiss the entire indictment, and it could have reindicted Sussman ... but the statute of limitations was .... UP.

Who said the charge needed to be changed? The email confirmed the lie in the idictment.

 

[meaner gene]

What's funny is how long republicans have been yelling Durham, Durham, Durham. And when Durham actually got up at bat, the mighty Durham has struck out.

 

[meaner gene]

Who said the charge needed to be changed? The email confirmed the lie in the idictment.

Actually it didn't. At most it proved Sussmann lied in the text he sent before the meeting, but the indictment was for statements made DURING (not before) the meeting in 2016.
The text did not, and could not prove or disprove what happened in the subsequent meeting.

It was evidence to prejudice the actual events of the meeting.

 

[Nostra]

Actually it didn't. At most it proved Sussmann lied in the text he sent before the meeting, but the indictment was for statements made DURING (not before) the meeting in 2016.
The text did not, and could not prove or disprove what happened in the subsequent meeting.

It was evidence to prejudice the actual events of the meeting.

It was further confirmed by his billing records. He billed Hitlery for the exact hour he spent with the FBI, and the two thumb drives he gave them.

But keep ignoring reality, it's what you Dimtard lemmings are good at.

 

[meaner gene]

Introducing at trial that Sussmann lied in the text, is no different than bringing up a defendants criminal history.

What this usually means for a criminal defendant is that the prosecutor may not introduce evidence of bad acts you committed in the past—criminal or otherwise—in order to show that you committed the crime with which you are being charged.

 

[meaner gene]

It was further confirmed by his billing records. He billed Hitlery for the exact hour he spent with the FBI, and the two thumb drives he gave them.

But keep ignoring reality, it's what you Dimtard lemmings are good at.

And the billing records were admissible

The text was not (see the preceding post)

 

[Faun]

Once again, a judge can allow the evidence and give the defense an "opportunity to prepare" for it.

This is why this case was dismissed. It had nothing to do with evidence after an indictment, Dumbass.

CONCLUSION​

¶ 44. We find that the Court of Appeals correctly reversed and rendered Nguyen's conviction. We find Tran's indictment was defective for failure to specify the unlawful activity

Run along, Sally.

My mistake, I linked the referenced case (Quang Thanh Tran), not the case where the judge cited that unconstitutionality...

Valentine v. State

If we allow evidence discovered after an indictment has been formed and served on a defendant to cure any prejudicial effect it had created, we defeat the constitutional protection afforded an individual to "ensure that criminal defendants have a fair and adequate opportunity to prepare for and defend against the charges brought against them by the government." Quang Thanh Tran , 962 So. 2d at 1241.​

 

[Nostra]

Introducing at trial that Sussmann lied in the text, is no different than bringing up a defendants criminal history.

What this usually means for a criminal defendant is that the prosecutor may not introduce evidence of bad acts you committed in the past—criminal or otherwise—in order to show that you committed the crime with which you are being charged.

"usually means"..................and no link. I wonder why?

 

[meaner gene]

"usually means"..................and no link. I wonder why?

That's from the California criminal code. I knew you'd object to using state law in a federal case, so I omitted the source

So here's the federal statute saying the same thing.

Rule 404. Character Evidence; Other Crimes, Wrongs, or Acts

www.law.cornell.edu

(b) Other Crimes, Wrongs, or Acts.

(1) Prohibited Uses. Evidence of any other crime, wrong, or act is not admissible to prove a person’s character in order to show that on a particular occasion the person acted in accordance with the character.