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

[Nostra]

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.

Um, the evidence had nothing to do with "character", Dumbass.

It had to do with his actual crime.

Also, this is from your link:

(2) Permitted Uses. 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.

Another major fail for you.

 

[toobfreak]

Tell that to Addison McConnell so he'll know that opposing the American public and sensible legislation to reduce firearm carnage is futile.

Really? Define sensible legislation, give us an example, then tell us how other gun laws are not sensible!

Tell us how after all these years with democrats in control that they have not yet passed any sensible legislation?

Then tell us that you will back up that law by paying every crime victim $10,000 when your sensible legislation fails to prevent crime?

Finally, tell us how anything can be "futile" (meaning resistance is pointless) in a democracy unless our society really isn't democratic?

 

[bendog]

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

I agree that specifically what Durham was going after (and what will arise again in the upcoming Igor Danchenko/Steele Dossier trial) was to show Hillary's campaign sought to influence the FBI to investigate Trump during the closing days of the campaign, and they used info they knew was false to do that. In Sussman's case, the information was the Alfa-Bank routers and emails that Sussman supposedly told the FBI were "suspicious." We now know that these emails were actually routinely sent by the bank to various "routers." But Durham never charged Sussman with misrepresenting the fact that Sussman thought the emails were suspicious. Instead, Durham went with his "gotcha" indictment that Sussman said he was coming into the FBI on his own, and not as Hillary's lawyer. And that's why Durham's entire indictment was ... nonsense. It shouldn't matter whom Durham was representing. It mattered if he lied about what he was reporting, and apparently Durham couldn't even sniff that.

If Hillary's campaign knowingly provided false info to the FBI to influence an investigation ... of course that would be a crime. Proving it may be a challenge.

But the real story, imo, is that why was the FBI releasing Hillary's emails days before the election - after Comey said the investigation was OVER - if the FBI was not actively seeking out any information it could find as to possible Trump-Russia ties. Imo there's no conspiracy there, just the FBI typically being more interested in personal vendettas and covering their own asses.

What Durham really wanted to prosecute is the entire notion that there was ANYTHING about Trump and Russia to investigate. But the Mueller report trashes that attempt at historical revision. And that is why Barr is such a pathetic pos. He's crying that Trump's first two years were impaired by the Russia investigation. Gee ...... just maybe Trump shouldn't have tied his IT to Russia or asked Putin to hack Hillary's emails. LOL Or maybe he should have acted like EVERY OTHER CANDIDATE WE KNOW OF BESIDES RICHARD NIXON, who reported any contact by/with foreign intelligence

If Barr was acting as the head of attorney general's office, his job would be to stop any "gotcha" indictments. But he was not. He was acting as Trump's toady, at least until Jan 6, after which he had to ditch Trump .... for his own safety. LOL

 

[meaner gene]

Um, the evidence had nothing to do with "character", Dumbass.

It had to do with his actual crime.

The crime was lying during the 2016 meeting. The text would do nothing to prove that.

And it was too late to change the indictment to include lying in the text as a charge.

 

[bendog]

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

I realize you intentionally mislead even yourself, but the charge was lying in the meeting, and Baker's reports were inconsistent as to whether Sussman said the same thing that was in the earlier email. But, we'll never know whether the jury didn't just sniff out that the entire case was about ... nothing. The govt never said Sussman actually lied about believing the RussiaAlfaBank emails to Trump were "suspicious."

 

[Nostra]

I realize you intentionally mislead even yourself, but the charge was lying in the meeting, and Baker's reports were inconsistent as to whether Sussman said the same thing that was in the earlier email. But, we'll never know whether the jury didn't just sniff out that the entire case was about ... nothing. The govt never said Sussman actually lied about believing the RussiaAlfaBank emails to Trump were "suspicious."

And the emails confirmed he lied in the meeting because he admits he did it on behalf of Hitlery.

You Dimtard Lemmings refuse to accept reality. It's getting boring.

 

[bendog]

And the emails confirmed he lied in the meeting because he admits he did it on behalf of Hitlery.

You Dimtard Lemmings refuse to accept reality. It's getting boring.

You really don't understand. It's not because you're lying; it's because you really don't understand.

 

[meaner gene]

I realize you intentionally mislead even yourself, but the charge was lying in the meeting, and Baker's reports were inconsistent as to whether Sussman said the same thing that was in the earlier email.

Nostra knows nothing about federal law. He thought a judge could allow evidence that would substantially delay the trial. And ignore the delay requiring the indictment being thrown out due to the constitutional right to a speedy trial.

 

[Nostra]

You really don't understand. It's not because you're lying; it's because you really don't understand.

You are correct. I really don't understand how you Dimtard Lemmings can deny the obvious facts presented.

It's mind blowing.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Nostra knows nothing about federal law. He thought a judge could allow evidence that would substantially delay the trial. And ignore the delay requiring the indictment being thrown out due to the constitutional right to a speedy trial.

He still thinks that.

You could smack him in the head with a baseball bat, and he would still deny baseball bats even exist, if his orange god prescribed it.

 

[Mashmont]

He still thinks that.

You could smack him in the head with a baseball bat, and he would still deny baseball bats even exist, if his orange god prescribed it.

You need to show respect to the last true president we've had since 2009.

 

[Nostra]

Nostra knows nothing about federal law. He thought a judge could allow evidence that would substantially delay the trial. And ignore the delay requiring the indictment being thrown out due to the constitutional right to a speedy trial.

He thought a judge could allow evidence that would substantially delay the trial.

Lies by you. I never said any thing remotely close to that.

I guess since your strategy of just denying reality didn't work you have moved on to blatant lies. Typical Dimtard.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

You need to show respect to the last true president we've had since 2009

haha, good luck with that failed, cultist fantasy. History will record him and his embarrassing cult for what they are.

 

[Nostra]

He still thinks that.

You could smack him in the head with a baseball bat, and he would still deny baseball bats even exist, if his orange god prescribed it.

No liar, I never thought that, nor did I ever say it.

Dumbass.

 

[meaner gene]

And the emails confirmed he lied in the meeting because he admits he did it on behalf of Hitlery.

You Dimtard Lemmings refuse to accept reality. It's getting boring.

Wrong wrong wrong.
He was charged with lying during the meeting. Which the text, or billing records don't prove, since Bakers contemporaneous statements don't mention a denial of who Sussmann worked for.

 

[Nostra]

Wrong wrong wrong.
He was charged with lying during the meeting. Which the text, or billing records don't prove, since Bakers contemporaneous statements don't mention a denial of who Sussmann worked for.

 

[Nostra]

The indictment alleges that Sussmann lied in the meeting, “falsely stating to the General Counsel that he was not providing the allegations to the FBI on behalf of any client.”

Durham, in his Monday filing, writes that Sussmann “had assembled and conveyed the allegations to the FBI on behalf of at least two specific clients,” including Tech Executive-1, who has been identified as Rodney Joffe, and the Clinton campaign.

…”Indeed, on September 18, 2016 at 7:24 p.m., i.e., the night before the defendant met with the General Counsel, the defendant conveyed the same lie in writing and sent the following text message to the General Counsel’s personal cellphone,” Durham wrote in the filing.

The text message, according to Durham, stated: “Jim—it’s Michael Sussmann. I have something time-sensitive (and sensitive) I need to discuss. Do you have availability for a short meeting tomorrow? I’m coming on my own—not on behalf of a client or company—want to help the Bureau. Thanks.”

Baker replied: “Ok. I will find a time. What might work for you?”


^^^^^^Looks contemporaneous to me^^^^^^^

 

[bodecea]

It's not a crime to turn over to the FBI, nefarious doings you think you've found. It's up to the FBI, whether they think a tip, is worth following or investigating.

See something, say something!

Yep....see something (or read something), say something.

 

[meaner gene]

He thought a judge could allow evidence that would substantially delay the trial.

Lies by you. I never said any thing remotely close to that.

I guess since your strategy of just denying reality didn't work you have moved on to blatant lies. Typical Dimtard.

Here's where you said just that

A judge can allow evidence at any time. He just needs to give the other party time to review and prepare for it.

He thought a judge could allow evidence that would substantially delay the trial.

Lies by you. I never said any thing remotely close to that.[/WQUOTE]

 

[Nostra]

Here's where you said just that




He thought a judge could allow evidence that would substantially delay the trial.

Weird, I don't see where I said anything about "substantially delaying" the trial.

You are a lying sack of shit. Give it up.