Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
He wasn't charged with anything before what he was indicted for, specifically lying on September 19th, 2016 in a meeting with Baker.Um, the text confirms he told the FBI he claimed he was acting as just a concerned citizen, and not on the behalf of anyone else. His billing records prove that was a lie he told the FBI.
And you don't think the email from the prior day where Sussman lied his ass off has any bearing on the case?He wasn't charged with anything before what he was indicted for, specifically lying on September 19th, 2016 in a meeting with Baker.
Any other crimes or acts NOT IN THE INDICTMENT are excluded under federal criminal procedure rule 404.
As I posted, the judge said that allowing the Text would have delayed the trial due to giving the defense time to incorporate it into their defense.And I posted a link to the statute saying the judge has discretion on admitting evidence at trial.
You conveniently ignored that.
No he didn't. That's your cult fanatsy.One juror admitted they did jury nullification.
Potential bearing on the case, yes.And you don't think the email from the prior day where Sussman lied his ass off has any bearing on the case?
Just more bullshit spin from you. The judge had the discretion to allow it and give the defense time to prepare. The trial was already started so your "speedy trial act of 1974" doesn't apply, Moron.As I posted, the judge said that allowing the Text would have delayed the trial due to giving the defense time to incorporate it into their defense.
And a trial delay runs afoul of the speedy trial act of 1974, which would require on motion, to dismiss the indictment.
So yes, the judge could have allowed the Text, but then he would have dismissed the indictment, forcing Durham to get a new indictment to bring Sussmann to trial.
It is admissible at the discretion of the judge. This judge was a Barry Hussein appointed hack who should have recused himself. He didn't, and made sure the jury was stacked with Hitlery supporters and Trump haters.Potential bearing on the case, yes.
Admissibility as evidence, no.
The Judges wife represents Lisa Page for Gods sake!It is admissible at the discretion of the judge. This judge was a Barry Hussein appointed hack who should have recused himself. He didn't, and made sure the jury was stacked with Hitlery supporters and Trump haters.
But you will continue to deny and ignore reality as you always do.
And he worked with the defendant.The Judges wife represents Lisa Page for Gods sake!
The judge made the decision in a Daubert motion, which is PRE-TRIAL.Just more bullshit spin from you. The judge had the discretion to allow it and give the defense time to prepare. The trial was already started so your "speedy trial act of 1974" doesn't apply, Moron.
www.nationalreview.com
Just more bullshit spin from you. The judge had the discretion to allow it and give the defense time to prepare. The trial was already started so your "speedy trial act of 1974" doesn't apply, Moron.
Your link clearly says Sussman's attorneys had not even turned over the emails at that point, so you are claiming defense can stonewall turning over evidence, the claim the prosecutors got the evidence too late to use.The judge made the decision in a Daubert motion, which is PRE-TRIAL.
WHY LIE that it happened after the trial started?
May 12, 2022 3:32 PM
District Court judge Christopher Cooper ruled Thursday that none of the 38 emails exchanged between lawyer Michael Sussmann, the Clinton campaign, and opposition research firm Fusion GPS — and submitted as evidence by Special Counsel John Durham — are admissible in Sussmann’s impending trial.
Judge Bars Fusion GPS Emails from Sussmann Trial | National Review
Sussmann’s trial for making a false statement to the FBI begins Monday.
Durham has subpoena power.Your link clearly says Sussman's attorneys had not even turned over the emails at that point, so you are claiming defense can stonewall turning over evidence, the claim the prosecutors got the evidence too late to use.
Hey Stupid, your own link says the defense withheld the emails and the hack judge said "You gotta turn them over, but now it's too late to use them".Durham has subpoena power.
He didn't use that power until 8 months after the indictment.
Sell your lies somewhere else.
Cooper writes that “the Court generally agrees with the defense that the government waited too long to compel production of the withheld emails.”
As I said, sell your lies somewhere else.
They excluded the emails days before the trial. To admit them, they would have had to significantly DELAY the start of the trial to give the defense time to prepare.
Hey Stupid, your own link says the defense withheld the emails and the hack judge said "You gotta turn them over, but now it's too late to use them".
