Interesting. If you read Rule 4 https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcrmp/rule_4 you'll see that a summons is issued basically in lieu of an arrest warrant. The point is that the defendant is summoned to respond to charges against him, rather than being hauled before the court. Therefore, superseding indictment sounds like a pretty good guess.
Not really. In the absence of additional persons being indicted, in which case there could be conspiracy charges, it could simply be more false statement charges. Or possibly some other form of fraud against the government. In this factual situation were basically talking in general terms about fraud against the government of one kind or another, and false statement comes immediately to mind.
I don't think so. The point of a summons is to require a defendant to come and respond to charges, so I don't think a plea deal meets the case.
Take a look at SWC. He explains in long form what I was saying about the nature of a summons. It would be normal for a summons to be issued to a defendant who has already been arrested.
However, SWC points out that there doesn't appear on the docket to be any new charging document--and, remember, that's what a summons is about. So SWC speculates that this could somehow be a mistake. Here we're getting into court procedures and I can't answer that. In fact, SWC and Techno Fog are puzzled, too.
The one way I could see this playing into a plea deal would be if the new charge--and I believe Danchenko was indicted on a single charge/count--is somehow lesser. However, I don't believe that makes sense in his case. Compare it to the FBI lawyer who got a slap on the wrist for a False Statement charge. There would be no need to substitute a lesser charge--whatever that could possibly be.
In it, he catalogs what witnesses have testified to Durham GJs, and what documentary evidence has been collected, plus who he has interviewed, and what it suggests about what Durham is investigating.
Excellent adjunct to the Sperry report of a few days ago.
The list for the GJ doesn't add much to what I said, but the list of interviews is an excellent reminder. Re the wide ranging GJ testimony he postulates, I'm not positive on this but I wonder whether some of these people were brought in several times to testify on separate aspects, just to keep their testimony neatly packaged and separated by topic/target. To avoid handing over in discovery info that they don't want to share at this point. Just guessing--they may be able to simply redact it.
Any chance Durham is using multiple GJs to isolate different aspects of his investigation? In fact, there is so much evidence in total that it may be beyond the ability of a single GJ to absorb all of it. Multiple GJs would also allow things to proceed in parallel to each other, saving time.
It's possible, but rather than 'aspects' I would say 'subjects' or 'targets'. Where it would get very complicated would be the overall conspiracy. That will clearly come last, if it comes. IOW, after the individual conspirators are indicted on various charges I think those cases would be brought together to be presented in an overall conspiracy, for which the individual acts of fraud (false statements, wire communications, etc.) are seen to be furthering the bigger case.
For example, in line with what you're asking, you might find one GJ handling multiple cases that hinge on the dossier, while another would handle cases that hinge on the Alfa Bank.
However, I wouldn't sell grand juries short. The jurors can get very involved. And, to be honest, I was never part of a case that's so incredibly wide ranging.
And since the conspiracy case can be brought in any venue in which an act in furtherance was committed, I doubt very much Durham would use a GJ in DC for THAT.
The problem with DC isn't so much the GJ--they only indict on probable cause. It's not getting the indictment that's the problem with DC, it's getting the beyond reasonable doubt conviction.
I forget the details, but I believe there's reason to think that he is using a GJ in EDVA as well as in DC. Maybe that mention will jog your memory.
These considerations are above my pay grade. However, the answer should be yes. For example, just because Sussmann was indicted in DC for a false statement doesn't mean he can't be indicted elsewhere for the conspiracy if a part of the conspiracy violation was committed there. Then the cases might be consolidated.
Again, I have no experience, but I believe this to be true.
Danchencko was indicted in EDVA. So there are AT LEAST two GJs that we know of. I suspect he may be using more than that to investigate, and wall off parts of his investigation he doesn't want to be forced to reveal to those indicted so far.
Durham appears to have squashed the Sergeant Schultz "I know nothing" refrain when it comes to Elias. Meanwhile, Hillary is beginning to look more and more like the completely inept Colonel Klink as the 'mastermind' and funder behind the initially successful coup attempt against Trump. How much longer Durham can wring the water out of this soggy sock is yet to be seen...
If Civil Service players don't have to change their addresses to federal prisons, then the corruption of the government - esp LE and IC - has no chance of being reformed.
As it is, that chance is somewhere between slim and none.
What do you make of this?
>> Filed today - there is a sealed summons in the Igor Danchenko case.
At this stage of the case, it could very well be a superseding indictment.
>>> pic.twitter.com/JZTrr3Lyuh <<<
— Techno Fog (@Techno_Fog) February 8, 2022
https://twitter.com/Techno_Fog/status/1491199790411317253 <<
Interesting. If you read Rule 4 https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcrmp/rule_4 you'll see that a summons is issued basically in lieu of an arrest warrant. The point is that the defendant is summoned to respond to charges against him, rather than being hauled before the court. Therefore, superseding indictment sounds like a pretty good guess.
Any thoughts on what additional charges Durham has in store for Iggy?
Not really. In the absence of additional persons being indicted, in which case there could be conspiracy charges, it could simply be more false statement charges. Or possibly some other form of fraud against the government. In this factual situation were basically talking in general terms about fraud against the government of one kind or another, and false statement comes immediately to mind.
Could a plea deal fit into this scenario? (I assume "no.")
If so, Durham is turning up the heat on Iggy to flip, it seems.
I don't think so. The point of a summons is to require a defendant to come and respond to charges, so I don't think a plea deal meets the case.
Take a look at SWC. He explains in long form what I was saying about the nature of a summons. It would be normal for a summons to be issued to a defendant who has already been arrested.
However, SWC points out that there doesn't appear on the docket to be any new charging document--and, remember, that's what a summons is about. So SWC speculates that this could somehow be a mistake. Here we're getting into court procedures and I can't answer that. In fact, SWC and Techno Fog are puzzled, too.
The one way I could see this playing into a plea deal would be if the new charge--and I believe Danchenko was indicted on a single charge/count--is somehow lesser. However, I don't believe that makes sense in his case. Compare it to the FBI lawyer who got a slap on the wrist for a False Statement charge. There would be no need to substitute a lesser charge--whatever that could possibly be.
Techno Fog has another update earlier today:
>> https://technofog.substack.com/p/has-peter-strzok-testified-before <<
In it, he catalogs what witnesses have testified to Durham GJs, and what documentary evidence has been collected, plus who he has interviewed, and what it suggests about what Durham is investigating.
Excellent adjunct to the Sperry report of a few days ago.
The list for the GJ doesn't add much to what I said, but the list of interviews is an excellent reminder. Re the wide ranging GJ testimony he postulates, I'm not positive on this but I wonder whether some of these people were brought in several times to testify on separate aspects, just to keep their testimony neatly packaged and separated by topic/target. To avoid handing over in discovery info that they don't want to share at this point. Just guessing--they may be able to simply redact it.
Any chance Durham is using multiple GJs to isolate different aspects of his investigation? In fact, there is so much evidence in total that it may be beyond the ability of a single GJ to absorb all of it. Multiple GJs would also allow things to proceed in parallel to each other, saving time.
It's possible, but rather than 'aspects' I would say 'subjects' or 'targets'. Where it would get very complicated would be the overall conspiracy. That will clearly come last, if it comes. IOW, after the individual conspirators are indicted on various charges I think those cases would be brought together to be presented in an overall conspiracy, for which the individual acts of fraud (false statements, wire communications, etc.) are seen to be furthering the bigger case.
For example, in line with what you're asking, you might find one GJ handling multiple cases that hinge on the dossier, while another would handle cases that hinge on the Alfa Bank.
However, I wouldn't sell grand juries short. The jurors can get very involved. And, to be honest, I was never part of a case that's so incredibly wide ranging.
And since the conspiracy case can be brought in any venue in which an act in furtherance was committed, I doubt very much Durham would use a GJ in DC for THAT.
The problem with DC isn't so much the GJ--they only indict on probable cause. It's not getting the indictment that's the problem with DC, it's getting the beyond reasonable doubt conviction.
I forget the details, but I believe there's reason to think that he is using a GJ in EDVA as well as in DC. Maybe that mention will jog your memory.
These considerations are above my pay grade. However, the answer should be yes. For example, just because Sussmann was indicted in DC for a false statement doesn't mean he can't be indicted elsewhere for the conspiracy if a part of the conspiracy violation was committed there. Then the cases might be consolidated.
Again, I have no experience, but I believe this to be true.
Danchencko was indicted in EDVA. So there are AT LEAST two GJs that we know of. I suspect he may be using more than that to investigate, and wall off parts of his investigation he doesn't want to be forced to reveal to those indicted so far.
I just finished it about a half hour ago, I'm breathless!!! You invitation to it is almost as long but it is so so so needed. Thanks!
Durham appears to have squashed the Sergeant Schultz "I know nothing" refrain when it comes to Elias. Meanwhile, Hillary is beginning to look more and more like the completely inept Colonel Klink as the 'mastermind' and funder behind the initially successful coup attempt against Trump. How much longer Durham can wring the water out of this soggy sock is yet to be seen...
"Durham appears to have squashed the Sergeant Schultz 'I know nothing' refrain when it comes to Elias."
And may he squash it out of many more :)
Interesting that Flynn was being targeted by Clinton before Trumps election.
Obama's wanted him gone the most, he knows where the skeletons are buried. I so want him back in!
Flynn was being targeted before Trump's nomination. By the Deep State.
I agree in substance.
If Civil Service players don't have to change their addresses to federal prisons, then the corruption of the government - esp LE and IC - has no chance of being reformed.
As it is, that chance is somewhere between slim and none.
Here's the other thing--no Durham indictments will charge anyone with "trying to manufacture dirt on Trump."