Reminder: John Durham Is A Highly Experienced Prosecutor
There’s a lot of hair's-on-fire stuff going around among non-lawyer, non-LE researchers on the Durham prosecutions. Every time some ploy is advanced by Sussmann’s defense team the cries of despair are heard. John Durham is a highly experienced prosecutor. He knows what he’s doing and, by all indications of his deliberate approach, thinks all these issues out in advance.
Case in point.
Last night commenter EZ pointed out a new exhibit that was released in the Sussmann case:
EZ
hi there
16 hr ago
>> https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.dcd.235638/gov.uscourts.dcd.235638.27.4.pdf <<
Durham files exhibit D in Sussmann case.
Baker interviewed for a job at Perkins Coie after leaving FBI.
Reply

Mark Wauck16 hr ago
AUTHOR
Just one page of at least 9 in whatever the original doc was.
Reply

EZ15 hr ago
>>
Lawyers for Michael Sussmann, accused by Trump-era special counsel John Durham of lying to FBI in a 2016 Trump-Russia meeting, seek quick trial after prosecutors turn over evidence showing star witness recalled the meeting differently than the indictment.<<
>>> Lawyers for Michael Sussmann, accused by Trump-era special counsel John Durham of lying to FBI in a 2016 Trump-Russia meeting, seek quick trial after prosecutors turn over evidence showing star witness recalled the meeting differently than the indictment. <<<
The Exhibit is offered to contradict how Durham characterized Baker's recollection.
Of course, defense if likely cherry-picking what to submit as an exhibit. For all we know, Baker may have subsequently clarified his recollections.
Reply

Mark Wauck14 hr ago
AUTHOR
I'm pretty sure Durham has thought this issue through. This seems like it might be part of an effort to gin up public sympathy.
Reply

EZ14 hr ago
... and/or an effort to force him to make a decision earlier than he'd like to.
I agree he wouldn't put in the indictment statements he can't back up with evidence.
Reply

Mark Wauck14 hr ago
AUTHOR
"force him to make a decision earlier than he'd like to"
That would, IMO, be wishful thinking. I don't think that will happen.
It appears that that single page out of nine was from an FBI 302 from their interview of Baker. Reminder: 302’s are not direct evidence. Baker, not the agent or his 302, will be called as a witness, and then will be cross examined. The 302 may be used to cross examine Baker—perhaps to claim that his story has changed—but because of the nature of 302s as summary reports of investigation, Baker’s verbatim statements under oath will be what’s important.
However …
A lot of people got over excited—people who don’t understand the rules of evidence. Dr. Shipwreckedcrew injected some much needed reality into these conversations—which also serves as a reminder of why I’m not getting excited about these early proceedings. Not at this point.
Check out the tweets. The point is, Baker will have testified before a Grand Jury under oath. That testimony will be admissible and will have a controlling effect on Baker’s trial testimony—if that’s what thing’s come to. This is why prosecutors have important witnesses—witnesses who will testify to the words of defendants—testify under oath before a Grand Jury rather than rely on the recollection and characterization of the agents. There are a lot of potential ins and outs, but at this point it’s not terribly complicated. Durham will have cemented Baker’s testimony in place by his Grand Jury testimony, and Baker is now under tremendous pressure to stick to what he said under oath:
Good agents tend to be conservative in their reporting and characterizations of what a witness says, rather than being “interpretive” in their write up, knowing that trial testimony is a matter for the prosecutor and the witness:
More from the motion to which the 302 was an attached exhibit:
>> https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FF-ME_8X0AI2Vu1?format=png&name=900x900 <<
The key point is Sussmann's attorneys are arguing for going to trial in May; Durham apparently is asking for a July trial date. Sussmann's lawyers disparage the amount to time Durham says is required to produce discovery before trial, arguing it can't take six months to produce evidence in a case in which there is a single witness (who is mentioned) to what Sussmann said.
But Durham's argument for a July trial date suggests there is much much more going on in this case than meets the eye in the 1001 charge that was brought against Sussmann, which fits with the often repeated sentiment that Durham will probably upgrade/supersede the charges in this indictment.
Here, in particular, is a specific example, something that no one has paid much attention to so far: Durham, in filings in Sussmann, has stipulated the need to enter into evidence substantial amounts of "Classified" evidence.
But what classified evidence would there be that goes to Sussmann's guilt or innocence regarding what he told Baker about on whose behalf he was acting when he brought the Alfa Bank DNS data to Baker?
GJ testimony isn't normally "classified." Neither are transcripts of wire taps done by US LE in normal criminal investigations.
Classified material is, by definition, material that could cause "damage" to US National Security by unauthorized disclosure.
see: 40 CFR § 11.4 - Definitions.
>> https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/40/11.4 <<
So what the Hell is there that fits that definition and is relevant to Sussmann's guilt or innocence?
My guess is there's another shoe (or three?) to drop in this case, before it's over.
Breaking: " It's official: Durham is investigating the Clinton Campaign. "
>> https://technofog.substack.com/p/its-official-durham-is-investigating <<
Based on Durham filings related to Danchenko's new lawyers.