Sussmann Case Pretrial Rulings Update
And Other Tidbits
I haven’t been commenting much on the preliminaries before the Sussmann trial—assuming that it still comes off. One reason is that I’m a former investigator—not a former prosecutor. As such, I’m leary of shooting my mouth off and missing the nuances behind the various arguments and rulings—that stuff is the province of people who have had plenty of experience with trial tactics.
The other reason I haven’t bothered commenting much is that, so far, everything seems to be fairly ho-hum—no real surprises (although, continue to the end; developments remain possible). In that regard Doc Shipwrecked sums things up nicely:
Hans Mahncke says, ‘I agree’:
Margot Cleveland adds her two cents—summing up—but, again, none of this comes as a surprise:
THREAD: Reviewing Court's order in Sussmann case. LOL at this. In other words, Sussmann will likely not challenge Baker's statements before the jury b/c the text would make the argument unbelievable!
2/ Interesting: Court noting that given DOJ can't question Joffe on propriety of collecting Alfa Bank data, then maybe Joffe will be willing to testify anyway. I doubt it.
3/3 Overall, some in and some out, but rulings don't hurt gov't case at all and make Sussmann's defense harder.
Post-Twit: I'll have more (likely Monday) on the court's punting on the "joint venture."
Mahncke chimes in:
I agree! Why would a sensible judge go out on a limb, especially when the case and the rules of evidence that govern all this seem pretty clear?
However …
SWC makes this interesting comment. I always thought that Durham was working toward a big conspiracy indictment. SWC suggests that’s still a possibility. If his supposition is right, that’s the biggest development so far. A superseding indictment (note: that’s the correct spelling) was always possible, but SWC is pointing at a specific ruling that could lead to such a development:
The caveat here is that we don’t know what Durham knows. That’s especially the case re Joffe, who would probably be a key part of any bigger conspiracy indictment.
O/T—but … war, domestic and foreign, with same actors. Domestic:
Foreign:
Perhaps it is just my previous bias, but Kagan comes across as a reasonably articulate, well-educated fool who is incapable of understanding the inherent danger and unstated (and likely incorrect) assumptions his analysis is based on. In a previous life I might have referred to him as a "brilliant idiot" but he does not appear to deserve the "brilliant" part. OTOH maybe he is part of the cabal that wants to depopulate the world and sees war with Russia as a necessary step.
Sussmann trial began this AM. Time for new thread?
Question for MW: what significance, if any, do you attach to Durham being present at the prosecution table today? AFAIK, Mueller never showed up at any of the trials prosecuted by his goon squad of prosecutors.
My layman's sense is he would not be present in person if he thought the case might blow-up in his face. It therefore seems to betoken a sense of confidence by Durham in the outcome.