Welcome to the Hardcore Husky Forums. Folks who are well-known in Cyberland and not that dumb.
Post mortem
HHusky
Member Posts: 24,354
in Tug Tavern
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/webcontent/the-humiliation-of-trump-backed-prosecutor-john-durham/wc-39FC76B9C27F7D63209D12671AFEA8CA?ocid=msedgdhp&pc=U531&cvid=98f6172ac9c6471683f8addf7cfabbcd
What’s more, the prosecution had Sussmann’s client-billing sheets. While he charged the Clinton campaign for “work on confidential project” the day he spoke to Baker, the billing entry did not mention the FBI. Previously, Sussmann had specifically billed other clients in other matters for “meeting with FBI” when he did so on their behalf.
Reasonable doubt screamed out.
From the start, Durham should have seen that such gaps in his own evidence made declination the better part of valor. As Sussmann’s lawyers said after his acquittal yesterday, Sussmann “should never have been charged in the first place. This is a case of extraordinary prosecutorial overreach.” Prosecutors know the danger of bringing weak §1001 indictments—deterring individuals from offering tips for fear of being prosecuted for lying if something turns out to be mistaken.
Prosecutors, that is, with no political ax to grind.
Shoddy decisions and the paucity of results characterize Durham’s whole tenure. Yet there are no signs that he intends to close up shop anytime soon. In fact, he has yet another case pending. Last November, Durham’s office indicted Igor Danchenko, an individual who contributed to the Steele Dossier, and particularly the infamous rumor of a Trump “pee tape.” Danchenko’s trial is scheduled to get underway this fall.
In Danchenko’s case, as in Sussmann’s, the indictment is not for any wrongdoing related to the origins of the Trump-Russia investigation. Rather, it’s another case of a prosecution on §1001 charges of subsequently lying to investigators.
Maybe Durham will obtain a conviction in Danchenko’s case, and maybe that will give him a face-saving opportunity to pack up and skip town. But everything Durham has done to date has proved not the bang he was brought in to sound but rather a sad, inglorious whimper.
What’s more, the prosecution had Sussmann’s client-billing sheets. While he charged the Clinton campaign for “work on confidential project” the day he spoke to Baker, the billing entry did not mention the FBI. Previously, Sussmann had specifically billed other clients in other matters for “meeting with FBI” when he did so on their behalf.
Reasonable doubt screamed out.
From the start, Durham should have seen that such gaps in his own evidence made declination the better part of valor. As Sussmann’s lawyers said after his acquittal yesterday, Sussmann “should never have been charged in the first place. This is a case of extraordinary prosecutorial overreach.” Prosecutors know the danger of bringing weak §1001 indictments—deterring individuals from offering tips for fear of being prosecuted for lying if something turns out to be mistaken.
Prosecutors, that is, with no political ax to grind.
Shoddy decisions and the paucity of results characterize Durham’s whole tenure. Yet there are no signs that he intends to close up shop anytime soon. In fact, he has yet another case pending. Last November, Durham’s office indicted Igor Danchenko, an individual who contributed to the Steele Dossier, and particularly the infamous rumor of a Trump “pee tape.” Danchenko’s trial is scheduled to get underway this fall.
In Danchenko’s case, as in Sussmann’s, the indictment is not for any wrongdoing related to the origins of the Trump-Russia investigation. Rather, it’s another case of a prosecution on §1001 charges of subsequently lying to investigators.
Maybe Durham will obtain a conviction in Danchenko’s case, and maybe that will give him a face-saving opportunity to pack up and skip town. But everything Durham has done to date has proved not the bang he was brought in to sound but rather a sad, inglorious whimper.
Comments
-
Guilty as sin and you know it. You really do suck at this. Billed Hillary for the flash drives he delivered to the FBI.
What you miss is all the important sworn testimony about the creation of and dissemination of the all the dirt on Trump. But like I said you are dumb as a rock.
Everyone now knows without a doubt Hillary ordered it, funded it and pushed it. That's gonna play well in Trumps lawsuit don't ya think? Also will play well in trials coming up that won't be held in DC. Next one is in Virginia.
-
Also unproven. $58 billed or expensed? Stick to the food court, Mall Cop.Sledog said:Billed Hillary for the flash drives he delivered to the FBI.
-
But how does the Dazzler enjoy sucking miles and miles of cock?
-
Nice to see our resident Nazi sympathizer posting Goebbels-level propaganda...
-
another substantive rebuttal!pawz said:But how does the Dazzler enjoy sucking miles and miles of cock?
-
Sussman lied to the FBI
Not in dispute -
-
Mueller investigation exonerated Trump.
-
Right, but he didn't lie about anything important.RaceBannon said:Sussman lied to the FBI
Not in dispute
