Now that the Court has issued an Order regarding Defendant Sussman’s Motion In Limine regarding newly disclosed (purported) evidence obtained by Special Counsel Durham…
I think many won't understand the 'why,' of why they don't want or need Alfa Bank to testify, but that is because it doesn't matter, and that is actually not what this is about, and at the end of the day, Sussman never objectively claimed that they were. He claimed they 'might,' it was not for him to say, and handed that information over to the proper sources to have the proper sources look further into it. Durham's case (and again, like you, I am not arguing this from either side where I am like, "Yeah Team Sussman," but Durham happens to be particularly idiotic in this case, and I can't comprehend why someone who appears to have been fairly, universally respected throughout his career, decided to set his reputation on fire for something so moronic at the end of his career) was always a paper tiger claiming that he misrepresented who his client was, which, interestingly, there has never even been consensus on THAT matter, and there were only a handful of people involved, so that.....seems.....odd.
See this is why I love you —because indeed to all the points raised, I genuinely believe Durham’s case is not at all strong and he’s an old school prosecutor—meaning take steps to confuse the jury and bend them to his way of thinking..the “would have or could have” arguments are a “cuts both ways” but I agree (largely based on the public record) that Sussman didn’t present the findings as “absolute and unassailable facts” and I certainly hope his defense team leans into that without opening the door the Court warned about
I agree completely, and I think this is well written and astutely reasoned by the ALJ. I know that I impulsively texted about the dismissal, but within about 30 minutes, I gave it thought and realized it is the wiser course 'not to' and remove 'any' impression of impropriety or political leaning, which it would have either way. It was a lose-lose decision, and so he thread the needle as fairly as possible, and as I noted to you, it was an odd weakness, and one of the few I have seen to date, by Sussman's team, to not argue and cite any cases that applied specifically as examples, leaving the door wide open for such a ruling.
I think many won't understand the 'why,' of why they don't want or need Alfa Bank to testify, but that is because it doesn't matter, and that is actually not what this is about, and at the end of the day, Sussman never objectively claimed that they were. He claimed they 'might,' it was not for him to say, and handed that information over to the proper sources to have the proper sources look further into it. Durham's case (and again, like you, I am not arguing this from either side where I am like, "Yeah Team Sussman," but Durham happens to be particularly idiotic in this case, and I can't comprehend why someone who appears to have been fairly, universally respected throughout his career, decided to set his reputation on fire for something so moronic at the end of his career) was always a paper tiger claiming that he misrepresented who his client was, which, interestingly, there has never even been consensus on THAT matter, and there were only a handful of people involved, so that.....seems.....odd.
See this is why I love you —because indeed to all the points raised, I genuinely believe Durham’s case is not at all strong and he’s an old school prosecutor—meaning take steps to confuse the jury and bend them to his way of thinking..the “would have or could have” arguments are a “cuts both ways” but I agree (largely based on the public record) that Sussman didn’t present the findings as “absolute and unassailable facts” and I certainly hope his defense team leans into that without opening the door the Court warned about
I agree completely, and I think this is well written and astutely reasoned by the ALJ. I know that I impulsively texted about the dismissal, but within about 30 minutes, I gave it thought and realized it is the wiser course 'not to' and remove 'any' impression of impropriety or political leaning, which it would have either way. It was a lose-lose decision, and so he thread the needle as fairly as possible, and as I noted to you, it was an odd weakness, and one of the few I have seen to date, by Sussman's team, to not argue and cite any cases that applied specifically as examples, leaving the door wide open for such a ruling.
Thank you for the update and for the saltwater therapy.
How long will Durham be able to continue this ridiculous fishing expedition?
Cue the Jaws music to be exact for Durham....
As for Mr. Musk....we shall see....side eyed glance...
Hey but you should be able to come back soon right. After all the new Twitter owner is all about freedom of speech. 😉