Special Counsel Durham -needs more time-Judge —>Speedy Trial Act, full speed ahead.
Special Counsel Durham -needs more time-Judge —>Speedy Trial Act, full speed ahead.
The Court said -not so fast …to prepare the case against Michael Sussman. It should be noted the December 8, 2021 filing it was a RESPONSE to the Defendant’s recent motion.
The Sussman criminal case, it’s been a bit of a daunting task. Attempting to compartmentalize the disappointment, isn’t an easy lift. When a legal titan falls —it can be difficult to get yourself back on solid footing. Candidly it has also been an intellectual challenge, that being: testing my ability to stick to the facts and leaving any emotion out. If you’ll recall this is the same stance to took regarding Greg Craig.
For obvious reasons, when you’ve admired and respected an individual that’s made a name for themselves in the same industry — it’s hard to set your previous interactions aside and contemplate what was detailed in his indictment. Which is why I took a longer (than normal) time to write about his indictment. I had to work through my own personal and professional angst, before I could approach the Indictment with the prerequisite “non-emotive —just focus on the facts”
In this article I’m going to help you connect a few dots because those dots are not readily apparent, unless of course you know what to look for. And to be clear I’m in no way making an assessment as to Defendants Sussman and Danchenko. I’m merely pointing out the connective tissue.
Special Counsel John Durham -2 criminal cases
On October 19, 2020, Attorney General William Barr “officially” issued an Order which formally appointed John Durham to serve as the Special Counsel. See the order below and the redlines to the order.
The facts show, Bill Barr truly embraced being Donald Trump’s consigliere. Barr took several actions that not only jeopardize the “independence” of the FBI, but more broadly the Department of Justice.
Unfortunately Trump/Barr maladministration resulted in and what will likely be irreparable harm to the DOJ. The offensive predicate made Durham “ Investigate the Investigators” —one can only conclude that’s how warped Trump’s mind is. The short and long term damage by Donald Trump and Bill Barr inflicted upon out Department of Justice (DOJ) most certainly hits to the core of the DOJ’s credibility, equal Administration of law, the pursuit of Justice and if the DOJ can truly be apolitical.
However when you review both the quantitatively and the qualitatively aspect, of both special counsels — it becomes clear Durham’s output is significant less then Mueller’s. With respect to the the quality of Durham’s cases. He recently asked the Court to grant him a nearly four month delayed in Defendant Sussman’s case. One could infer that speaks to the quality (strength of the case) -that request was quickly dispatched. See Dec 14th Order-Trial Schedule
Again the damage Donald Trump with the help of former Attorney General Barr did to the Department of Justice —it is almost too vast to properly detail. The reality is, it might take several administrative to ameliorate the institutional damage at the hands of our former Attorney General and Donald Trump.
https://www.justice.gov/sco-durham vs. https://www.justice.gov/archives/sco-mueller
By the numbers Special Counsel Durham
As you’ll note nearly $1.39 million dollars later and months longer than Special Counsel Mueller’s Investigation (who’s total expenditure was just over $15.97 million) One could make a persuasive argument that the Durham Investigation is a horrendous return on tax payer investment. Thus far Durham has only charged two individuals. And their indictments, respectively are inextricably linked, that is Defendants Sussman and Danchenko. Also note the date of each indictment.
Statement of Expenditures, October 19, 2020 - March 31, 2021
Russian National Indicted for Making False Statements to the FBI, November 4, 2021 IGOR Y. DANCHENKO
Grand Jury Indicts D.C. Attorney with Making False Statements to the FBI in 2016 Regarding Alleged Communications Between Trump Organization and Russian Bank, September 16, 2021 -MICHAEL SUSSMAN
By the Numbers Special Counsel Mueller
On May 17, 2017, Robert S. Mueller III was appointed by acting Attorney General Rod J. Rosenstein to serve as Special Counsel by the order below.
Order 3915-2017 -Order on the Appointment
Report on the Investigation into Russian Interference in the 2016 Presidential Election
Background Defendants Sussman and Danchenko
You might find rereading the previous article helpful. It was published in September 2021. If you think you can’t possibly connected the dots, then I’m sorry to inform you that I can. I like dots. I like to find dots. I like to randomly collect dots. Hence Sussman’s Criminal Case = Dot #1 and Danchenko Criminal Case = Dot # 2.
I give you my word that I’m going to help you actually connect the dots and reshuffle the timeframe in the correct order. Yes that is me saying that I am pretty sure Special Counsel Durham made an error. I’m not inferring the substance but YES the materiality and timing matters, particularly when you have two defendants in two separate (albeit neighboring districts) but both cases largely rely on the same set of facts. Thus these cases are inextricably linked. And my educated guess is Durham needs Danchenko conviction before Sussman’s trial commences.
Defendant Sussman’s argues for an earlier trial date.
And predictably Durham attempted to push back - hard. I I think I know why… and I’m going to explain with actual documents to support my assessment. Notwithstanding it is paramount to fully understand the various chain of events/filings before we dive into Durham’s December 7, 2021 response to Defendant Sussman’s December 6, 2021 Motion.
In short there are a lot of procedures that occur before the commencement of a criminal trial. And while most, especially after the Court instructed parties to “meet and confer” to find a mutually agreeable Trial date and to apprise the Court on the date and schedule - most are unaware of the actual Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure (effective Dec 1, 2020)
So let’s first dissect the December 6, 2021 Motion to Set a Trial date and proposed schedule -because you need to understand the origins in the correct and timely context. Additionally this is no way should be construed as me saying Sussman is beyond reproach or that Durham is engaging in selective prosecution. Although I do believe that argument might rear its head the closer we get to the commencement of his criminal trial…
…Special Counsel has also suggested that four more months are necessary for the Special Counsel to produce both classified and unclassified discovery in this single-count false statement case.
Now that your memory has been adequately refreshed by the prerequisite background. You should know what the purpose and perimeters pursuant to:
The SPEEDY TRIAL ACT OF 1974 & 6th Amendment protections
Every Defendant should be afforded the doctrine of “innocent until proven guilty” —Title I of the Speedy Trial Act of 1974, 88 Stat. 2080, amended August 2, 1979, 93 Stat. 328, is set forth in 18 U.S.C. §§ 3161-3174. The underlying purpose of the STA is that Defendant are not left in limbo or criminal prosecution purgatory. That Defendants have a right to a fair and speedy trial. Otherwise the determinative outcome could be a Defendant would be in an indefinite holding pattern. Below are a few high level factual aspects of the STA.
The Act establishes time limits for completing the various stages of a federal criminal prosecution.
The information or indictment must be filed within 30 days from the date of arrest or service of the summons. 18 U.S.C. § 3161(b).
Trial must commence within 70 days from the date the information or indictment was filed, or from the date the defendant appears before an officer of the court in which the charge is pending, whichever is later. 18 U.S.C. § 3161(c)(1).
It is under this legal frame work that Defendant Sussman filed his December 6, 2021 Motion. And yes I understand for some that reading legal filings is like read a bunch of gibberish. However allow me to point out the salient arguments Defendant Sussman made:
…a trial commencing May 2, 2022 or sooner is needed to protect Mr. Sussmann’s constitutional and statutory rights to a speedy trial; is workable and practicable; and is comparable to the April 18, 2022 trial date set 1in the false statements case brought by the Special Counsel in the Eastern District of Virginia nearly seven weeks after Mr. Sussmann was charged.
The underlying issue here, is Special Counsel Durham indicted Sussman and seven weeks later Durham Indicted Igor Y. Danchenko - Defendant Danchenko’s trial date for April 2022. Granted it is well known that EDVA’s nick-name “the rocket docket” is indicative of how quickly criminal cases are adjudicated. Notwithstanding Defendant Sussman articulated a concise argument in his bid to secure a Trial date whereas Durham wants the trial date pushed for after USA v Danchenko trial. That assertion is largely expounded on pages 3 and 4 of Defendant Sussman’s Dec 6th Motion…
…contrary to the allegations in the Indictment, when Mr. Baker first met with the Special Counsel in June 2020, he told the Special Counsel that the topic of Mr. Sussmann’s clients never even came up during the September 19, 2016 meeting. See SCO-006251, attached hereto as Exhibit D…
…Sussmann respectfully submits that a trial commencing May 2, 2022 is: (1) necessary to protect Mr. Sussmann’s rights and interests; (2) workable and practicable; and (3) in keeping with the April 18, 2022 trial date set in a similar false statements case brought by the Special Counsel in the Eastern District of Virginia nearly seven weeks after Mr. Sussmann was charged.
MOTION to Set Trial Date and Enter a Scheduling Order by MICHAEL A. SUSSMANN. Attachments:
RESPONSE by USA as to MICHAEL A. SUSSMANN re 27 MOTION to Set Trial Date and Enter a Scheduling Order -to be fair the Government’s response is underwhelming. However note the highlights and redlined portions. (See Scribd Link) Pay close attention to pages 2 & 3 to the USA’s response
“Government has produced to date more than 91,000 pages in unclassified discovery and more than 5,000 pages in classified discovery. These materials have included an entire FBI case file with relatively minor redactions, more than 60 reports of interview containing Jencks Act materials (including investigator notes and documentary exhibits), three grand jury transcripts, and other documents.”
Minute Entry for video Status Conference held before Judge Christopher R. Cooper as to MICHAEL A. SUSSMANN on 12/8/2021. Defendant consents to proceed by video.
The Court makes a finding to toll the speedy trial clock from 12/8/2021 through 1/7/2022, in the interest of justice and for reasons stated on the record. Forthcoming Pretrial Order.
Bond Status of Defendant: remains on personal recognizance;
December 14, 2021 Trial Scheduling Order via ECF (or via Scribd) -Trial of this matter will commence with jury selection on May 16, 2022bat 9:00 a.m. in Courtroom 27A. The Court has reserved facilities for conducting voir dire and trial of this matter.
As you‘ll note, in the Court’s December 14, 2021 Trial Scheduling Order —it is clear that the Court was not persuaded by Durham’s arguments. And proceeded to set a trial schedule which is largely inline with Defendant Sussman’s December 6th Motion. I’m spitballing here because I do not have any contacts for Sussman’s defense team but my educated guess is SC Durham wants Sussman’s Criminal Trial to commence AFTER the Danchenko trial EDVA —>I’m friends with Judge Trenga & his clerk…
When you review the Sussman Indictment and then overlay that with Igor Y. Danchenko Indictment —you’ll note there is significant overlapping between both Indictments. Which is relevant and frankly that bolstered Defendant Sussman’s current argument, as it relates to a trial schedule.
In non-legalese this presents a judicial “which came first, the chicken or egg” —more specifically Defendant Sussman argued that Durham indicted Danchenko seven weeks after Sussman was indicted. Yet Defendant Danchenko’s (EDVA) Trial was docketed for April 2022 and Durham filed a motion to delay Defendant Sussman’s trial by nearly four months after Danchenko’s.
Setting aside the fact that DDC and EDVA are completely separate districts. It is notable and one could reasonably make an inference that Durham needs Danchenko’s conviction (see December 15, 2021 minute entry as to Danchenko) before Defendant Sussman’s trial begins.
Recent Minute Entry USA v Danchenko
Minute Entry for proceedings held before District Judge Anthony J. Trenga: Status Conference as to Igor Y. Danchenko held on 12/15/2021.
The Court will grant the motion for the entry of a Protective Order. Counsel is to submit filings in reference to Section 4 and Section 5 disclosures and is to include the Government's estimated discovery completion date.
Additional Status Conference set for 1/12/2022 at 9:00 a.m. The Court grants the Defendant's request to travel as listed on the itinerary submitted to the Court and within Virginia as approved and directed by the probation officer.
Status Conference set for 1/12/2022 at 09:00 AM in Alexandria Courtroom 701 before District Judge Anthony J. Trenga. Defendant continued on release
I suppose only time will tell if my observations of both cases is correct. Thus far both dockets signal that Durham’s case against Sussman isn’t a strong as some in the media are “reporting” —so we will just have to wait and see.
Also here’s your daily saltwater therapy. And lastly I am taking the new few days off because the past few weeks has been brutal and I am an advocate for self care. But I didn’t want some of my loyal readers to get worried about my absence, I’ll be back in a few days, promise. Until then you can always seek stress relief from this random Instagram account (snort)
-Filey
Durham's investigation is the actual witch hunt, the favorite term of traitors.
Enjoy time off. Self care is absolutely crucial.
Ok, admittedly I have been taken what I would consider a msm 'blackout' the last few months until 2022, just a bit of a sabbotical by choice, but who besides FOX or OANN would be thinking there is a 'strong case' against Sussman....and when do we get to have out bon bon call? xoxoxo