aggiehawg said:

---

Quote:

---

But can their legal filings like this be used as evidence that what they are claiming in their briefs is perjury? This isn't a tweet. If it is something they filed with the FEC, doesn't that carry some weight moreso than other types of hearsay?

---

Was Sussman still counsel when those statements were made? If not, they are irrelevant as to him.

---

Quote:

---

I am more referring to the claims by others in their privilege claim filings that Fusion was providing legal services to PC. Can they be accused of making false statements to government, since one set of filings says Fusion was solely providing research services, while in their Sussman filings, they say they were providing legal services. Both can't be accurate.

---

aggiehawg said:

---

Quote:

---

I am more referring to the claims by others in their privilege claim filings that Fusion was providing legal services to PC. Can they be accused of making false statements to government, since one set of filings says Fusion was solely providing research services, while in their Sussman filings, they say they were providing legal services. Both can't be accurate.

---

That's up to the judge to determine on the privilege question. Not sure how it would work into the trial against Sussmann. IOW, it may not be put into evidence before the jury. Don't know.

---

Secolobo said:

---

Also, Marc Elias wiped out his tweets again.

Everything before 4/4/22 = deleted.

— The Durham Report (@TheDurhamReport) April 27, 2022

---

captkirk said:

---

Secolobo said:

---

Also, Marc Elias wiped out his tweets again.

Everything before 4/4/22 = deleted.

— The Durham Report (@TheDurhamReport) April 27, 2022

---

Just get them from Elon

---

Quote:

---

IANAL - so have to ask a dumb question...isn't his deleting them proof of his "destroying evidence" and a crime??

---

We have the transcript of the latest Michael Sussmann hearing -

Confirmation that Christopher Steele is not a cooperating witness w/ the Special Counsel.

And - how Durham is still investigating charges relating to "defrauding the government"https://t.co/5jbsX9XgZP

— Techno Fog (@Techno_Fog) April 28, 2022

will25u said:

---

We have the transcript of the latest Michael Sussmann hearing -

Confirmation that Christopher Steele is not a cooperating witness w/ the Special Counsel.

And - how Durham is still investigating charges relating to "defrauding the government"https://t.co/5jbsX9XgZP

— Techno Fog (@Techno_Fog) April 28, 2022

---

aggiehawg said:

---

Quote:

---

IANAL - so have to ask a dumb question...isn't his deleting them proof of his "destroying evidence" and a crime??

---

If he is under a preservation order that specifically addresses tweets, yes. Don't know if Durham sent out such a notice, though. Wouldn't be surprised if he had. however.

---

Quote:

---

If you are not under indictment, or are not charged with a crime or party to a lawsuit, can an attorney serve you with a Notice of Spoliation? I am sure such is de rigueur in today's day and age, especially with what Sussman is indicted for, but I wonder about any other potential parties, future indictees (is that a word).

---

aggiehawg said:

---

Quote:

---

If you are not under indictment, or are not charged with a crime or party to a lawsuit, can an attorney serve you with a Notice of Spoliation? I am sure such is de rigueur in today's day and age, especially with what Sussman is indicted for, but I wonder about any other potential parties, future indictees (is that a word).

---

Short answer is yes. Even witnesses can be the subject of such preservation letters.

What is kind of complicating matters is there is Perkins, Cooie, Marc Elias and Sussmann. Marc Elias and Sussmann are no longer with Perkins, Cooie. Did Elias and/or Sussmann take all of their records with them when they left? I seem to recall that Elias took some records with him but not sure about Sussmann.

---

aggiehawg said:

---

Quote:

---

If you are not under indictment, or are not charged with a crime or party to a lawsuit, can an attorney serve you with a Notice of Spoliation? I am sure such is de rigueur in today's day and age, especially with what Sussman is indicted for, but I wonder about any other potential parties, future indictees (is that a word).

---

Short answer is yes. Even witnesses can be the subject of such preservation letters.

What is kind of complicating matters is there is Perkins, Cooie, Marc Elias and Sussmann. Marc Elias and Sussmann are no longer with Perkins, Cooie. Did Elias and/or Sussmann take all of their records with them when they left? I seem to recall that Elias took some records with him but not sure about Sussmann.

---

American Hardwood said:

---

I would think that Elias wouldn't be so stupid to delete stuff he was ordered not to. Besides, I would think Durham already has copies of everything Elias has ever posted on Twitter.

To me, this move is to keep the general public digging up tweets he made and attacking him with it on social media.

---

The cover up needed to keep Joffe, Dolan and others away from HPSCI/Senate, Mueller, and IG investigations is a strong signal of what is to come. https://t.co/kdT1pCFB7Y

— UndeadFOIA (@UndeadFoia) April 29, 2022

We've already seen many Fusion emails with reporters. In the appendix to Seago deposition (filed Oct 28, 2021 in DC case 2021 CA 000683 2), we already saw Oct 2016 correspondence betw Fusion and Foer, Hamburger, Hosenball, Isikoff, Lichtblau, Mosk and mention of corr with Winer.

— Stephen McIntyre (@ClimateAudit) April 29, 2022

Quote:

---

No wonder Fusion GPS paid Steele. They needed his credential as an MI6 agent to provide gravitas to their opposition research and to hide the Clinton-campaign roots of the attacks on Trump. The Clinton campaign also needed Steele to exploit his government contacts, which the former spy did by passing the dossier off to his handler, his pal Bruce Ohr, and later the U.S. State Department. Steele thus served as a facade for Democrats' attempt to frame Trump as a Russian patsy.

---

Unreal. @TheJusticeDept is suing Manafort for $3 million because he didn’t report his interest in foreign banks. Did they sue Podesta for the exact same thing, NO! Will they be suing Hunter anytime soon? https://t.co/ClMkFSCS1e pic.twitter.com/9191KOh3kp

— Rosie Memos (@almostjingo) April 29, 2022

Quote:

---

John Podesta and Robby Mook have entered declarations in the Sussmann case's court docket.

---

What Podesta's declaration says is that the Hillary Camp has not waived any of it's attorney client privileges over documents held by any firm or entity it hired during the 2016 campaign.

— Brian Cates (@BrianCatesRTNM) April 29, 2022

will25u said:

---

Unreal. @TheJusticeDept is suing Manafort for $3 million because he didn’t report his interest in foreign banks. Did they sue Podesta for the exact same thing, NO! Will they be suing Hunter anytime soon? https://t.co/ClMkFSCS1e pic.twitter.com/9191KOh3kp

— Rosie Memos (@almostjingo) April 29, 2022

---

"You can't have it both ways. Did you [Sussmann] take that information to the General Counsel of the FBI on the behest of a client or didn't you?

…#Durham has in one sentence nuked the entire flurry of…defense pleadings."—Kash Patel

🔴PREMIERE 8pm ET: https://t.co/idf3R1gmee pic.twitter.com/RWysS19ve0

— Kash's Corner (@KashsCorner) April 29, 2022

Quote:

---

On Thursday, U.S. Senator Ron Johnson (R-Wis.), ranking member of the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations, with Senator Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa), ranking member of the Judiciary Committee, sent a letter to Stefanie Tompkins, Director of Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA), regarding the agency's involvement with Georgia Tech researchers potentially connected to researching attribution of the 2016 hack of the Democratic National Committee (DNC). A DARPA spokesman recently told the media, "to the best of our knowledge, no DARPA-funded researchers investigated the DNC hack." However, recent reports revealed that Georgia Tech researchers created "white papers" relating to the DNC hack for DARPA and created documents relating to Special Counsel Mueller's investigation.

---

ICYMI https://t.co/Y2gw6Fc4fM

— Margot Cleveland (@ProfMJCleveland) April 30, 2022

Quote:

---

The ruling excluding the Clinton tweets was made by Judge Christopher "Casey" Cooper, an Obama appointee (who, as I've recounted, worked in the President Bill Clinton Justice Department after clerking for Judge Abner Mikva shortly before Mikva left the bench to serve as President Clinton's White House counsel). The ruling, in Washington, D.C., federal district court, has been reported on by the Washington Examiner's Jerry Dunleavy.

---

Quote:

---

This ruling parrots what Sussmann's counsel have been arguing in seeking to suppress the Clinton tweets.

To my mind, the hearsay argument is specious. As a technical legal matter, hearsay is not just any out-of-court (or "extrajudicial") statement e.g., "John told me that Jim robbed the bank." It is an extrajudicial statement that is offered to prove the truth of the matter asserted. That is, the statement in my example is only hearsay if it is offered to prove that Jim robbed the bank. But if I'm the FBI, and John is on trial for falsely telling me that Jim robbed the bank, then the statement is the antithesis of hearsay it is offered to prove that John was lying, not that Jim actually robbed the bank.

That is why Durham wanted to provide the Clinton tweets not for the truth of the matter asserted but, to the contrary, because they are false. Moreover, they illustrate a common scheme of which Sussmann's alleged false statement to the FBI was a critical part, which makes them relevant.

To the extent that Cooper is excluding the tweets as "duplicative of other evidence," that indicates Durham is going to be given latitude to prove that Sussmann was representing the Clinton campaign (and Joffe) when he told the FBI he was not representing any client.

This goes to the problem I highlighted in the aforementioned column. If Durham had charged Sussmann (among other participants) with the big scheme i.e., conspiracy to defraud the government there would be no basis to exclude the Clinton tweets; they'd be important evidence of the overarching scheme.

Durham, however, has brought a more modest and narrow charge: a false statement to the FBI at a single meeting on September 19, 2016. This gives Judge Cooper immense discretion to bar Durham from turning the trial of this narrow charge into a trial of the uncharged big scheme which, the defense claims, would become a prejudicial circus if Durham appears to be putting Hillary Clinton herself on trial.
As I pointed out at the close of the aforementioned column:

Quote:

---

The line [Durham] is walking is to prove the big Clinton campaign scheme to smear Trump as a Putin puppet, not as a crime in and of itself, but as significant background evidence in proving that Sussmann made a false statement to the FBI. Durham's argument in support of the admissibility of this background big-scheme evidence is legally sound. But with trial just three weeks away, whether Judge Cooper will allow the jury to hear all of it, some of it, or none of it is the huge question hovering over the case.

---

We are now getting some clarity on that huge question. Suffice it to say, Special Counsel John Durham is not going to like the answer.

---

nortex97 said:

---

Obama judge strikes in Sussman evidentiary hearing to exclude Hillary tweets with specious claim about hearsay.

Quote:

---

The ruling excluding the Clinton tweets was made by Judge Christopher "Casey" Cooper, an Obama appointee (who, as I've recounted, worked in the President Bill Clinton Justice Department after clerking for Judge Abner Mikva shortly before Mikva left the bench to serve as President Clinton's White House counsel). The ruling, in Washington, D.C., federal district court, has been reported on by the Washington Examiner's Jerry Dunleavy.

---

Quote:

---

This ruling parrots what Sussmann's counsel have been arguing in seeking to suppress the Clinton tweets.

To my mind, the hearsay argument is specious. As a technical legal matter, hearsay is not just any out-of-court (or "extrajudicial") statement e.g., "John told me that Jim robbed the bank." It is an extrajudicial statement that is offered to prove the truth of the matter asserted. That is, the statement in my example is only hearsay if it is offered to prove that Jim robbed the bank. But if I'm the FBI, and John is on trial for falsely telling me that Jim robbed the bank, then the statement is the antithesis of hearsay it is offered to prove that John was lying, not that Jim actually robbed the bank.

That is why Durham wanted to provide the Clinton tweets not for the truth of the matter asserted but, to the contrary, because they are false. Moreover, they illustrate a common scheme of which Sussmann's alleged false statement to the FBI was a critical part, which makes them relevant.

To the extent that Cooper is excluding the tweets as "duplicative of other evidence," that indicates Durham is going to be given latitude to prove that Sussmann was representing the Clinton campaign (and Joffe) when he told the FBI he was not representing any client.

This goes to the problem I highlighted in the aforementioned column. If Durham had charged Sussmann (among other participants) with the big scheme i.e., conspiracy to defraud the government there would be no basis to exclude the Clinton tweets; they'd be important evidence of the overarching scheme.

Durham, however, has brought a more modest and narrow charge: a false statement to the FBI at a single meeting on September 19, 2016. This gives Judge Cooper immense discretion to bar Durham from turning the trial of this narrow charge into a trial of the uncharged big scheme which, the defense claims, would become a prejudicial circus if Durham appears to be putting Hillary Clinton herself on trial.
As I pointed out at the close of the aforementioned column:

Quote:

---

The line [Durham] is walking is to prove the big Clinton campaign scheme to smear Trump as a Putin puppet, not as a crime in and of itself, but as significant background evidence in proving that Sussmann made a false statement to the FBI. Durham's argument in support of the admissibility of this background big-scheme evidence is legally sound. But with trial just three weeks away, whether Judge Cooper will allow the jury to hear all of it, some of it, or none of it is the huge question hovering over the case.

---

We are now getting some clarity on that huge question. Suffice it to say, Special Counsel John Durham is not going to like the answer.

---

---