Welcome home, fellow Gator.

The Gator Nation's oldest and most active insider community
Join today!

Durham reveals Clinton lawyer lied to the FBI (Update: He was acquitted.)

Discussion in 'Too Hot for Swamp Gas' started by gatormonk, Apr 5, 2022.

  1. CaptUSMCNole

    CaptUSMCNole Premium Member

    2,562
    126
    343
    May 23, 2007
    NCR
    Interesting tidbit from the NYTimes, Sussmann's lawyers are asking the judge to throw out the case unless Durham's team gives Joffe immunity. Joffe knows he has some legal exposure due to the fact he used privileged government data for a person political project (he asserted his 5th Amendment rights in a deposition with Alfa Bank in February of this year) and he is the person that likely asked the GaTech researchers to do the things that opened them up to legal exposure. I'm curious about what they think they can gain by getting Joffe immunity.

    The defense for Mr. Sussmann therefore may turn in part on what it means to be somewhere on behalf of a client. In a separate filing on Monday night, the defense asked the judge, Christopher Cooper of the Federal District Court for the District of Columbia, to dismiss the case if Mr. Durham does not grant immunity to Mr. Joffe, so that the technology executive can testify about his interactions with Mr. Sussmann regarding the meeting.

    In that filing, they said Mr. Joffe would offer “critical exculpatory testimony on behalf of Mr. Sussmann,” including that the two agreed that he should take the information to the F.B.I. “to help the government, not to benefit Mr. Joffe.” They also said that “contrary to the special counsel’s entire theory,” Mr. Joffe’s work with the data scientists was not connected to the campaign.

    More Evidence Bolsters Durham’s Case Against Democratic-Linked Lawyer


    For the lawyers on the board, it is common for the defense to ask a judge to throw out a case unless the prosecution gives immunity to a witness?
     
    Last edited: Apr 7, 2022
    • Informative Informative x 1
  2. BLING

    BLING GC Hall of Fame

    7,539
    589
    2,843
    Apr 16, 2007
    I guess he blocked me because I can’t read his posts. LOL. I’m sure I’m missing out on some inane circular logic.
     
    • Come On Man Come On Man x 1
  3. gatorchamps960608

    gatorchamps960608 GC Hall of Fame

    3,060
    699
    1,963
    Jul 4, 2020
    Everyone who wants to know what is really going on with this poop show of a case as well as all the 1/6 cases should follow Marcy Wheeler (@emptywheel) on Twitter.
     
    • Informative Informative x 2
    • Best Post Ever Best Post Ever x 1
  4. CaptUSMCNole

    CaptUSMCNole Premium Member

    2,562
    126
    343
    May 23, 2007
    NCR
    The judge denied Sussmann's lawyer's request to throw the case out, so it looks like this case will go to trial starting on May 18th.
     
  5. G8trGr8t

    G8trGr8t Premium Member

    28,023
    11,109
    3,443
    Aug 26, 2008
    3 years, federal conviction rate, 90%, case central to his entire approach, 7 hours, not guilty
     
    • Informative Informative x 1
  6. tampagtr

    tampagtr VIP Member

    16,119
    2,470
    1,618
    Apr 3, 2007
    Don't think it really took 7 hours when you factor in when deliberations actually started. Far less
     
  7. duchen

    duchen VIP Member

    12,603
    4,839
    3,208
    Nov 25, 2017
    Not guilty is a low bar ethically. Just means a crime was not proven beyond and to the exclusion etc
     
  8. WarDamnGator

    WarDamnGator GC Hall of Fame

    9,116
    870
    1,468
    Apr 8, 2007
    Seems like this the OP's title is wrong and should be edited.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  9. mutz87

    mutz87 p=.06 VIP Member

    38,219
    33,860
    4,211
    Aug 30, 2014
    True. Case seemed weak from the outset.
     
    • Agree Agree x 2
  10. tampagtr

    tampagtr VIP Member

    16,119
    2,470
    1,618
    Apr 3, 2007
    This is part if what I was referring to in calling it unethical. A small part, but the most recent

     
  11. philnotfil

    philnotfil GC Hall of Fame

    16,792
    1,519
    1,718
    Apr 8, 2007
    • Funny Funny x 1
  12. tampagtr

    tampagtr VIP Member

    16,119
    2,470
    1,618
    Apr 3, 2007
    That is scary. Someone posted an exchange on similar boards this weekend about Uvalde. Just no words
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  13. tampagtr

    tampagtr VIP Member

    16,119
    2,470
    1,618
    Apr 3, 2007
    David Frum challenging Josh Marshall for the best quick short take

     
  14. philnotfil

    philnotfil GC Hall of Fame

    16,792
    1,519
    1,718
    Apr 8, 2007
    There isn't any reality they can't twist to make their delusions more real to them.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  15. tampagtr

    tampagtr VIP Member

    16,119
    2,470
    1,618
    Apr 3, 2007
    Unfortunately true
     
  16. pkaib01

    pkaib01 GC Hall of Fame

    3,143
    647
    2,063
    Apr 3, 2007
     
  17. rivergator

    rivergator Too Hot Mod Moderator VIP Member

    33,319
    1,326
    2,258
    Apr 8, 2007
    They got evidence after charging him that he was innocent, and they didn't drop charges? If true, isn't that some serious ethical breach, deserving punishment?
     
    • Agree Agree x 5
    • Winner Winner x 1
  18. sierragator

    sierragator GC Hall of Fame

    13,278
    12,846
    1,653
    Apr 8, 2007
    So when do they start claiming the jury was rigged? (hint: the next Trump rally)
     
  19. rivergator

    rivergator Too Hot Mod Moderator VIP Member

    33,319
    1,326
    2,258
    Apr 8, 2007
    Fox is on it.
    Michael Sussmann found not guilty of charge brought by Special Prosecutor John Durham

    And:
    Durham's biggest problem in Sussmann trial is the jury: Andy McCarthy
     
    • Informative Informative x 3