A federal judge called out John Durham's prosecutors for creating a 'sideshow' with a court filing

[ouch]

If at first one doesn't succeed, try, try, try, try, try, try again. It appears that some judges are now getting more tired of the Trumper's bag of tricks to nowhere.

A federal judge called out John Durham's prosecutors for creating a 'sideshow' with a court filing that sent Trumpworld into a frenzy

www.msn.com

At the center of the hearing was a conflict-of-interest motion that Durham's office filed in its ongoing case against the former Clinton campaign lawyer Michael Sussmann.

The conflict motion contained almost no new information and highlighted potential conflicts of interest regarding Sussmann's legal representation. But right-wing news outlets and former President Donald Trump took several details in the filing out of context and falsely said that it showed the Clinton campaign illegally surveilled Trump.

Sussmann's legal team subsequently asked to strike those details from the motion, saying the filing was unnecessary because Sussmann had already understood the issues raised in it and waived any potential conflicts. They also accused Durham's team of operating in bad faith and saying the inclusion of those details was "plainly intended to politicize this case, inflame media coverage, and taint the jury pool."

 

[Demon]

If at first one doesn't succeed, try, try, try, try, try, try again. It appears that some judges are now getting more tired of the Trumper's bag of tricks to nowhere.

A federal judge called out John Durham's prosecutors for creating a 'sideshow' with a court filing that sent Trumpworld into a frenzy

www.msn.com

At the center of the hearing was a conflict-of-interest motion that Durham's office filed in its ongoing case against the former Clinton campaign lawyer Michael Sussmann.

The conflict motion contained almost no new information and highlighted potential conflicts of interest regarding Sussmann's legal representation. But right-wing news outlets and former President Donald Trump took several details in the filing out of context and falsely said that it showed the Clinton campaign illegally surveilled Trump.

Sussmann's legal team subsequently asked to strike those details from the motion, saying the filing was unnecessary because Sussmann had already understood the issues raised in it and waived any potential conflicts. They also accused Durham's team of operating in bad faith and saying the inclusion of those details was "plainly intended to politicize this case, inflame media coverage, and taint the jury pool."

The judges are getting tired of it. This was posted elsewhere, and I think I copied the link before twitter put up its 'sign on' blocker: A defamation lawsuit

 

[Mr Person]

"In the Court's view, characterization of defendant's previous and threatened future actions as dilatory, in bad faith or unduly prejudicial would be a bootless exercise. They are, in varying degrees, all three.

Plaintiff's only claim in this case is a single count of defamation. It could have been tried and decided - one way or the other - long ago. The record convinces this Court that the defendant's litigation tactics, whatever their intent, have delayed the case to an extent that readily could have been far less. Granting leave to amend without considering the futility of the proposed amendment needlessly would make a regrettable situation worse by opening new avenues for significant further delay. That would unduly prejudice plaintiff which, in my view, is a motive for defendant's position on this motion."

 

[bongsaway]

If at first one doesn't succeed, try, try, try, try, try, try again. It appears that some judges are now getting more tired of the Trumper's bag of tricks to nowhere.

A federal judge called out John Durham's prosecutors for creating a 'sideshow' with a court filing that sent Trumpworld into a frenzy

www.msn.com

At the center of the hearing was a conflict-of-interest motion that Durham's office filed in its ongoing case against the former Clinton campaign lawyer Michael Sussmann.

The conflict motion contained almost no new information and highlighted potential conflicts of interest regarding Sussmann's legal representation. But right-wing news outlets and former President Donald Trump took several details in the filing out of context and falsely said that it showed the Clinton campaign illegally surveilled Trump.

Sussmann's legal team subsequently asked to strike those details from the motion, saying the filing was unnecessary because Sussmann had already understood the issues raised in it and waived any potential conflicts. They also accused Durham's team of operating in bad faith and saying the inclusion of those details was "plainly intended to politicize this case, inflame media coverage, and taint the jury pool."

The Durham team acting in bad faith? Say it ain't so.

 

[Integrityrespec]

If at first one doesn't succeed, try, try, try, try, try, try again. It appears that some judges are now getting more tired of the Trumper's bag of tricks to nowhere.

A federal judge called out John Durham's prosecutors for creating a 'sideshow' with a court filing that sent Trumpworld into a frenzy

www.msn.com

At the center of the hearing was a conflict-of-interest motion that Durham's office filed in its ongoing case against the former Clinton campaign lawyer Michael Sussmann.

The conflict motion contained almost no new information and highlighted potential conflicts of interest regarding Sussmann's legal representation. But right-wing news outlets and former President Donald Trump took several details in the filing out of context and falsely said that it showed the Clinton campaign illegally surveilled Trump.

Sussmann's legal team subsequently asked to strike those details from the motion, saying the filing was unnecessary because Sussmann had already understood the issues raised in it and waived any potential conflicts. They also accused Durham's team of operating in bad faith and saying the inclusion of those details was "plainly intended to politicize this case, inflame media coverage, and taint the jury pool."

Cry, whine, bitch, complain. Sussman is quilty and is going to jail. The left is trying to hush up the illegal activities and the Clinton involvement. DOJ and FBI were complicent with the Collusion hoax and Mueller investigation. Payback is going to be hell for the democrat world.

 

[Demon]

Cry, whine, bitch, complain. Sussman is quilty and is going to jail. The left is trying to hush up the illegal activities and the Clinton involvement. DOJ and FBI were complicent with the Collusion hoax and Mueller investigation. Payback is going to be hell for the democrat world.

Maybe we should wait till Sussman is convicted before he's pronounced guilty. Meanwhile, he's asked for dismissal of his case.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/2022/02/17/durham-sussman-motion-dismiss/

 

[BlueTex]

Cry, whine, bitch, complain. Sussman is quilty and is going to jail. The left is trying to hush up the illegal activities and the Clinton involvement. DOJ and FBI were complicent with the Collusion hoax and Mueller investigation. Payback is going to be hell for the democrat world.

LMAO... More fantasy than a Harry Potter novel... Durham is going to have his ass handed to him...

 

[justabubba]

speaks to the desperation of durham's case

tRump's response to it again reveals his lack of understanding about what actually happened ... an ignorance delightfully shared with his audience of deplorable MAGAts

this was a concise, but interesting, read:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/2022/03/10/judge-seeks-defuse-legal-fight-that-raised-trumps-ire/

 

[Lutherf]

If at first one doesn't succeed, try, try, try, try, try, try again. It appears that some judges are now getting more tired of the Trumper's bag of tricks to nowhere.

A federal judge called out John Durham's prosecutors for creating a 'sideshow' with a court filing that sent Trumpworld into a frenzy

www.msn.com

At the center of the hearing was a conflict-of-interest motion that Durham's office filed in its ongoing case against the former Clinton campaign lawyer Michael Sussmann.

The conflict motion contained almost no new information and highlighted potential conflicts of interest regarding Sussmann's legal representation. But right-wing news outlets and former President Donald Trump took several details in the filing out of context and falsely said that it showed the Clinton campaign illegally surveilled Trump.

Sussmann's legal team subsequently asked to strike those details from the motion, saying the filing was unnecessary because Sussmann had already understood the issues raised in it and waived any potential conflicts. They also accused Durham's team of operating in bad faith and saying the inclusion of those details was "plainly intended to politicize this case, inflame media coverage, and taint the jury pool."

So, out of curiosity, did Cooper strike all that "extra" information or did he allow it to stand?

 

[Lutherf]

Maybe we should wait till Sussman is convicted before he's pronounced guilty. Meanwhile, he's asked for dismissal of his case.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/2022/02/17/durham-sussman-motion-dismiss/

Was the dismissal granted?

 

[Demon]

speaks to the desperation of durham's case

tRump's response to it again reveals his lack of understanding about what actually happened ... an ignorance delightfully shared with his audience of deplorable MAGAts

this was a concise, but interesting, read:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/2022/03/10/judge-seeks-defuse-legal-fight-that-raised-trumps-ire/

This was interesting - "The reality, though, was not as Trump led his supporters to believe. Sussmann’s team noted the DNS information, which Sussmann later passed to the CIA, “pertained only to the period of time before Mr. Trump took office, when Barack Obama was President.” That would seem to rebut the idea the researchers were maliciously gathering Trump’s data when he occupied the Oval Office, and passing it to Democrats. Lawyers for one of the researchers involved also disputed Durham’s account, and said the data being analyzed was from before Trump took office."

 

[Demon]

Was the dismissal granted?

Not yet. But @Integrityrespec says he's guilty, and that hasn't happened either.

 

[Lutherf]

Not yet. But @Integrityrespec says he's guilty, and that hasn't happened either.

So, if we really want to look at what the judge did circumspectly, he shot down the Sussman motion. Propaganda being what it is, the article in the OP was pushing a rather one sided narrative, wasn't it?

 

[justabubba]

So, if we really want to look at what the judge did circumspectly, he shot down the Sussman motion. Propaganda being what it is, the article in the OP was pushing a rather one sided narrative, wasn't it?

[emphasis added by bubba]

what side of the narrative was not disclosed?

 

[Demon]

So, if we really want to look at what the judge did circumspectly, he shot down the Sussman motion. Propaganda being what it is, the article in the OP was pushing a rather one sided narrative, wasn't it?

Haven't read the OP article yet, just responded with another example of judges getting tired of the delay tactics. However, it seem the judge only denied a request to remove a statement from the prosecution.

"Sussmann’s lawyer had asked the court to strike from the record those parts of Durham’s filing. The judge declined to do so, though he also cautioned prosecutor Andrew DeFilippis that he should be careful going forward about what he includes in court papers."

“Striking it will not unring the bell and will probably make the bell even louder,” Cooper said. “Keep in mind,” he told DeFilippis, “that the pleadings in this case are under a microscope. … Be mindful of that as we go forward.”

 

[RetiredUSN]

And just like that..............Liberals became sensitive to court filings.

Comey's FISA scandal ring a bell?

 

[Schism]

Meanwhile, the Jan 6 House "Investigation" is being played out in public as a play-by-play analysis of every word uttered and packaged for media distribution on a daily basis.

No outcry from the left about a "sideshow". But the minute anyone wants to investigate democrats, the screaming begins.

 

[justabubba]

Meanwhile, the Jan 6 House "Investigation" is being played out in public as a play-by-play analysis of every word uttered and packaged for media distribution on a daily basis.

No outcry from the left about a "sideshow". But the minute anyone wants to investigate democrats, the screaming begins.

where is the nearest safe place for snowflakes to hide while they are being victimized?

 

[Demon]

where is the nearest safe place for snowflakes to hide while they are being victimized?

Benghazi?

 

[BlueTex]

So, out of curiosity, did Cooper strike all that "extra" information or did he allow it to stand?

Here is what Cooper said about that "extra information"

“Both sides agreed to the inquiry that the government has requested,” said Cooper, a Barack Obama appointee. “I understand there’s a need for a factual record, but that factual record could have been a consent motion agreed to by both sides, [and we] could have done it in 20 mins in a status conference.”

As to the information that Sussmann said Durham “provocatively—and misleadingly” included, Cooper indicated that he would have little patience for it going forward.

“I don’t know why the information is in there,” Cooper said. “I extend a presumption of good faith to all counsel, particularly government counsel. I don’t ascribe any ill motives … for that and other reasons I’m not going to strike anything from the record.”

“Striking it will not unring the bell,” Cooper added. “It will probably make the bell sound even louder.”

Judge Chides Durham Team for Putting Extraneous 'Information' in Court Documents: 'You Folks Have an Audience of One, and That’s Me'

A federal judge warned John Durham's team and attorneys for a Hillary Clinton campaign-linked lawyer to be "mindful" of the what they include in filings.

lawandcrime.com

 

[BlueTex]

Was the dismissal granted?

Why would it have been dismissed when a hearing to rule on the dismissal has not even been scheduled?

 

[BlueTex]

So, if we really want to look at what the judge did circumspectly, he shot down the Sussman motion. Propaganda being what it is, the article in the OP was pushing a rather one sided narrative, wasn't it?

Which motion do you believe he shot down? The hearing yesterday was DURHAM's motion for hearing regarding waiver of potential conflicts of interest. Since Sussmann has ALREADY waived any potential conflict of interest is was a bullshit waste of the courts time and desperation on DURHAM's part.

The hearing yesterday had nothing to do with Sussmann's motion to dismiss.. That ass kicking is still coming for Durham...

 

[What if...?]

Cry, whine, bitch, complain. Sussman is quilty and is going to jail. The left is trying to hush up the illegal activities and the Clinton involvement. DOJ and FBI were complicent with the Collusion hoax and Mueller investigation. Payback is going to be hell for the democrat world.

Yer gonna has a sad.

Which will make me glad.

 

[BlueTex]

Meanwhile, the Jan 6 House "Investigation" is being played out in public as a play-by-play analysis of every word uttered and packaged for media distribution on a daily basis.

No outcry from the left about a "sideshow". But the minute anyone wants to investigate democrats, the screaming begins.

Federal judges don't play... Durham got scolded and is about to have his ass kicked by Cooper.

 

[ouch]

Cry, whine, bitch, complain. Sussman is quilty and is going to jail. The left is trying to hush up the illegal activities and the Clinton involvement. DOJ and FBI were complicent with the Collusion hoax and Mueller investigation. Payback is going to be hell for the democrat world.

Prior to this case being decided, you threaten the "democrat world" about hellish paybacks. The Durham case is going after a Democrat - yet, if judge or jury doesn't come to the conclusion that you seek, you promise a vengeful hell against an opposing political party of politicians/supporters. And folks wonder why our two major parties and their supporters can't come to any civil cooperation.