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

[ouch]

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.

There haven't hardly been any live public viewings what-so-ever with the Committee's investigation. What media reporting about any of the Committee's progress that momentarily comes out doesn't divulge all of the details nearly as much as we wished it would. There were supposed to be some live testimonies/hearings early this year but that hasn't happened - may not take place until May or June.

Keep in mind that this investigation committee was created because our nation's Capitol came under assault on 1/6/21 - in the effort to overturn the end result of our presidential election. That was an assault on our Democracy just as it was an symbolic assault on our nation's citizens. The committee is comprised of US House Representatives who, in turn, represent the people - by conducting the 1/6 investigation on behalf of the people of the United States. We the people expect to be informed about the progress of the 1/6 investigation as much as possible. No laws are broken keeping the people informed.

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

That's dramatic. The 1/6 investigation isn't a sideshow. This is as important as voting is. imo.

You're simply grinding about "the screaming" by expected reactions between two political parties and their supporters. If you are looking for silent reactions in our political world, you're in for a huge letdown.

 

[Schism]

That was an assault on our Democracy just as it was an symbolic assault on our nation's citizens.

^^ Drama, exaggeration, and hysteria are the elements at play in this political show trial whose entire purpose is to find anything to prevent Trump from running in 2024. If Trump were to drown in French fry grease at Mar-a-lardass, he would be proclaimed guilty that afternoon and the committee would shut down.

They're not interested in getting to bottom of anything except their own depravity, which consists of declaring Trump guilty in the media and then screaming about it.

The greatest danger to democracy in our country is the Democratic Party.

 

[ouch]

^^ Drama, exaggeration, and hysteria are the elements at play in this political show trial whose entire purpose is to find anything to prevent Trump from running in 2024. If Trump were to drown in French fry grease at Mar-a-lardass, he would be proclaimed guilty that afternoon and the committee would shut down.

They're not interested in getting to bottom of anything except their own depravity, which consists of declaring Trump guilty in the media and then screaming about it.

That's a case of the full blown. If DJT were to choke to death on a Big Mac, the 1/6 Committee would proceed because it's more than DJT. Way more seditionists involved.

The greatest danger to democracy in our country is the Democratic Party.

Yes siree, Bob. It was the Democratic Party who carried the Big Lie of election fraud right up to the 1/6/21 assault on our Capitol.

 

[bubbabgone]

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

Was the dismissal granted?

Now why you gotta go and be all bottom line like that.

 

[Schism]

Yes siree, Bob. It was the Democratic Party who carried the Big Lie of election fraud right up to the 1/6/21 assault on our Capitol.

Yessiree, they carried the Russia hoax for 4 years and attempted to unwind an election.

When that didn't work they launched investigation after investigation and engaged in obstruction of a functioning gov't.

Democrats are a danger to the world.

 

[bubbabgone]

That's a case of the full blown. If DJT were to choke to death on a Big Mac, the 1/6 Committee would proceed because it's more than DJT. Way more seditionists involved.


Yes siree, Bob. It was the Democratic Party who carried the Big Lie of election fraud right up to the 1/6/21 assault on our Capitol.

Funny. About Left's obvious lack of self-awareness, I mean.
I was just reading how the Left is all worked up about Bill Barr appearing on CNN with Tapper and how Barr called them the totalitarian Left.
Yeah, and as if to affirm that description of them a bunch of 'em tweeted that Barr shouldn't be invited anywhere and allowed to speak.
You are a special bunch living in your own little world.

 

[Lutherf]

Yessiree, they carried the Russia hoax for 4 years and attempted to unwind an election.

When that didn't work they launched investigation after investigation and engaged in obstruction of a functioning gov't.

Democrats are a danger to the world.

They are a danger to the free world. If you are the kind of person that views freedom as "I don't want to deal with anything that upsets me and I want government to protect me from stuff I don't like" then Democrats are your ticket to "freedom".

 

[Common Sense 1]

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

He allowed it to stand! More spinning going on here.

 

[Common Sense 1]

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

The federal judge presiding over the case of former Clinton campaign lawyer Michael Sussmann rejected his motion to "strike" the "factual background" section of Special Counsel John Durham’s February filing Thursday.
"I’m not going to strike anything from the record," U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia Judge Christopher Cooper said Thursday during a status hearing. "Whatever effect the filing has had has already passed."

While he did not grant Sussmann’s motion to strike, Judge Cooper on Thursday appeared to criticize the prosecution, saying the latest "dust-up" strikes him "as a sideshow."

Durham's original indictment alleges that Sussmann told then-FBI General Counsel James Baker in September 2016, less than two months before the 2016 presidential election, that he was not doing work "for any client" when he requested and held a meeting in which he presented "purported data and 'white papers' that allegedly demonstrated a covert communications channel" between the Trump Organization and Alfa Bank, which has ties to the Kremlin.

Durham probe: Judge rejects Sussmann request to ‘strike’ special counsel’s 'factual background’

The federal judge presiding over the trial of former Clinton campaign lawyer Michael Sussmann rejected his motion to “strike” the “factual background” section of Special Counsel John Durham’s February filing Thursday.

www.foxnews.com

 

[BlueTex]

The federal judge presiding over the case of former Clinton campaign lawyer Michael Sussmann rejected his motion to "strike" the "factual background" section of Special Counsel John Durham’s February filing Thursday.
"I’m not going to strike anything from the record," U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia Judge Christopher Cooper said Thursday during a status hearing. "Whatever effect the filing has had has already passed."

While he did not grant Sussmann’s motion to strike, Judge Cooper on Thursday appeared to criticize the prosecution, saying the latest "dust-up" strikes him "as a sideshow."

Durham's original indictment alleges that Sussmann told then-FBI General Counsel James Baker in September 2016, less than two months before the 2016 presidential election, that he was not doing work "for any client" when he requested and held a meeting in which he presented "purported data and 'white papers' that allegedly demonstrated a covert communications channel" between the Trump Organization and Alfa Bank, which has ties to the Kremlin.

Durham probe: Judge rejects Sussmann request to ‘strike’ special counsel’s 'factual background’

The federal judge presiding over the trial of former Clinton campaign lawyer Michael Sussmann rejected his motion to “strike” the “factual background” section of Special Counsel John Durham’s February filing Thursday.

www.foxnews.com

The hearing had NOTHING to do with the motion to dismiss.. That hearing has not happened yet...

 

[American]

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

And you base this presumed reputation on what? That he's been described at neutral in all his previous dealings? As usual you make up shit.

 

[ouch]

Funny. About Left's obvious lack of self-awareness, I mean.
I was just reading how the Left is all worked up about Bill Barr appearing on CNN with Tapper and how Barr called them the totalitarian Left.
Yeah, and as if to affirm that description of them a bunch of 'em tweeted that Barr shouldn't be invited anywhere and allowed to speak.
You are a special bunch living in your own little world.

File it under Barr being Barr. He usually parks his head up Rad R's ass simply because that's just how he is. Once in a while, he finds the need to say something honestly correct in attempt to keep himself appearing 'justified' while deflecting some of the heat away from him. Like most, if not all Trumplicans, can't fully trust any of them.

 

[ouch]

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?

There is a lot of the judge's quotes in that article, in which he explained his positions about the Durham court filing fairly thoroughly.

Just a few quotes out of many below.

"I didn't need any of that ancillary information to do that," the judge said, referring to the filing from Durham's office.

He also questioned why the prosecution filed the conflict-of-interest motion in the first place.

"Why not just come in, consent motion, colloquy?" he asked. "We could have done this in 15 minutes at a status conference."

 

[ouch]

Yessiree, they carried the Russia hoax for 4 years and attempted to unwind an election.

When that didn't work they launched investigation after investigation and engaged in obstruction of a functioning gov't.

Democrats are a danger to the world.

Functioning for Mar-a-Lago maybe.

 

[bubbabgone]

File it under Barr being Barr. He usually parks his head up Rad R's ass simply because that's just how he is. Once in a while, he finds the need to say something honestly correct in attempt to keep himself appearing 'justified' while deflecting some of the heat away from him. Like most, if not all Trumplicans, can't fully trust any of them.

I'll file the reactions of Leftists being called out as totalitarians under Leftists Being Terminally Self-unaware.
Sounds like there needs to be a tiny picture of ouch to go along with it.

 

[Lutherf]

There is a lot of the judge's quotes in that article, in which he explained his positions about the Durham court filing fairly thoroughly.

Just a few quotes out of many below.

The Durham motion was a response to the Sussman complaint which was ALSO public knowledge and bandied around in the press. Durham was giving the Sussman team a taste of what they had tried to give him.

 

[bongsaway]

And you base this presumed reputation on what? That he's been described at neutral in all his previous dealings? As usual you make up shit.

Dude, I'm not the judge, bitch at him.

 

[ouch]

I'll file the reactions of Leftists being called out as totalitarians under Leftists Being Terminally Self-unaware.
Sounds like there needs to be a tiny picture of ouch to go along with it.

Send that picture to: John Henry Durham

U.S. Attorney’s Office
New Haven Office
Connecticut Financial Center
157 Church Street
Floor 25
New Haven, CT 06510


He might appreciate it.

 

[ouch]

The Durham motion was a response to the Sussman complaint which was ALSO public knowledge and bandied around in the press. Durham was giving the Sussman team a taste of what they had tried to give him.

Noted. However, it appears that Judge Cooper gave a truck load of taste to the Durham team. Maybe now, the sideshow silliness will get back on normal track where it belongs.

 

[bubbabgone]

Send that picture to: John Henry Durham

U.S. Attorney’s Office
New Haven Office
Connecticut Financial Center
157 Church Street
Floor 25
New Haven, CT 06510


He might appreciate it.

That didn't make any sense but I'll play.
You apparently acknowledge that totalitarianism works for you provided it's your side that is practicing it.

There's no reason you can't send your pic to Durham yourself.
Although he might wonder who the hell you are and, like me, why he should care cuz absence of self-awareness is still not a criminal offense.

 

[bubbabgone]

The Durham motion was a response to the Sussman complaint which was ALSO public knowledge and bandied around in the press. Durham was giving the Sussman team a taste of what they had tried to give him.

I'm a bit surprised there hasn't been a request for Cooper to recuse himself from the case.
"Cooper, appointed to the federal bench by former President Barack Obama, says he and Sussmann were “professional acquaintances” in the 1990s when they both worked at the Justice Department. In another twist, the judge’s wife represents former FBI lawyer Lisa Page, though Durham’s team never raised the subject to push for a recusal." https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/...ers-bid-to-strike-durham-snooping-revelations

 

[ouch]

That didn't make any sense but I'll play.
You apparently acknowledge that totalitarianism works for you provided it's your side that is practicing it.

You apparently assume. I've never supported totalitarianism! Playing games has originated on your end of this.

There's no reason you can't send your pic to Durham yourself.

Why would I send a picture of me????? To anybody for that matter!

Although he might wonder who the hell you are and, like me, why he should care cuz absence of self-awareness is still not a criminal offense.

Durham isn't my guy, so I'll leave it up to you to send pictures to him or whomever you wish. It is you who brought up "picture of ouch" - remember?
The rest of your sentence didn't make any sense. Unfortunately, par for the course.

 

[Peter]

I thought the US had pretty strict rules about filing loads of petty and pointless lawsuits?

 

[ouch]

I thought the US had pretty strict rules about filing loads of petty and pointless lawsuits?

It used to - maybe it still does. I think what has happened over the last 5 years with the onslaught of junk court filings the courts have simply become more accustomed to it just like the ridiculous crap of politics becoming more of the norm. imo

 

[Peter]

It used to - maybe it still does. I think what has happened over the last 5 years with the onslaught of junk court filings the courts have simply become more accustomed to it just like the ridiculous crap of politics becoming more of the norm. imo

In that case, Trump should be forced to pay for all his ridiculous attempts to dodge justice.
I have a feeling if I was in trouble and took the same approach as Trump I'd not be given so much leniency.