KOMMONSENTSJANE – NO – THE SIDESHOW WAS WHAT THEY PUT THE COUNTRY/PRESIDENT TRUMP THROUGH. JUST THE FACTS – SIR!

They say we were the frenzy which means it was the democrats. As usual, they blame us for what they are really doing.

We don’t want to hear the lies. Frenzy is what was presented to the people day after day/month after month/year after year – disrupting the country and the government’s business which has put the country into the depths of inflation and causing corruption in Ukraine by these same people.

******

Business Insider

3/11/2022


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

A federal judge dinged John Durham’s team for the way they handled a previous court filing.
The judge called prosecutors out for creating a “sideshow” and questioned why they included some details in the filing.

The right wing erupted over the filing last month and falsely claimed it showed that Clinton spied on Trump.

A federal judge dinged prosecutors from the special counsel John Durham’s office for creating a “sideshow” with a court filing last month that former President Donald Trump and his allies falsely claimed provided proof that he was illegally spied on by the Clinton campaign.

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.”

2022 is shaping up to be a legal nightmare for Trumpworld. Here’s a timeline of upcoming court cases and legal obstacles.

1 of 9 Photos in Gallery©Anna Moneymaker/Getty Images; Scott Olson/Getty Images; Greg Nash-Pool/Getty Images

2022 is shaping up to be a legal nightmare for Trumpworld. Here’s a timeline of upcoming court cases and legal obstacles.
Donald Trump and his allies are facing a flurry of legal challenges this year.
Investigations into his company’s finances are ongoing, along with others related to January 6.
Here are the dates to watch out for this year.
Former President Donald Trump has had a number of surprising legal victories ever since he left the White House — though his greatest potential battles are still looming.

In November, Summer Zervos, who had accused Trump of sexual assault following her appearance on “The Apprentice,” dropped her lawsuit against him before he was forced to sit for a deposition. At around the same time, a New York state judge dismissed a lawsuit from Michael Cohen seeking to have the Trump Organization reimburse his legal fees for work he did on Trump’s behalf.

But greater dangers loom. The Trump Organization is the subject of a sprawling investigation from the Manhattan district attorney’s office and the New York attorney general’s office into alleged financial misconduct.

In Atlanta, Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis is weighing charges over his conduct in the 2020 election. Those investigations are proceeding as the Justice Department comes up on the five-year deadline to prosecute Trump over acts of possible obstruction that former Special Counsel Robert Mueller III scrutinized as part of his investigation into Russia’s interference in the 2016 election.

Meanwhile, the Biden administration is sending a steady stream of Trump’s White House records to the House committee investigating the January 6, 2021, attack on the Capitol. And Trump — along with many of his allies — face federal investigations and lawsuits stemming from the January 6 insurrection. Expect the judges in those cases to set court dates later this year.

While Trump mulls whether to run for president again in 2024, 2022 is shaping up to be a year of legal headaches for the former president and his associates. Here’s a timeline of the threats Trumpworld faces.

Read the original article on Business Insider
“Trials are unpredictable,” US District Judge Christian Cooper said at Thursday’s hearing. “I cannot tell you all of the ways these potential conflicts could play out, if at all.”

The judge then asked Sussmann if he waived the potential conflicts of interest laid out in Durham’s filing. “I do, your honor,” Sussmann responded.

Cooper remarked on how easy it was for him to address the purported conflicts and for Sussmann to formally waive them.

“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.”

Andrew DeFillipis, a prosecutor in Durham’s office, pushed back, saying, “We just wanted to be extra careful, to create a factual record for the basis of the conflicts … We just wanted a crystal clear factual record.”


Sussmann’s defense attorney, Sean Berkowitz, contested the prosecution’s claims, saying that the conflict of interest filing had “inflammatory press results and things of that nature.”

Cooper also appeared to criticize Durham’s prosecutors, saying that “we have a lot of work to do in this case … This particular dustup strikes me as a sideshow in many respects.”

“I don’t know why the information is in there,” he later added.

However, the judge did not grant Sussmann’s request to strike certain details from the conflict-of-interest motion.

“I extend a presumption of good faith,” he said. “I don’t ascribe any motives whatsoever. But for that and other reasons, I’m not going to strike anything in the record.”

Cooper also alluded to the high-stakes nature of the case against Sussmann, warning that the proceedings are under a microscope.

“Until we swear in a jury in this case, you folks have an audience of one, and that’s me,” the judge said. “Just be mindful of that as we go forward.”

Cooper set a later status conference to discuss Sussmann’s motion to dismiss Durham’s case against him.

“This is a case of extraordinary prosecutorial overreach,” Sussmann’s lawyers said in their motion for dismissal last month. The filing went on to say that while it has “long been a crime” to make false statements to the government, the law “criminalizes only false statements that are material,” meaning statements that directly affect a specific government decision.

“By contrast, false statements about ancillary matters … are immaterial and cannot give rise to criminal liability,” the filing said.

Durham charged Sussmann last year with lying to the FBI during a conversation with then FBI general counsel James Baker in 2016. Durham’s indictment said that Sussmann “lied about the capacity in which he was providing” allegations to the FBI about what he claimed was a “secret communications channel” between the Trump Organization and Russia’s Alfa Bank.

The indictment said Sussmann lied to the FBI when he told Baker he wasn’t working on behalf of any client. In fact, the indictment said, Sussmann was acting on behalf of the Clinton campaign, the tech executive Rodney Joffe, and the internet company Neustar.

Sussmann’s motion to dismiss said that in the past, those who have been charged in connection to providing tips to the government have been prosecuted for lying to the FBI “only where the tip itself was alleged to be false, because that is the only statement that could affect the specific decision to commence an investigation.”

When Sussmann met with Baker in September 2016, the filing said, he went “to provide a tip.”

“There is no allegation in the Indictment that the tip he provided was false. And there is no allegation that he believed that the tip he provided was false,” it continued.

“Rather, Mr. Sussmann has been charged with making a false statement about an entirely ancillary matter—about who his client may have been when he met with the FBI—which is a fact that even the Special Counsel’s own Indictment fails to allege had any effect on the FBI’s decision to open an investigation,” the filing said.

Durham’s office said last year that Sussmann’s failure to disclose the capacity in which he was bringing the Trump-Alfa Bank allegation to the FBI “misled FBI personnel and deprived the FBI of information that might have permitted it more fully to assess and uncover the origins of the relevant data and analysis, including the identities and motivations of Sussmann’s clients.”

kommonsentsjane

About kommonsentsjane

Enjoys sports and all kinds of music, especially dance music. Playing the keyboard and piano are favorites. Family and friends are very important.
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s