Judge limits info about alleged Hillary
Clinton ‘joint venture’ in Sussmann’s trial
New York Post,
by
Mark Moore
Original Article
Posted By: Imright,
5/8/2022 9:02:28 PM
A judge has ruled that Special Counsel John Durham’s office must limit the evidence it plans to use in court to try to show a “joint venture” between Michael Sussmann and Hillary Clinton’s 2016 presidential campaign.Sussmann, a cybersecurity lawyer, has been charged with lying to then-FBI General Counsel James Baker when he handed over data in September 2016 that claimed to show communications between former President Trump’s presidential campaign and the Kremlin-linked Alfa Bank.
Sussmann did not divulge he was working for the Clinton campaign at the time.
Reply 1 - Posted by:
MindMadeUp 5/8/2022 9:06:09 PM (No. 1150257)
No surprise. The judge is, "an appointee of former President Obama".
57 people like this.
Reply 2 - Posted by:
pilot222 5/8/2022 9:36:53 PM (No. 1150276)
The entire system is just corrupt, corrupt, corrupt……… the judge got the call
76 people like this.
Reply 3 - Posted by:
wilarrbie 5/8/2022 9:50:07 PM (No. 1150287)
Just come out and say it: "Hillary is off limits." There ya go, judge.
66 people like this.
Reply 4 - Posted by:
Italiano 5/8/2022 9:53:18 PM (No. 1150290)
What was that classic movie line?
Oh yeah, “ I’m shocked, shocked…”
God will settle the Hillary problem, eventually. So there’s that.
55 people like this.
Reply 5 - Posted by:
hershey 5/8/2022 9:58:58 PM (No. 1150295)
Slip sliding out of trouble...teflon Hitlery slides again...
28 people like this.
Reply 6 - Posted by:
Nimby 5/8/2022 10:02:10 PM (No. 1150299)
Where are the protesters in front of this judge’s residence?
47 people like this.
Reply 7 - Posted by:
Rinktum 5/8/2022 10:03:33 PM (No. 1150300)
Anyone surprised? It appears that justice is no where to be found in this country. We have a completely lawless administration who does whatever it wants with no consequences. We have morally repugnant, HRC, who has never been held accountable for the criminal acts she has committed or the ones she has ordered to be committed. She walks away from crime after crime and she will walk away once again from this one.
Can anyone remind us of a recent case where you felt justice had been done? I cannot think of one case. The judiciary is as corrupt as the rest of the deep state.
63 people like this.
Reply 8 - Posted by:
slipstik 5/8/2022 10:18:30 PM (No. 1150307)
Hillary got dat special black robe brand of Teflon on her side. There ain't no loophole she can't slip through.
26 people like this.
Reply 9 - Posted by:
Obviousity 5/8/2022 10:20:22 PM (No. 1150308)
What exactly is the difference between "joint-venturer" and "co-conspirator"?
25 people like this.
Reply 10 - Posted by:
downnout 5/8/2022 10:57:49 PM (No. 1150320)
That didn’t take long. Must protect the Deep State
25 people like this.
Reply 11 - Posted by:
Rumblehog 5/8/2022 11:05:14 PM (No. 1150324)
Why is a Demonrat appointed Judge even hearing the case? He should removed post haste.
20 people like this.
Reply 12 - Posted by:
Italiano 5/8/2022 11:29:03 PM (No. 1150339)
#7. I can. Kyle Rittenhouse, both in the act and in the judgment.
31 people like this.
Reply 13 - Posted by:
smokincol 5/9/2022 1:18:29 AM (No. 1150375)
I don't get this ... since when does the Judge have the discretionary ability to censor "evidence" in a trial, I always thought the prosecution presented the evidence at trial and then there would have to be an objection of the evidence by the defense and then the judge would rule but the fact remains that this is certainly no "ordinary" trial so, common law procedure does go out the window to protect one of the most corrupt crime organization's in American history, the DNC and PIAPS + bill and associated and diverse other demcommies in our government
- if John Durham continues on this path he just might disclose the whole bunch of them , how refreshing to see actual "justice" as an outcome an investigation of the D.C. demcommie crowd
29 people like this.
Reply 14 - Posted by:
skacmar 5/9/2022 6:27:58 AM (No. 1150426)
Evidence concerning Hillary might confuse the jury? Why doesn't the judge let ALL evidence be heard and let Durham figure out how to make it not confusing or let the jury figure it out themselves. The jury is probably not as stupid as the judge thinks. Of course, this is a Democrat appointed judge so they think everyone is stupid.
26 people like this.
Reply 15 - Posted by:
Jethro bo 5/9/2022 7:06:45 AM (No. 1150445)
Of course we don't have opinion and it is a NY Post article. That said, not a word about Attorney Client privilege. So in the future, Durham can use the evidence if he brings additional charges. If true, this is a huge strategic win.
8 people like this.
Reply 16 - Posted by:
lftrn97 5/9/2022 8:52:41 AM (No. 1150520)
#7: Kyle Rittenhouse though he never should have gone through any of it.
9 people like this.
Reply 17 - Posted by:
Laotzu 5/9/2022 8:53:51 AM (No. 1150522)
It takes a Democrat appointee to rule that there shall be no evidence of conspiracy admitted to a criminal trial.
10 people like this.
Reply 18 - Posted by:
marbles 5/9/2022 9:25:18 AM (No. 1150556)
Why does evidence have to be " limited " ? Show all that you've got.
9 people like this.
Reply 19 - Posted by:
lakerman1 5/9/2022 9:26:47 AM (No. 1150557)
I'm a bit puzzled on this ruling, but we lack full information as to the Judge's thinking.
As an arbitrator, I would have allowed the evidence in, and sorted it out later.
7 people like this.
Reply 20 - Posted by:
little guy 5/9/2022 9:45:14 AM (No. 1150577)
No judge is from Mount Olympus. They are often political hacks who served their time in the trenches of their political party running around for years helping out. A lifetime appointment is their payback. Sorry ... but even the great ones often start out in the back room.
As one Supreme Court judge once said: "We read the newspapers." This judge knows not to touch the third rail of politics ... biting the hand that fed you!
4 people like this.
Reply 21 - Posted by:
PrayerWarrior 5/9/2022 9:53:12 AM (No. 1150583)
When does a Judge worry about "confusing" the jury? Answer. When you work for Hillary Clinton. She wants to run for POTUS. Lock her up!
4 people like this.
Reply 22 - Posted by:
SkeezerMcGee 5/9/2022 9:53:51 AM (No. 1150585)
Under the federal rules of criminal procedure (not common law), judges frequently rule on admission of evidence based on motions prior to the trial. The judge has wide discretion regarding admission of evidence, and it's highly likely that the fact that this evidence relates to Hillary Clinton was part of his thinking. This does not mean that this evidence will necessarily NOT be admitted at the trial. This was a minor setback for Durham, and notwithstanding the judge's wide discretion, Durham won all of his far more important matters. Durham's major concern is most likely that this trial will be in Washington, D.C., with its population of about 90% Democrat, most of whom love Hillary Clinton.
2 people like this.
Reply 23 - Posted by:
felixcat 5/9/2022 9:59:52 AM (No. 1150591)
I has the initial reaction everyone else her had to this ruling. However, listening to Joe DiGenova this morning on the WMAL radio show, Larry O'Connor and Co. (podcast available later today). Joe said that he agrees with this judge because if Durham is not gong to charge anyone with conspiracy or whatever, then don't keep citing their involvement. So basically put up or shut up. Joe doesn't think Durham is going to charge/indict anyone beyond Sussman as he doesn't have the cojones.
2 people like this.
Reply 24 - Posted by:
Zigrid 5/9/2022 11:04:03 AM (No. 1150669)
Just keep moving forward so WE can "lock her up"...which she deserves since she hid the Rose law records in her bedroom upstairs in the White House...and how quickly Vince Foster's death was covered up...not to mention selling Uranium to Russia when she was sec of state under King Barrack...poor choice of words...she's never under anything or I suspect anyone...now I did it...I'm shadow banned from Lucianne...
2 people like this.
Reply 25 - Posted by:
Venturer 5/9/2022 12:45:12 PM (No. 1150746)
It's mostly lawyers who make up the laws after getting elected, why is it surprising to find corrupt judges.
1 person likes this.
Below, you will find ...
Most Recent Articles posted by "Imright"
and
Most Active Articles (last 48 hours)