Talk about “breaking it down!” Let’s call this PART 1
This proves that Hillary Clinton’s private spy network comprised of federal cyber contractors were indeed abusing and exploiting their access to federal communications collection databases and that they were mining those databases for non public data targeting Trump and his close associates.
These criminal cyber contractors were stealing federal data [some of it very likely classified] off the databases and giving it to other Clinton political operatives such as Michael Sussmann.
And now Durham has just unveiled definitive evidence these criminal cyber contractors were illegally stealing data from out of the EOP during the transition period after Trump won the 2016 election and giving that stolen data to the Clinton campaign’s dirty tricks operatives.
Special Counsel John Durham filed something very significant in the Michael Sussmann case –
How Sussmann and his client (Joffe) used data from the Trump Transition – including when Trump was in the White House.
The CIA findings that this data was not plausible and was “user created”
And the immunity Durham has given to witnesses – including one from Fusion GPS.
CIA Bombshell: The Sussmann data was “user created”
Also: Confirmation of a frame-job against President-Elect Trump
Let’s see a show of hands.
Who actually remembers that the CIA had WARNED THE FBI that the Hillary Clinton campaign would very likely be sending dirty trickster operatives to them with fake Trump/Russia smears?
Who remembers which particular high ranking FBI officials received that documented warning from the CIA and when they received it?
I think it may be time to dust off the Guccifer 2/Seth Rich info.
Durham has filed his rebuttal to Michael Sussmann’s defense team’s Motion To Exclude the government’s expert witness, FBI Cyber Unit Chief David Martin from testifying at the upcoming trial, scheduled to begin on May 16.
The filing can be read here:
Memorandum in Opposition – #69 in United States v. SUSSMANN (D.D.C., 1:21-cr-00582) – CourtListener.com
Memorandum in Opposition by USA as to MICHAEL A. SUSSMANN re 66 MOTION to Exclude the Government’s Proposed Expert Witness Testimony (Algor, Jonathan) (Entered: 04/15/2022)
Durham informed the Sussmann defense team on March 30 that the government would be calling an expert witness to the stand to testify at the trial and explain to the jury what DNS data is, and what the Alfa Bank white papers were claiming about DNS data.
Durham also warned that if Sussmann or any defense witness attempts to claim the Alfa Bank hoax was authentic and really does show Trump/Russia communication, their expert witness is prepared to rip them a new ahole.
This has caused Sussmann’s team to absolutely FREAK OUT.
They don’t want any cyber expert explaining DNS lookup data to the jury or what the DNS allegations were in the Alfa Bank hoax that Sussmann handed off to the FBI. And how some of this DNS data appears to have been fabricated.
So they immediately filed with the court a Motion To Exclude the government’s expert witness.
Now Durham just filed his rebuttal argument to the defense’s Motion to Exclude.
This part right here is really why the defense team is trying to prevent FBI Cyber Unit Chief David Martin from testifying at Sussmann’s trial.
Sussmann – if he’s really intent on going to trial and professing his innocence – wants to be able to testify on the stand – and have others testify for him – that he really honestly and truly believed the Alfa Bank allegations were real. It was not a hoax, he wants to claim. He was not making stuff up for the Clinton campaign as part of dirty trick operation to vilify Donald Trump as a distraction from Hillary Clinton’s own email server scandal, you see.
He and the people on the cyber team he was working with via Rodney Joffe at Neustar believed there really was a hidden communications line between Alfa Bank and Trump Tower.
But the SCO has now told him if he gets up there and says that, or any other defense witness claims that, Durham will have Martin to rebut that definitely with evidence.
The first objection that Sussmann’s defense team makes to having FBI Cyber Unit Chief David Martin testify as an expert witness is that they claim the Special Counsel’s Office waited to long to notify them that they were going to call an expert witness, tell them who that expert witness was, and what this expert would testify to.
Here is where Durham begins answering that claim.
Durham points out that the Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 16 [FRCP 16] does not contain any specific timing requirement in it.
March 30 was almost exactly 6 weeks from the time of the trial date [May 16] that Judge Christopher Cooper had previously set.
…A month and a half is plenty of time, and Durham cites case law on this where the D.C. Circuit [which is where this case is being held] has ruled 6 weeks prior to trial is sufficient notice.
The only times the court has found notice of expert testimony by the government to be untimely was when notice was given only on the eve of the trial’s start date.
If Durham had waited until around May 6th to inform the defense he’d be calling an expert witness, just 10 days before the trial starts, then the defense would have real grounds for objecting.
In United States v. Martinez [657 F.3d 811, 817 – 9th Cir. 2011] the court found the government waiting until just five days before trial to notify the defense of an expert witness was not timely.
In United States v. Johnson [228 F.3d 920, 922, 926 – 8th Cir. 2000] the prosecutors waited until just six days before trial to notify the defense they were calling in an expert witness, and the court ruled this notification was untimely.
Then Durham counters yet again by showing several of the cases cited by Sussmann’s defense team actually help make Durham’s case for him.
Both cases cited by Sussmann’s team – US v. Day and US vs. Wilson, involve defense teams that waited far too long to notify the court of their intention to call expert witnesses.
In US v. Day the court excluded the expert witness the defense wanted to call to testify because the defense only gave the court an extremely vague two page report less than 14 days before the trial date.
In US v. Wilson, the court excluded the defense’s expert witness because the defense waited until less than one week before trial to notify the court it intended to call that witness.
In contrast, Durham gave the defense a full six weeks notice of his intention to bring Martin in as his expert witness. And he didn’t give them a vague 2 page report about what Martin will testify to, either.
Part of the Sussmann team’s objections is that they didn’t get sufficient notice that Martin would be called as a rebuttal expert witness.
Durham argues the Special Counsel’s Office [SCO] has actually gone above it’s Rule 16 requirements.
Durham points out the Rule 16 obligations only cover the government’s case-in-chief.
That is, the case they give in the opening statement of the trial, and then the presentation of their case against the defendant, at which point the government rests and the defense begins to make it’s own case.
So the government’s case-in-chief extends only from the opening statement to the point the government rests.
However, after the defense has made it’s own case to the jury, the government gets to make it’s rebuttal case to the defense’s presentation.
Durham can’t yet tell Sussmann’s team exactly what Martin would testify to as an expert rebuttal witness because the defense hasn’t made it’s case yet.
What kind of rebuttal testimony Martin would make depends on what kind of defense Sussmann makes.
And Durham has already warned the defense that if they have Sussmann or any other defense witness get on the stand and claim the DNS data really does show a real line of communication between Trump Tower and the Alfa Bank, and by inference, secret communications between Donald Trump and the Russian government, Martin will be called to give expert testimony rebutting those claims.
It’s been established case law with precedent since 1974 that “Rebuttal witnesses are a recognized exception to all witness disclosure requirements.” – US vs. Windham [5th Cir. 1974]
Neither side knows what kind of expert testimony will be needed or what particular expert witnesses they will call until they’ve heard the other side’s case in the courtroom.
Thus, neither side is required to disclose to the other side exactly who their expert rebuttal witnesses will be before the trial starts.
So Durham is in fact, correct. He has gone far above his obligations under Rule 16 by informing the defense he’ll call Martin as his rebuttal witness if Sussmann or anyone else attempts to claim on the stand the Alfa Bank allegations about Trump/Russia collusion have real merit.
Con’t -> Part 2