Durham limited in presenting evidence that collusion claims were untrue, judge says
(www.msn.com)
🚔 Crime & Corruption 💸
Comments (12)
sorted by:
If you post fake news link you have to atleast add your analysis.
From the first paragraph:
So what I am guessing is that if the defense concedes that they were lying, then Durham cannot introduce a lot of evidence to prove the same point.
That’s how I see it
It goes further than that, I think.
Durham is not allowed to argue that the collusion claim was false.
He can only argue that specific points made Sussman were false, and he can present evidence that proves the lie and that Sussman knowingly lied.
This is largely what I expected. Contrary to the interpretation of Q's stance about a small trial having enormous impact through tangential evidence being revealed, most court systems will keep the evidence very focused and their rulings narrow.
Durham is only allowed to present arguments and evidence that counters Sussman's specific claims, and nothing more. If he wants to prove that the collusion claim was a conspiratorial lie, then he won't be allowed to do it during the Sussman trial.
He doesn't need to introduce anything now.
All he needs is to prove Sussman knowingly lied. Sussman is the fuse that leads to the powder keg.
Durham can then show how the FBI, Clinton campaign knowingly colluded as well with evidence. Ohr, Fusion GPS...
Durham would probably want to keep the scope limited so he can face one batter at a time.
Fake news link?
Which part of the Washington Examiner article is fake news?
Fren, you posted a link to MSN.
Sure did. Same article no matter the link.
Just a rule of thumb. Whenever you post a direct link to any MSM news just add your analysis, or else post a better link. MSM is called fake news for a reason. It doesnt mean they lie outright, but they lie by omission, out of context, and a million other ways that we have learnt over the past two years.
Even if a particular article is the epitome of journalistic standards, it still useless to people here since no one will take a word from it at face value.
So...what is fake news about this Washington Examiner article?
When you read this article it gives you the feeling that this was a setback for Durham. However you might like to compare it with a much more detailed analysis by an Anon here.
So in reality this is not so much a limitation on Durham as it is a limitation on Sussman. This is a good example of why we avoid fake news like plague. Even the framing of the subject can be turned on its head without any outright lying.
And yeah, Washington Examiner has been good sometimes, but it does not mean they are on the side of the truth.
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/durham-limited-in-presenting-evidence-that-collusion-claims-were-untrue-judge-says
Wasn't the attempt to impeach a claim, even if not in criminal court? And wouldn't that all be part of the 'discovery' process?