Durham limited in presenting evidence that collusion claims were untrue, judge says
(www.msn.com)
🚔 Crime & Corruption 💸
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
Comments (12)
sorted by:
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.