That’s not how any of this works. Admissible evidence is admissible evidence, and privileged evidence is privileged evidence. In each case, the evidence existed as such (either admissible or privileged) before the trial and will continue to be so in the future. Of course, admissibility is dependent on the fact in the case. Regardless, your comment makes no sense from a legal perspective.
And from Brian Cates Telegram:
"If only one thing had been accomplished by the Sussmann trial [and Durham got a lot more than one thing on the court record that he can use going forward in other cases he's building]?
Getting THIS on the court record made it all worthwhile even if a DC jury nullified the evidence and let Sussmann walk on a solitary minor charge of lying to a federal official.
It's no secret Durham is preparing to prosecute a criminal conspiracy case involving dozens of people."
That’s not how any of this works. Admissible evidence is admissible evidence, and privileged evidence is privileged evidence. In each case, the evidence existed as such (either admissible or privileged) before the trial and will continue to be so in the future. Of course, admissibility is dependent on the fact in the case. Regardless, your comment makes no sense from a legal perspective.
I was referencing something similar to this https://greatawakening.win/p/15IEJv3zZg/john-durhams-son-people-are-forg/c/ There has been talk on a few channels about this.
And from Brian Cates Telegram: "If only one thing had been accomplished by the Sussmann trial [and Durham got a lot more than one thing on the court record that he can use going forward in other cases he's building]?
Getting THIS on the court record made it all worthwhile even if a DC jury nullified the evidence and let Sussmann walk on a solitary minor charge of lying to a federal official.
It's no secret Durham is preparing to prosecute a criminal conspiracy case involving dozens of people."