Kingmaker-38 - Big IF! (True) Profile picture
Sep 18, 2021 8 tweets 2 min read Read on X
That the Sussmann indictment is an undisguised signal that conspiracy charges are soon to follow is transparent in the first few paragraphs of the indictment. One need not read past page one to understand where Durham is heading. All unlawful conspiracies have an object or
purpose. For example, a group of criminals might meet one night to plan to rob a bank the next day. When the robbers get caught and charged with conspiracy, the charging papers will describe the object of the conspiracy to be the robbery of the bank. In the Clinton Campaign
conspiracy, the object or purpose was successfully obtained beyond the wildest dreams of any of the conspirators. Durham begins the Sussmann indictment with a description of the success achieved by the conspiracy: Paragraph 1 describes and quotes from a NY Times article in
October 2016, which asserts that agencies of the federal government have received and are investigating evidence that the Trump organization has been making secret back channel communications to a Russian bank. Durham describes not only the object of the conspiracy, but its
it’s successful achievement of the conspiracy’s primary purpose. The object never was that Trump would ultimately be prosecuted for crimes he was framed for. Rather, this was always about the narrative and the press- something that the indictment stresses again and again.
The Clinton Campaign wanted a friendly press not only to publish the fake narrative, but they needed the reporting to allude to the criminal or national security investigation by the FBI and other agencies. The fact of such an investigation served two ends: The narrative would
have more gravitas, thereby casting Trump in a hugely suspicious light, and the fact of an investigation gave the press they may have needed to publish the uncorroborated reports. Durham’s indictment skillfully lays out this plan, and it places Sussmann at the center of inducing
The FBI to launch an investigation, and then to immediately carry the fact of the investigation to a compliant press. This was not a one-man show, which is why there are many in Washington who are not sleeping very well right now.

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh
 

Keep Current with Kingmaker-38 - Big IF! (True)

Kingmaker-38 - Big IF! (True) Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!

PDF

Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @KingMakerFT

Jan 28
This is a thread about the Justice Dept lawyers on Jack Smith’s team who were fired yesterday for their involvement in Smith’s lawfare against Trump. Trump’s reason for firing these lawyers was that they could not be trusted to carry out the president’s agenda. In this thread I will explain another equally strong reason: Smith’s team allowed political bias to overcome the skills and objectivity that litigators of all stripes are expected to have. In simple terms, Smith’s final report establishes that the lawyers working on the DC case against Trump were not very good, professional lawyers.
Examples of poor lawyering abound in Smith’s final report. Here I’ll mention a few. These examples are in addition to the basic violations of due process rights belonging to Trump and to the defendants in state court prosecutions arising out of the same set of facts- the so-called attempt to “overturn the election.” I’ve written and talked on Spaces at length about the constitutional problems with making that report public while prosecutions were ongoing, so I won’t go over those issues here. My criticism here will assume the report was designed to be an honest, objective report to AG Garland and not designed to be made public when Garland released it. Even as a strictly in-house report, it fails even minimal standards trial lawyers must meet.
Trial lawyers are taught to analyze facts and law objectively and thoroughly, always keeping in mind there are usually two sides to every argument. The ability to anticipate the opposing side’s evidence and arguments as to what the evidence proves is an essential attribute for any trial lawyer. Fundamentally, Jack Smith’s final report lacks any hint that the lawyers on his team ever considered, let alone tried to deal with, any evidence and theory of the case that tended to contradict, the theory of the case adopted by the prosecution.
Read 13 tweets
Oct 3, 2024
Now that Special Counsel Smith’s magnum opus, election interference filing is in the public record, I can provide more detail on how the 165 page filing violated Trump’s constitutional rights under the Fifth and Sixth Amendments. In this thread I’ll focus on the hundreds of references to opinion testimony that at trial would likely be inadmissible for lack of foundation, based on what little Smith has provided to prove up the opinion testimony. Yet Smith asks the judge- and the voting public, including prospective jurors- to accept such inadmissible opinion testimony as the gospel truth. That is not how the 5th Amendment requirement of due process and the 6th Amendment right to confront and cross examine witnesses against you, and the 6th Amendment right to a jury trial before a fair and impartial jury, are designed to work.
Throughout Smith’s filing, he refers to evidence in the form of opinions by various witnesses who claim to have reported to Trump and/or people working for him or conspiring with him, that there was no fraud or illegality in the election sufficient to change the result. In very general terms, there were descriptions of witnesses telling Trump, in sum and substance, “There was no fraud.”
In legal terms, that type of testimony would be characterized as opinion testimony, since no one person could personally attest , by first hand knowledge, to the absence of fraud or illegality with respect to every vote, out of tens of millions cast, and that all such votes were lawfully counted. To be admissible, opinion testimony must be based upon an adequate foundation. The burden is on the party trying to introduce the opinion into evidence to establish a proper legal foundation for its admissibility.
Read 7 tweets
Sep 7, 2024
@JeffClarkUS is spot on here in identifying serious 5th Amendment due process issues with Jack Smith’s upside down proposal, adopted by Judge Chutkan, that the prosecution be allowed to file a comprehensive public “brief” as to Trump’s guilt and the absence of immunity in the height of election season.
In addition to the blatant political purpose of Smith’s proposed “brief,” there are serious 5th Amendment due process problems as well as denial of the 6th Amendment right to confront witnesses in a criminal case. Smith proposes to recast the indictment by laying out in the public record 1) the details of his office’s plan as to what evidence to present at trial to prove Trump’s guilt, 2) his evidence showing there is no immunity because the conduct involved private and not official acts of the former president; and 3) as to any official acts, Smith’s evidence to rebut the presumption of immunity.
This “brief” of the special counsel will not be the standard legal brief. Rather, it will include Smith’s evidence. Smith’s office has told the court that to support the prosecution’s narrative, they plan to file in the public record documentary evidence, grand jury testimony, and FBI 302 forms summarizing witness interviews.
Read 6 tweets
May 20, 2024
Judge Merchan is severely limiting the defense expert’s discussion of how the FEC works, including definitions of terms like “campaign contributions,” and such concepts as dual use expenses exempted from the law. Right now the jury has heard enough to assume the worst for Trump:
The judge refuses to say how he will instruct the jury on the FEC. As it stands now the jury probably assumes the FEC was violated and that Trump has no defense, because it’s obvious sex with a porn star might affect the number of Trump’s votes. But that’s not the law.
And this issue of whether the FEC was violated is beyond the court’s jurisdiction altogether. The FEC supersedes and preempts all state laws. So a NY state court jury cannot decide whether there has been a criminal violation of the FEC.
Read 4 tweets
May 13, 2024
@shipwreckedcrew has the basic outline of what a good cross examination of Cohen will likely look like. I would add that an effective cross can be used to tell your side of the story, if you’ve got the right witness to do it with. Cohen might be that witness.
Elements of Trump’s story here could be that campaign donations and expenses is a complex area of federal law that require a lawyer to fully understand. Cohen, the lawyer, took charge of deciding how to structure transactions. Cohen and Weisslberg talked about that.
Read 7 tweets
Apr 27, 2024
Yesterday I posted a long thread on the sleight of hand pulled by D.A. Bragg in NY to conceal the fact that his theory of the case against Trump is, in effect, a prosecution of federal crimes that by law preempt and supersede the state laws Bragg says he is using.
This fact becomes more and more obvious as the trial progresses, beginning with the opening statement to the jury. The prosecution told the jury that this case involved a conspiracy and a coverup. What crimes were the object of the conspiracy? Federal election finance crimes.
Specifically Bragg has produced evidence tending to show that David Pecker and Michael Cohen conspired with Trump and others to make disguised campaign contributions to Trump in 2016 by making payments to Karen MacDougal and Stormy Daniels to buy their silence about affairs.
Read 11 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!


This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Don't want to be a Premium member but still want to support us?

Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal

Or Donate anonymously using crypto!

Ethereum

0xfe58350B80634f60Fa6Dc149a72b4DFbc17D341E copy

Bitcoin

3ATGMxNzCUFzxpMCHL5sWSt4DVtS8UqXpi copy

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us!

:(