THREAD: Durham already responded to Sussmann's motion to strike. Filing here: courtlistener.com/docket/6039058… 1/
2/ ICYMI I addressed the request to strike @FDRLST thefederalist.com/2022/02/17/spe… today and note that the standard doesn't seem met b/c no prejudice--voir dire can take care of that.
3/ Durham's team makes that point here while also noting that it didn't file in bad faith etc. 
4/ The "big" news, though, is that the government is going to file Motion in Limines to have the court pre-judge the admission of some evidence before trial and plans to do so on the public record! YES!
5/ Durham's team, though, adds a point that was brilliant: It gave the court assurances that where privacy issues are in play it will file under seal. This paragraph is key for a few reasons.
6/ First, it is Durham saying look, these are the only things that should not be made public, witness names, national security, etc., In other words, very limited and relatedly, by speaking of pointing out the right to public access, it is Durham reminding court that Sussmann
7/ isn't the only one with an interest in the info not being published--the public have a valid interest too.
8/8 So bring on those Motions in Limine!!
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
