Note to whoever is running marketing for these people —- this makes me hate you. Signed, Everyone.

Holy moly. I just swallowed my own red pill again.

Note the date of my prediction sent over to my unit chaplain from my deployment task force.

Then my response from the day after.

Knew it from the start, just like I told you.

Durham has filed his rebuttal to Michael Sussmann's defense team's Motion To Exclude the government's expert witness, FBI Cyber Unit Chief David Martin from testifying at the upcoming trial, scheduled to begin on May 16.

The filing can be read here:

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.dcd.235638/gov.uscourts.dcd.235638.69.0_2.pdf

This part right here is really why the defense team is trying to prevent FBI Cyber Unit Chief David Martin from testifying at Sussmann's trial.

Sussmann - if he's really intent on going to trial and professing his innocence - wants to be able to testify on the stand - and have others testify for him - that he really honestly and truly believed the Alfa Bank allegations were real. It was not a hoax, he wants to claim. He was not making stuff up for the Clinton campaign as part of dirty trick operation to vilify Donald Trump as a distraction from Hillary Clinton's own email server scandal, you see.

He and the people on the cyber team he was working with via Rodney Joffe at Neustar believed there really was a hidden communications line between Alfa Bank and Trump Tower.

But the SCO has now told him if he gets up there and says that, or any other defense witness claims that, Durham will have Martin to rebut that definitely with evidence.

The first objection that Sussmann's defense team makes to having FBI Cyber Unit Chief David Martin testify as an expert witness is that they claim the Special Counsel's Office waited to long to notify them that they were going to call an expert witness, tell them who that expert witness was, and what this expert would testify to.

Here is where Durham begins answering that claim.

Durham points out that the Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 16 [FRCP 16] does not contain any specific timing requirement in it.

March 30 was almost exactly 6 weeks from the time of the trial date [May 16] that Judge Christopher Cooper had previously set.

A month and a half is plenty of time, and Durham cites case law on this where the D.C. Circuit [which is where this case is being held] has ruled 6 weeks prior to trial is sufficient notice.

The only times the court has found notice of expert testimony by the government to be untimely was when notice was given only on the eve of the trial's start date.

If Durham had waited until around May 6th to inform the defense he'd be calling an expert witness, just 10 days before the trial starts, then the defense would have real grounds for objecting.

In United States v. Martinez [657 F.3d 811, 817 - 9th Cir. 2011] the court found the government waiting until just five days before trial to notify the defense of an expert witness was not timely.

In United States v. Johnson [228 F.3d 920, 922, 926 - 8th Cir. 2000] the prosecutors waited until just six days before trial to notify the defense they were calling in an expert witness, and the court ruled this notification was untimely.

Then Durham counters yet again by showing several of the cases cited by Sussmann's defense team actually help make Durham's case for him.

Both cases cited by Sussmann's team - US v. Day and US vs. Wilson, involve defense teams that waited far too long to notify the court of their intention to call expert witnesses.

In US v. Day the court excluded the expert witness the defense wanted to call to testify because the defense only gave the court an extremely vague two page report less than 14 days before the trial date.

In US v. Wilson, the court excluded the defense's expert witness because the defense waited until less than one week before trial to notify the court it intended to call that witness.

In contrast, Durham gave the defense a full six weeks notice of his intention to bring Martin in as his expert witness. And he didn't give them a vague 2 page report about what Martin will testify to, either.

Part of the Sussmann team's objections is that they didn't get sufficient notice that Martin would be called as a rebuttal expert witness.

Durham argues the Special Counsel's Office [SCO] has actually gone above it's Rule 16 requirements.

Durham points out the Rule 16 obligations only cover the government's case-in-chief.

That is, the case they give in the opening statement of the trial, and then the presentation of their case against the defendant, at which point the government rests and the defense begins to make it's own case.

So the government's case-in-chief extends only from the opening statement to the point the government rests.

However, after the defense has made it's own case to the jury, the government gets to make it's rebuttal case to the defense's presentation.

Durham can't yet tell Sussmann's team exactly what Martin would testify to as an expert rebuttal witness because the defense hasn't made it's case yet.

It's been established case law with precedent since 1974 that "Rebuttal witnesses are a recognized exception to all witness disclosure requirements." - US vs. Windham [5th Cir. 1974]

Neither side knows what kind of expert testimony will be needed or what particular expert witnesses they will call until they've heard the other side's case in the courtroom.

Thus, neither side is required to disclose to the other side exactly who their expert rebuttal witnesses will be before the trial starts.

So Durham is in fact, correct. He has gone far above his obligations under Rule 16 by informing the defense he'll call Martin as his rebuttal witness if Sussmann or anyone else attempts to claim on the stand the Alfa Bank allegations about Trump/Russia collusion have real merit.

What Sussmann and the defense want to be able to do is spin their own tale about DNS data and what the Alfa Bank white papers and thumb drives show.

This is another reason they don't want Martin testifying.

They only want the jury hearing Sussmann and Joffe's version of what they were doing and what the DNS data shows.

Well they had to try. Sussmann's defense team actually claims to the court that they are objecting to FBI Cyber Unit Chief David Martin testifying as an expert witness because they say the Durham SCO did not disclose to them how Martin is "qualified to testify specifically about DNS or TOR."

🤷‍♂️😬

You are reading that correctly. Sussmann's team had the balls to say "You didn't show us why the guy who is the Chief of the FBI's Cyber Unit is qualified to testify as an expert witness on what DNS or TOR are to a jury."

Durham says: tell you what. I'll drop a big report on Agent Martin's qualifications in your lap before the trial gets here. But you know you're reaching here, guys."

Musk is going to COMPLETELY BYPASS THE BOARD and make A TENDER OFFER DIRECTLY TO THE SHAREHOLDERS.

Musk spent months getting this ready.

He knew the board would turn him down. He's not frantically trying to come up with a Plan B, he had his Plan B ready even before he launched his Plan A.

This is getting REALLY GOOD.

As I said, Musk spent a lot of time and money carefully preparing behind the scenes his Plans A & B and the idiots in charge never got a tip off he was coming. He caught them completely and totally by surprise. They had no idea.

He's so far ahead they'll never catch him.

And you can quote me on that.

Elon has a plan and it’s becoming more clear. Now, I’m not sure if Elon is acting alone or if he is acting along side white hats, but given the vitriol and fear from the left wing media complex, we know his objectives align with ours and he is seen as a threat to their control.

As for the first step of the plan, it’s simple: Offer them a shitload of money, far above the market value. An undeniable offer in the world of business. And if they deny it, it proves they are motivated by something other than money, proving Twitter isn’t actually a business, it’s a tool. It proves that they greatly value the ability to censor, suppress free speech, control information, and manipulate public perception. And given their allegiance to one side of the aisle, it proves that political bias has infiltrated social media and weaponized private enterprise to circumvent the Constitution.

This all culminates to one final conclusion. That Twitter is not a business, merely an arm of the DNC, and has been used to abuse the Rights protected by The Constitution and psychologically manipulate the masses to alter elections and seize political power. The DNC are engaged in treasonous political and psychological warfare at the expense of We the People.

That’s where we are at, and that’s what Elon is proving in broad daylight for the world to see.

https://news.1rj.ru/str/WeTheMedia/61033

Needless to say, Durham has no interest in giving the guy who was quarterbacking the entire private federal contractor spy network for Hillary Clinton immunity just so he can testify for Sussmann's defense in this trial.

Durham says unless the court can find some gross prosecutorial misconduct by his team, there's no precedent for granting a defense witness immunity.

Durham points out ever since his office first contacted Joffe through his lawyers, he has consistently refused any cooperation and has invoked his 5th amendment rights.

In fact, as you can see from footnote [4], the Special Counsel's Office hasn't even had one face to face meeting with Joffe's lawyers. The one time a meeting had been agreed upon, Joffe changed his mind and had his lawyer cancel the meeting.

This appears to mean that Joffe has never appeared before a grand jury to testify. He made it abundantly clear to the SCO he would invoke the 5th.

Durham then says Joffe remains an ongoing subject of his criminal investigation.

Remember, the 5 year clock does not start ticking until the last overt act is taken to further the criminal conspiracy.

You know what Sussmann's last overt act was to keep the Trump/Russia hoax conspiracy going? And since it's a conspiracy, any of Sussmann's coconspirators could have done something in 2018, 2019, 2020, hell maybe even THIS YEAR to try to cover up what they did.

Trying to continue covering up and hiding your criminal conspiracy is...guess what?

AN OVERT ACT TO FURTHER THE CONSPIRACY.

So Durham quickly dispenses with the "statute already ran out!" dodge.

Sussmann then tries to argue that Durham has been discriminatory in how he grants immunity, only giving it to people who are cooperating and helping him build his case.

[loud farting sound here as I laugh so hard I can't help it]

Here's Durham revealing that in as far as the Alfa Bank hoax investigation goes, only ONE PERSON has been granted immunity thus far: "Researcher-2".

And "Researcher-2" was granted this immunity back on July 28 of 2021.

That was before Sussmann was indicted later in September of 2021.

So Sussmann trying to argue that the SCO is discriminatory in how it is granting immunity doesn't fly.

Durham reveals they pursued Researcher-2's immunity and granted a deal because 5 others involved stonewalled by pleading the 5th.

GOP - “we must move on from 2020”