Any day now! Just you wait!
Serious question. You are factually wrong a lot on these boards. Like a lot a lot. Do you ever get tired of being factually wrong? Is there any part of you that goes “Hmmm, I seem to be factually wrong a lot? Maybe I need new sources of fact?”
Moderating:
Querying whether someone gets tired of being wrong a lot can be construed as a personal insult. Given that P&E is fraught with strong emotional responses out of the gate, it’s best to avoid invoking language that can be taken as such.
Guidance only.
Understood. I legitimately did not intend it that way.
Thanks for the clarification. I will say I felt it was a close call.
If you’d like to start a pit thread about it and provide examples, that would be fine. On the other hand, there are already a couple for that. Choose one.
To add to the update: The judge in the case has indicated that the trial will hopefully be scheduled for mid-May/early June and last about two weeks. Durham wanted a much later date in July because his team is so shitty at turning over its discovery to the defense. That certainly bodes well for the prosecution, I’m sure.
Or you could just re-read this thread.
Are you familiar with Durham’s counterargument, or is this assessment based entirely on the defense team filing that you quote?
I am familiar with it now, but Durham had not responded when I made the post you quoted. Is there something about Durham’s (ridiculous) response that you would like to add to the thread?
Well you’re tightly locked into your position here, having already gone out on a limb and declared that “it’s far more likely that Durham will be found guilty of something than Sussmann” based on your taking a filing from Sussman’s lawyer as gospel.
So in sum, no (unless someone else is interested).
Great. We’ll be here if you change your mind.
Durham appears to be an incompetent clown, at best: Durham Says He Forgot About Key Piece Of Evidence - TPM – Talking Points Memo
Not a “useful idiot”? 
Doesn’t seem very useful.
From that article, “Forgot About Key Piece Of Evidence” means that he forgot that he had discussed the OIG having that evidence in connection with another investigation 4 years ago and over a year before he began investigating the Trump-Russia investigation, and then failed to remember that conversation 4 years later. OK.
IANAL but:
“The revelation raises serious questions about how far Durham’s team went in investigating the Sussmann case before bringing charges, as his team continues to admit in court filings that they have been buffeted by new, easily obtainable evidence post-charging.”
YMMV, but that’s incompetence to me.
That’s just the opinion of the TPM article author.
I’m not sure what “new, easily obtainable evidence post-charging” this guy is referring to. But in any event, I believe the timing of the Sussman indictment was based on the SOL being about to expire, and particularly in such circumstances it’s not uncommon for the investigation to continue to gather evidence post-indictment.
I’d argue that it is rather uncommon. Most prosecutors in my experience want their case air tight before deciding to charge. Certainly new information may come to light, but that’s the exception, not the rule. Rarely does “new, easily obtainable evidence post charging” come to light after indictment.
Or even, old, already seen but “forgotten” evidence.