John Durham’s Lies with Metadata

Thanks to those who’ve donated to help defray the costs of trial transcripts. Your generosity has funded the expected costs. If you appreciate the kind of coverage no one else is offering, we’re still happy to accept donations for this coverage — which reflects the culmination of eight months work. 

I’d like to thank John Durham for showing us back in April how he was going to mislead the jury with metadata.

He appears to have done just that, yesterday, with several exhibits entered into evidence. And I fear that unless Durham’s lie is corrected, he will gravely mislead the jury.

As I pointed out in April, because of the email system at Fusion GPS, the first email in any thread they produced to Durham renders as UTC; the rest render as ET. So, for the emails on which one could check, the first email in every thread they released in April was four hours later than the time the email was actually sent.

Durham has revealed that his exhibit has irregularities in the emails pertaining to a key issue: whether Fusion sent out a link to April Lorenzen’s i2p site before Mark Hosenball sent it to them.

This shows up in the timestamps. In the exhibit, the lead email for each appearance appears to be set to UTC, whereas the sent emails included in any thread appear to be set to ET.

For example, in this screencap, the time shown for Mark Hosenball’s response to Peter Fritsch (the pink rectangle) is 1:35 PM, which is presumably Eastern Time.

In this screencap, the very same response appears to be sent at 5:36PM, which is presumably UTC.

Both instances of Peter Fritsch’s email (the green rectangle), “that memo is OTR–tho all open source,” show at 1:33PM, again, Eastern Time.

To be clear: this irregularity likely stems from Fusion’s email system, not DOJ’s. It appears that the email being provided itself is rendered in UTC, while all the underlying emails are rendered in the actual received time.

That means if you show someone only the first email in a thread, you will be misrepresenting what time that email was sent.

That’s what Durham did yesterday with a bunch of Fusion-produced emails he submitted during Laura Seago’s testimony, including (but not limited to):

Over and over, Andrew DeFilippis showed these to Laura Seago and asked her to state what date and time the emails were.

MR. DeFILIPPIS: Okay. And, Your Honor, if there’s no objection from the defense, we’ll offer Government’s Exhibit 612.

MR. BERKOWITZ: No objection.

THE COURT: So moved.

Q. Okay. So what is the date and time of this email?

A. October 5, 2016, at 5:23 p.m.

Q. And the “Subject” line?

A. “Re: so is this safe to look at” — excuse me — “so this is safe to look at.”

While these emails appear to have been produced to Durham at a later time (their Bates numbers from Fusion are about 3000 pages off some of the earlier ones), they’re from the same series and produced by the same custodian, so we should assume that the same anomaly that existed on the earlier ones exists here.

Seago hasn’t seen these emails for years and — because they were treated as privileged — she can only see the first email in a thread, even if there are replies in that thread (and there clearly are, in some of them). She had no way of knowing if she was looking at UTC time!

But Andrew DeFilippis surely does. Indeed, he’s prepping an attack on Sussmann for not understanding that Durham turned over Lync files from the FBI without making clear they, also, get produced in UTC. So he’s aware of which exhibits he has sent to Sussmann without clarifying the correct time. Yet over and over again, DeFilippis asked Seago what time these emails were sent, even though he likely knows (especially since these are files that are no longer privileged, so he has seen those that are threads) that he was deceiving her.

And the timing of these Fusion emails — and possibly some earlier ones exchanged with Rodney Joffe — almost certainly matter.

As I showed in my earlier post, because Durham didn’t fix the anomaly in these emails, they have created the false impression that an October 5 email from Mark Hosenball that shared public links to Tea Leaves’ files came in after Fusion sent it out to Eric Lichtblau. They appear to be prepping another deceit, this one conflating a link that Hosenball sent with one Seago found on Reddit.

Assuming the emails released yesterday share this same anomaly, here’s how the timeline would work out. I’ve bolded the ones that would be grossly misleading taken out of order.

5:23PM (could be 1:23?): Seago to Fritsch, Is this safe?

1:31PM: [not included] Fritsch to Hosenball email with Alfa Group overview

1:32PM: Fritsch sends Isikoff the September 1, 2016 Alfa Group overview (full report included in unsealed exhibit)

1:33PM [not included] Fritsch to Hosenball, “that memo is OTR — tho all open source”

1:35/1:36PM: Hosenball replies, “yep got it, but is that from you all or from the outside computer experts?”

1:37PM: Fritsch responds,

the DNS stuff? not us at all

outside computer experts

we did put up an alfa memo unrelated to all this

1:38PM: [not included] Hosenball to Fritsch:

is the alfa attachment you just sent me experts or yours ? also is there additional data posted by the experts ? all I have found is the summary I sent you and a chart… [my emphasis]

1:41PM: [not included] Fritsch to Hosenball:

alfa was something we did unrelated to this. i sent you what we have BUT it gives you a tutanota address to leave questions.  1. Leave questions at: [email protected]

1:41PM: [not included] Hosenball to Fritsch:

yes I have emailed tuta and they have responded but haven’t sent me any new links yet. but I am pressing. but have you downloaded more data from them ?

1:43PM: [not included] Fritsch to Hosenball, “no”

1:44PM: Fritsch to Lichtblau:

fyi found this published on web … and downloaded it. super interesting in context of our discussions

[mediafire link] [my emphasis]

2:23PM: [not included] Lichtblau to Fritsch, “thanks. where did this come from?”

2:27PM: [not included] Hosenball to Fritsch:

tuta sent me this guidance


Since I am technically hopeless I have asked our techie person to try to get into this. But here is the raw info in case you get there first. Chrs mh

2:32PM: Fritsch to Lichtblau:

no idea. our tech maven says it was first posted via reddit. i see it has a tutanota contact — so someone anonymous and encrypted. so it’s either someone real who has real info or one of donald’s 400 pounders. the de vos stuff looks rank to me … weird

6:33PM (likely 2:33PM): Fwd Alfa Fritsch to Seago

6:57PM (like 2:57PM): Re alfa Seago to Fritsch

7:02PM (likely 3:02): Re alfa Seago to Fritsch

3:27PM: [not included] Fritsch to Hosenball cc Simpson: “All same stuff”

3:58PM: [not included] Hosenball to Fritsch, asking, “so the trumpies just sent me the explanation below; how do I get behind it?”

4:28PM: [not included] Fritsch to Hosenball, “not easily, alas”

4:32PM: Fritsch to Hosenball, cc Simpson:

Though first step is to send that explanation to the source who posted this stuff. I understand the trump explanations can be refuted.



What Durham will completely and utterly misrepresent if it doesn’t clarify this anomaly (and this is the second time they have declined to) is that Seago and Mark Hosenball both accessed different packages of the Tea Leaves materials, one of which then got sent out to Lichtblau. Between 2:33 and 2:57, Seago appears to have compared the files and told Fritsch, who then told Hosenball, that the packages were “all the same stuff.”

85 replies
      • Spencer Dawkins says:

        Fusion GPS mail admin: “memo to self. Set email system to include timezones in all metadata”.

        And I hope that every other mail admin on the planet does the same.

        I agree with Peterr that timezones are hard (they are), but the potential for confusion (and subsequent exploitation) with un-timezoned times is wide enough to drive a truck through. None of the confusion had to happen, and that would have shut down this whole line of misleading question-and-answer.

        And I’m still tempted to shave my goatee so I won’t look like Durham. What a … specimen.

        • WilliamOckham says:

          I agree with respect to the appropriate action for the admin. The most useful thing to do would be to update the template on the server to include the time zone in the timestamp.
          I am also in agreement with you on facial hair. Mine currently looks just like Durham’s (except less tea strainer) and I am considering going full beard.

        • Charles Wolf says:

          You should dump the goatee so you don’t become associated with the dead anti-vaxxers of Herman Cain Award fame, an uncanny number of which bear the chin rug.

      • earlofhuntingdon says:

        At some point, perhaps Sussman’s team could point this out to Cooper, or is the opportunity for that lost when the witness leaves the stand? Regardless, DeF is close to committing a fraud on the court. Sanctions would be up to Cooper, I suppose, as OPR is hopeless.

  1. Pete T says:

    It would be a crying shame if someone like, say, Michael Bosworth or Sean Berkowitz got a link to this post. Yes, a real shame. Anyone have email addresses for either of those two gents?

    • anaphoristand says:

      Per their latest filing, defense counsel’s email contacts:
      sean. berkowitz @ lw. com
      michael. bosworth @ lw. com
      natalie. rao @ lw. com
      catherine. yao @ lw. com

      [These email addresses have been ‘deactivated’ with insertion of blank spaces; spiders don’t need to pick up these addresses on this site. /~Rayne]

  2. Doctor My Eyes says:

    This may be neither here nor there, but my theory is that there is a psychology of, how to say it? shame? awareness of guilt? in which the practitioner believes so completely that, because their cause lacks integrity, the only possible avenue to winning is through cheating. Such people are so busy cooking up cheats that they wouldn’t recognize an honest route to victory if it fell in their lap. This seems a sort of institutional version of the psychological liar.

      • Rugger9 says:

        Agreed. As Napoleon said, don’t interfere with an enemy making a mistake. Durham will immolate himself in the legal sense. However, I am concerned that Sussmann’s team did not object to the time stamps anomaly or even ask if these were ET or UTC. TBF there is no time zone info on the email and Seago wasn’t allowed to look at the full strings to trigger the awareness about the anomaly. Perhaps there is an opportunity later.

  3. gknight says:

    Attorneys are officers of the court. Since that is fact, then what happens if a lawyer knows something is false but goes ahead and presents it as true? Aren’t they supposed to use common sense and reason and something about truth and justice? Is a lie by a prosecutor allowed? Or is it on the defense to catch it? Or the judge to put the hairy eyeball on the prosecutor?

    Thanks to all on this site for the wonderful analysis and hard work!

  4. WilliamOckham says:

    Given what we know about how these emails were produced to the SCO, I’m certain that the timestamps on the emails that were shown are in UTC. I don’t have time right now to provide a complete explanation. I think it’s something that should be at least questioned during the trial.

  5. Random Commenter says:

    I used to work with the lead prosecutor. Trust me we dealt with timezone confusion on email chains in multiple matters. He knows this is an issue with ediscovery and he knows what he’s doing here.

      • Random Commenter says:

        I think so. If not it’s gross negligence because he is 100% aware of this issue. Considering he clearly viewed the time stamp as important enough to ask about then I find it inconceivable that it was a mistake. We are after all talking about the team that “accidentally” filed confidential documents on the public document and then said whoopsie after.

          • Random Commenter says:

            I was simply trying to characterize whether I think this is intentional in response to someone asking me if it was intentional but sure for the second time now you write an obnoxious snarky response to a post of mine. I really am not sure what your issue is and don’t see you doing this to other posters but that’s fine. I’m done commenting here.

            [Welcome back to emptywheel. Please use the same userid and login information each and every time you comment so community members get to know you. You have now used three usernames since your first comment April, the last two differentiated by an underscore “_” character (ie. “Random_Commenter”) . I am reverting your last comments to username “Random Commenter” omitting the underscore because you already had 7 comments published under that name. /~Rayne]

            • bmaz says:

              Lol, you asked a silly question. And you have not been here long if you haven’t noticed that silly questions get met with tart responses, and not just by me. Methinks you doth protest too much. That said, you are quite welcome here.

                • bmaz says:

                  I stand corrected, you made a silly statement. “I think so. If not it’s gross negligence because he is 100% aware of this issue.”

                  • Random Commenter says:

                    Silly phrase? I’m an attorney who used to work with and be good friends with the attorney we are discussing commenting on a legal proceeding. I was asked whether I think this amounts to unethical or malicious conduct. I responded that I know him to be very familiar with this issue and therefore if this is not intentional it must be because he really really screwed up. Perhaps some people are interested in knowing whether the Durham team is unethical and/or incompetent. And some people like to make pointless snarky jokes in response because I used the proper legal term for what this would amount to. It’s fine. I know the guy personally but I’m sure we could all benefit more from having a self described saguaro cactus with a physics degree opine on this. I will be sure to snark on you if you happen to use any technical physics terms while you do so.

                    [SECOND REQUEST: See my previous request about sticking to the username “Random Commenter”; your username has for the +3 time been reverted from “Random_Commenter.” Secondly, it’s not acceptable to get into a pissing match with a moderator which bmaz is. Thirdly, community members have no way to validate your true identity; any claims you’re making may be perceived as trolling for that reason. /~Rayne]

                    • bmaz says:

                      Lol, I am an attorney too. You said something stupid, try to have the guts to own it. And I do not give a damn about your relationships with others. I have been a practicing criminal lawyer for over 35 years, so take your “cactus with a physics degree” and shove it straight up your fucking ass.

                    • TimH says:

                      …but it is acceptable for bmaz to start a pissing match? Grownups de-escalate, unless they are LEO or lack coffee.

                    • bmaz says:

                      Yeah, we don’t need your tone policing at all. And, for the record, she said something silly and refused to admit it and then started relentlessly spamming our thread with insults and bullshit. Mind your own business, and we will take care of ours. We do not have time for this.

  6. Rugger9 says:

    One thing to consider is that DeFilippis needs to include the whole strings to make the claims he’s making, but as noted above there will doubtless be events that must occur sequentially and that’s not possible if the time stamps are assumed to be facially correct without accounting for the time zones.

    EW also noted the attempt to conflate Hosenball to Sussmann, without any apparent references to show that there was any coordination between them. Sussmann’s team should attack starting with relevance. This trial is about Sussmann, not Hosenball.

    • Rugger9 says:

      Even something like this sequence will blow up Durham’s gambit:

      Q: Is the top-line email from Fusion GPS?
      A: Yes
      Q: What time zone is used by Fusion GPS’ email server?
      A: UTC / Zulu
      Q: What time zone is used by Fritsch and Hosenball?
      A: ET
      Q: What is the offset from UTC to ET?
      A: UTC is four hours ahead for EDT, 5 hours ahead for EST.

      And, that would highlight the anomaly for the jury which in turn would close out that conspiracy theory in this courtroom.

    • emptywheel says:

      Durham is introducing individual emails from threads separately. With Elias he introduced the two replies, but not the original, which Elias sent, which was also misleading.

      It’s what I suspected he might do, but wasn’t sure he was corrupt enough to do.

    • harpie says:

      As a matter of fact, I’ll parenthetize that:

      John [Pattern and Practice of Deceit] DURHAM

  7. Silly but True says:

    Now we’re getting into the meat here.

    Joffe through various streams was injecting his theories and work into the media beginning about July. Lichtblau got it early from Fusion working for HFA/DNC; Sussmann was HFA/Joffe lawyer at that time and Marc Elias / Deborah Fine confirmed Sussmann wasn’t directed in this for HFA.

    Sussmann trying to slow-roll the NYT article by end of September now appears to be trying to hold back the growing NYT hesitancy and especially NYT from running with its story exonerating Trump until Franklin Foer’s Slate article could run; the dueling articles raced to finally both drop on October 31, 2016 each as their own October surprises. Foer’s Slate article immediately tweeted by Hillary vs. Lichtblau’s “Investigating Donald Trump, F.B.I. Sees No Clear Link” reverse card which pretty sure was also immediately tweeted by Trump or Don, Jr.

    In all of this, we can say Sussmann was at least mildly better than Don Jr., because Sussmann finally came to the FBI as last resort after apparently pursuing every bad action first.

    Joffe and Fusion here appear to be the shady actors: they were developing multiple news stories first hoping at least one bore fruit before it crossed anyone’s mind to alert the FBI.

    Sussmann appears to be getting the bum rap here in being victimized by Joffe’s focus on what essentially was Joffe’s pet theory.

  8. Bay State Librul says:

    BMAZ @ 10;33AM

    “The Justice Department will not tolerate violence or threats of violence against judges or any other public servants at work, home, or any other location.” — Garland

    Shorter Garland — We will however tolerate lies from my staff

    Garland should be removed from the roster and benched.

    • bmaz says:

      This is total bullshit. And Durham is not common staff. People are just insane with this shit. Unless the court itself (which has allowed it all) does it, it is not happening. This is as stupid as all the people clacking about protecting the Mueller REepor. Give it up.

      • David Eddy says:

        The defence had their chance to raise objections to the inclusion of the time-stamped emails as evidence during discovery but it seems they did not recognise the inconsistencies Marcy points out. At this point in the trial, assuming the defence is now aware that the prosecution is misrepresenting evidence, what would you do as Sussmann’s defence lawyer to address the issue? I’m just curious what process a lawyer should go through to raise objections to evidence that they failed to raise any objections to during the appropriate period to raise such objections, discovery.

        • bmaz says:

          I would raise it with the court and make a formal record outside of the jury’s presence.

          • Silly but True says:

            I know they’re up against clock but what would happen if Sussmann went to Fusion noting the problem, assuming Fusion is able to quickly the error and reproduce new correct originals and then send them again to Durham and docketed to court if need be since their lawyers are already active in the case?

            Would that blow things up? Doesn’t Fusion get chance to correct if it’s done in timely manner of being made aware of error?

  9. John Paul Jones says:

    DeF has raised the issue of the times emails were received. Wouldn’t that allow defense to recall Seago and ask her to explain what the “real” times were, how UTC works, and so on? It might potentially allow defense to introduce a timeline like the one laid out above, and perhaps even ask her – “Why didn’t you correct Mr DeF on this issue?” Answer: He didn’t ask me that question.

    That said, however, I don’t see Seago on defense’s witness list.

        • Marc in Denver says:

          Trial strategy might be not to ask about it at all. If the prosecution tries to make the times a “thing”, point out that there MAY be an issue with the timeline posited by them with the emails because of time zones. If it is a fact at issue, it’s the prosecution’s burden to prove it. “Never interrupt your enemy when he is making a mistake.”

    • Silly but True says:

      The defense does _not_ want Seago called back into court; doing so would allow DeFillipis to hammer her over email contradictions.

    • skua says:

      Curiously, in a transcript Marcy analysed, DeFil spoke with the judge about recalling Seago because, he made it appear, he thought her testimony might conflict with evidence (Tealeaves email).
      Judge said no recall, we move on.
      Wondering now if this bit of circus by DeFil was intended to scare Seago away from reappearing.

  10. Silly but True says:

    All of this is amazing.

    If Durham was sure of Baker’s testimony, which he very well had to be then that’s what you start case with; in fact that becomes the bulk of the message of your argument.

    You put Baker on stand with his “100% confidence” and you don’t get into woods about scheduling software and four other FBI officials’ testimony. Durham has Baker as ideal witness: personable, warm to Sussmann but still 100% confident he heard what he heard.

    Durham didn’t need Fine and Elias and Seago; he doesn’t need to dwell on media outreach. Yesterday’s boondoggles of testimony were unforced errors by Durham’s team.

    This is “he said vs. she said,” and Durham has the “she” on his side. The heavy lift is ensuring Baker’s confidence sticks with the jury. In a strange threadbare case to begin with, Durham is allowing his team to grasp defeat from the best jaw of victory he has with all of these other antics and distractions.

  11. Rugger9 says:

    OT for EW, it looks like the MI legislature GQP is about to get a long-overdue lesson in respect. The GQP whines about civility while not batting an eye towards the scurrilous garbage spewed on a routine basis on many topics. This needs to go nationwide if not worldwide:

    Also OT, the leading GQP CO governor candidate wants to invalidate Reynolds v Sims (one man, one vote) which has been settled law for a very long time (SCOTUS decided in 1964). Now that the GQP is losing elections on their merits they want to make sure only the ‘right’ people vote. FWIW, I don’t understand how MS gets away with their majority of House districts rule for ratifying the popular vote on statewide office, but IANAL.

    • Hug h says:

      Very easy process. I finally got up off my duff and made a long overdue contribution to the NOBLE work done here.

    • SilverWolf says:

      Thank you for the link ‘…DamnGood’. Marcy’s site is the best for the crux of the matter and that leads to the Truth, and leaves personality behind.
      Thanks Marcy /:-\

  12. TimB says:

    I kicked in some $ to support this effort, as you asked. This website is a national treasure.

  13. Shawn K Younkin says:

    “I’d like to thank John Durham for showing us back in April how he was going to mislead the jury with metadata.” – EmptyWheel

    Okay- so forgive me, but what happens now? Is Durham just going to be allowed to do this?

  14. Random Commenter says:

    I wonder if the prosecution’s failure to verify a material component of the prosecution’s case before presenting false information to a jury could be characterized as gross negligence in the discharge of that prosecutor’s ethical duty of competence. Especially when the prosecutor has previously been apprised of this potential issue in prior cases. That’s the term specifically used by rules of professional conduct 1.1 in states like California and New Jersey as well as in numerous disbarment opinions.

    But that’s probably a stupid and silly way to describe it. Nevermind.

    • earlofhuntingdon says:

      Your comment belongs up thread.

      It’s probably a stupid or silly question, but you do realize that under the DoJ’s reading of the Supremacy Clause, DoJ attorneys are disciplined exclusively by the hopelessly ineffectual OPR, not their state bar associations? Never mind.

      • Random Commenter says:

        As a former federal prosecutor, I’m pretty familiar with the OPR. In fact they also reference the “gross negligence” standard with regard to a prosecutor’s conduct of discovery in their own official reports, such as on page 24 of this 2016 report, in case you happen to be someone who can’t admit to making a mistake and who wants to conflate moderation with harassing and insulting readers because they used a completely appropriate term for prosecutorial incompetence that you confused with tort law.

        • bmaz says:

          I’m sorry, you remain full of shit. If you understood all this for beans, you would not have been blithely citing California and New Jersey. There is something quite off about you supposed “former federal prosecutor”. You may be in the wrong forum.

          • Random Commenter says:

            It’s really sad when someone who is anxious to “own” a person having a perfectly civil, relevant discussion with another commenter and who is supposed to be tasked with facilitating civil discussion instead introduces uncivil discussion and can’t apologize or admit that asking whether I want to sue someone is an obvious reference to tort law and not a reflection of your hypertechnical prowess on enforcement of the Rules of Professional Conduct.

            • bmaz says:

              Oh, quit whining you pissant little troll fraud. And I am not “tasked with facilitating civil discussion”, I am tasked with keeping charlatans, trolls and whiny assholes that want to content police our site out. We have a lot of experience with that here, and you are about done.

              PS: Nobody here owes you anything. You are DDSing threads with simplistic and stupid bullshit.

            • earlofhuntingdon says:

              We might not agree on what’s “perfectly civil.” As for “grossly negligent,” there is no inherent confusion. It refers to conduct that manifestly fails to meet a required standard. It would apply equally to civil wrongs as well as professional misconduct.

              As for observing that OPR persistently fails to impose sanctions on DoJ attorneys, who fail to meet minimum professional standards – unlike those paragons of policing, the state bar authorities of California and NJ – I fail to see how that qualifies as being “hypertechnical.” It’s the sort of epithet I expect from Greenwald, when, as is usual for him, he’s losing an argument.

      • bmaz says:

        Sigh, nobody ever understands the OPR Roach Motel. Even Federal judges have run into the process and torn their hair out.

  15. RJames says:

    It has been a while since I implemented an email system but the term meta data referred to the header of an email. When one opens an email through an application, the actual message is formatted and edited to be more easily read. What is dropped is the routing information which is part of the actual message. This routing data contains unambiguous datetime stamps for each hop the message took on its way from the source to the the recipient. I don’t understand why these datetime stamps are not he ones used. IANAL, I’m just an old techie.

  16. Silly but True says:

    _IF_ Fusion produced these documents in this form to the prosecution, isn’t the technical resolution of these discrepancies for Fusion to correct within 21 days; the duty would be with the party that produced the document, right, to say “whoops, we noted errors” and then resubmit corrected versions to head off all this from occurring?

    And if Fusion’s discovery is imposing all manner of additional tasks to downstream parties to generate error-free accurate versions, have they really fulfilled their discovery obligation as best as they could? Fusion could have, for example, hired a paralegal to red-line out all of the offending time stamps and correct before turning over and that would have headed off all of this confusion?

    • RJames says:

      IANAL but I would think that original email source would be used in a legal setting. I have added a sample of an email to show what the actual source looks like. You can see that all datetime stamps are clearly stated in UTC preventing any ambiguity.

      From – Wed Feb 16 22:25:48 2022
      X-Account-Key: account1
      X-UIDL: 00000001620de9d1
      X-Mozilla-Status: 0001
      X-Mozilla-Status2: 00000000
      Envelope-to: [email protected]
      Delivery-date: Thu, 17 Feb 2022 06:25:00 +0000
      Received: from [] (
      by with esmtp (Exim 4.94.2 (FreeBSD))
      (envelope-from )
      id 1nKaDs-0003zH-Bb
      for [email protected]; Thu, 17 Feb 2022 06:25:00 +0000
      DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed;;
      s=default; h=Content-Type:To:Subject:Message-ID:Date:From:MIME-Version:
      bh=jdPUTl13KpyCoy19vWuqTwSSZ/s4Hnejp1mrkZzYQ1E=; b=sZ//rczx3plsIlWzPg/rLpF0gx
      Received: from ([])
      by with esmtps (TLS1.3:ECDHE_RSA_AES_128_GCM_SHA256:128)
      (Exim 4.92)
      (envelope-from )
      id 1nKaDs-00029i-6L
      for [email protected]; Thu, 17 Feb 2022 06:25:00 +0000
      Received: by with SMTP id y6so10954199ybc.5
      for ; Wed, 16 Feb 2022 22:24:44 -0800 (PST)
      DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20210112;
      X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20210112;
      X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM530wawEyyJLsNu2RYzH4hLsEG1PWScnWYCIxUiD1lQvWZya3GboX
      X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJwtOo3+kDeJr0/+wpgg4Ca+iZGDJq9ULU8nvRW0ogC1x8xs9t9xQ/qRCOWJONgV+uZgjKSg+1Pbs3hWd2hu2jE=
      X-Received: by 2002:a25:9a04:0:b0:61a:4ae8:67c9 with SMTP id
      x4-20020a259a04000000b0061a4ae867c9mr1236116ybn.250.1645079084199; Wed, 16
      Feb 2022 22:24:44 -0800 (PST)
      MIME-Version: 1.0
      From: XXXX
      Date: Wed, 16 Feb 2022 22:24:33 -0800
      Subject: test
      To: [email protected]
      Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=”00000000000070f30d05d830d2ca”
      X-Spam-Score-Int: -1
      X-Spam-Score: / (-0.2)

      Content-Type: text/plain; charset=”UTF-8″


      Content-Type: text/html; charset=”UTF-8″



      • rjames0723 says:

        I was editing my reply when it timed out. I meant to acknowledge that the first datetime is not in UTC format. It has been some time since I was elbow deep in email systems and do not remember why it is not formatted like the rest of the email.

  17. The Old Redneck says:

    Are we really sure Sussman can’t call Seago in his own case? I’m wondering if the last entry on Sussman’s witness list is “all witnesses listed by the prosecution” – which would necessarily include Seago. If I’m Sussman’s lawyers, I’d be all for getting Durham to commit to a story, then blowing it up with some of the same witnesses when I put on my defense. They have done a pretty good job so far, so I doubt they overlooked this.
    I’m just guessing about the witness list based on common practice, though – did anyone check?

Comments are closed.