A solid read from a federal prosecutor, why the Sussmann indictment is YUGE. This isn't hopium, its hope.
(shipwreckedcrew.substack.com)
🧐 Research Wanted 🤔
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
Comments (75)
sorted by:
Ideas speak on their own. The whole point of an anonymous board is that we don't have to establish credentials to speak. That's an authority fallacy anyway. There are plenty of people with credentials who are morons. Anyone who actually knows their business should be able to explain it simply, like a mechanic telling a client what is causing that noise and why he needs another $300 to fix it.
This guy's edit refers to an "in camera review". Do you have any clue what that is? I don't. I've got a lot of degrees, but a law degree isn't one of them. He's also citing case law to make his argument. Maybe the guy's watched a lot of lawyer movies.
The question stands: is his analysis inaccurate? If so, why?
You don’t have to dox yourself by providing credentials. For example, I am a high level IT consultant with more than one decade under my belt.
That said, I’m not a law-fag. So it helps to know if another anon who is critical of a law related post about a 22 year veteran as a fed prosecutor, has any chops to bring to the table.
I agree, anyone can be an idiot. Look at many of our doctors right now.
But, it carries more weight to be be more than another “internet expert” spreading his “wisdom”.
The only reason I even called you out, was because the indictment and the article both talk about emails that were obtained that clearly should have been protected by client-attorney privilege. That’s not just billing and time. It’s fucking emails between Sussmann and his clients.
So if that is still no big deal, tell us why and why you would know.
"In camera" is a legal term from Latin. It means literally "in chambers," meaning in the judge's chambers in private.