So his defense is that his lie was only a small white lie and that it had no bearing on the FBIs decision? Basically he's saying that the FBI is so corrupt that even if they'd known he had a political motive to claim what he did then they would have spied on Trump anyway. I love this part...
“At the end of the day, Hillary Clinton herself could have publicly handed over the Russian Bank-1 Information and the FBI would still have investigated it,” Sussmann’s filing reads.
KEK! So HRC could just walk into the FBI, hand over opposition research accusing her political opponent of a crime with ZERO real evidence and this lawyer thinks the FBI would take that seriously? In a sane world?
When they say, "investigated it," are they referring to the evidence Hillary would have provided or the origin and provenance of the evidence? I mean how did she come to possess said material? Was the origin illicitly obtained?
“It has long been a crime to make a false statement to the government. But the law criminalizes only false statements that are material—false statements that matter because they can actually affect a specific decision of the government,” Sussmann’s lawyers said in their motion. You mean like wasting resources and time in the investigative process because Sussman was trying to throw them off the trail?
Motions to dismiss are very routine I believe
Fisrt step in a criminal defense attorney's tool bag to keep criminals on the street.
Good luck. Special counsel has no bounds.
For those without a subscription
https://archive.ph/mREKP
Thanks. But really people if you have the money, it is worth supporting this superb independent media.
However the message matters too so thanks for archiving.
So his defense is that his lie was only a small white lie and that it had no bearing on the FBIs decision? Basically he's saying that the FBI is so corrupt that even if they'd known he had a political motive to claim what he did then they would have spied on Trump anyway. I love this part...
KEK! So HRC could just walk into the FBI, hand over opposition research accusing her political opponent of a crime with ZERO real evidence and this lawyer thinks the FBI would take that seriously? In a sane world?
I can't even. These people really are insane.
When they say, "investigated it," are they referring to the evidence Hillary would have provided or the origin and provenance of the evidence? I mean how did she come to possess said material? Was the origin illicitly obtained?
“It has long been a crime to make a false statement to the government. But the law criminalizes only false statements that are material—false statements that matter because they can actually affect a specific decision of the government,” Sussmann’s lawyers said in their motion. You mean like wasting resources and time in the investigative process because Sussman was trying to throw them off the trail?