The defense is claiming that Sussman's lying was immaterial and he should get off. Durham is justifying why the lying is material. If Sussman hadn't lied, Durham supposes that the (an honest) FBI would have asked many awkward questions, which would have kept RussiaGate from ever getting off the ground.
And Durham will bring witnesses that explain just why the lying is indeed material.
The FISA warrants would likely never have been authorized had the FISA court not been lied to by the FBI, who allegedly relied on false information provided by Sussman, and others. No FISA warrant, no Operation Crossfire Hurricane, no spygate. There is record of the FISA court rejecting warrants prior to Sussman providing false information. Durham is simply stating the case that Sussmans lies did in fact influence the events that started spygate, and is therefore material to the investigation.
Sussman is trying to convince the court that his lies were no biggie by basically saying- "yeah, I lied, but my lies didn't matter, so I should be removed from Durhams spygate investigation." It's just a desperate attempt to avoid what's going to happen to him.
That’s a very weird read on those paragraphs. The whole context of the article is that Durham is refuting Sussmann’s claim that Sussman’s lie was immaterial which is what Sussman is using to try and dismiss the case.
Where do you get this idea that all of this means Durham is trying to save these “corrupt DOJ institutions”?
It looks more to me like Durham has his shit together and Sussman probably going to didn’t kill himself.
Here are the real money shots:
Far from finding himself in the vulnerable position of an ordinary person whose speech is likely to be chilled, the defendant — a sophisticated and well-connected lawyer — chose to bring politically-charged allegations to the FBI’s chief legal officer at the height of an election season,” Durham wrote the judge.
He then chose to lie about the clients who were behind those allegations,” he added. “Using such rare access to the halls of power for the purposes of political deceit is hardly the type of speech that the Founders intended to protect. The Court should therefore reject defendant’s invitation to expand the scope of the First Amendment to protect such conduct.”
He didn’t say Sussman duped them into spying on Trump.
Sussman is claiming his lie, that he was not representing any clients, is immaterial and Durham’s case against him should be dismissed.
Durham’s response is that Sussman’s lie could have changed the course of the investigation, and he has testimony from witnesses who will confirm this is true.
None of this implies anything else about anyone else who also was a part of this criminality.
I don't read it that way at all.
The defense is claiming that Sussman's lying was immaterial and he should get off. Durham is justifying why the lying is material. If Sussman hadn't lied, Durham supposes that the (an honest) FBI would have asked many awkward questions, which would have kept RussiaGate from ever getting off the ground.
And Durham will bring witnesses that explain just why the lying is indeed material.
Of course you dont. Only a shill would read it that way.
The FISA warrants would likely never have been authorized had the FISA court not been lied to by the FBI, who allegedly relied on false information provided by Sussman, and others. No FISA warrant, no Operation Crossfire Hurricane, no spygate. There is record of the FISA court rejecting warrants prior to Sussman providing false information. Durham is simply stating the case that Sussmans lies did in fact influence the events that started spygate, and is therefore material to the investigation.
Sussman is trying to convince the court that his lies were no biggie by basically saying- "yeah, I lied, but my lies didn't matter, so I should be removed from Durhams spygate investigation." It's just a desperate attempt to avoid what's going to happen to him.
No it is not the gist of Durhams rebuttal, shill. It is pure speculation on the part of John Solomon.
That’s a very weird read on those paragraphs. The whole context of the article is that Durham is refuting Sussmann’s claim that Sussman’s lie was immaterial which is what Sussman is using to try and dismiss the case.
Where do you get this idea that all of this means Durham is trying to save these “corrupt DOJ institutions”?
It looks more to me like Durham has his shit together and Sussman probably going to didn’t kill himself.
Here are the real money shots:
Correct, which refutes Sussman’s claim that the lie was immaterial and the case should be dismissed.
You are talking about other characters that have nothing to do with this Sussman case as it is right now. Right now, Sussman is in the hot seat.
He didn’t say Sussman duped them into spying on Trump.
Sussman is claiming his lie, that he was not representing any clients, is immaterial and Durham’s case against him should be dismissed.
Durham’s response is that Sussman’s lie could have changed the course of the investigation, and he has testimony from witnesses who will confirm this is true.
None of this implies anything else about anyone else who also was a part of this criminality.
You’ve given no coherent reason why this is “white wash”.
I’m not disappointed at all. Sussman’s lie IS material, and Durham can prove it. The case will go forward.
WINNING
Now who will be next??? :-O
https://i.pinimg.com/originals/6c/40/45/6c404527de90969c0eeecd58e5a5ed8c.png