62
Comments (14)
sorted by:
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
1
Anynamesleft 1 point ago +5 / -4

Its not much really. Sussman is facing a minor charge of "lying to the feds". Max of 4 years, 2 years on behavior. In all likelihood he gets probation and community service like the other guy did.

The judge ruled that this charge/case can not be linked to hillary or her campaign, or anyone else for that matter. So it stands alone as a single minor charge.

I really dont get why we are hyping this up so much.

4
TrappedInBlueState 4 points ago +4 / -0

Where did the judge say it could not be linked to hillary or her campaign?

-2
3
TrappedInBlueState 3 points ago +3 / -0

Believing anything from Politico was your first mistake.

-1
Anynamesleft -1 points ago +1 / -2

Heres the 24 page ruling.

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.dcd.235638/gov.uscourts.dcd.235638.121.0.pdf

The judge denied the conspiracy claim made by durhams team.

3
NOT_ADMIN 3 points ago +3 / -0
  • Sussman is not the only person, its a conspiracy being shown through Sussman. at least that is the expectation.
  • Because they can link it to Hillary and her campaign. The judge just doesn't need any additional evidence entered to do so.
0
Anynamesleft 0 points ago +1 / -1

Thats what i mean though, the judge denied the "conspiracy" part of the case at the beginning of may.

https://www.politico.com/news/2022/05/07/judge-spares-clinton-camp-in-sussmann-ruling-00030887

They cant link it to anyone. This is a minor charge that stands entirely on its own.

1
NOT_ADMIN 1 point ago +1 / -0

In Sussmann’s case, prosecutors asked Cooper to rule in advance of trial that Sussmann was “acting in concert toward a common goal” with the pro-Clinton operatives, researchers and others. Such a ruling would have given the government attorneys more latitude to introduce emails against Sussmann, but the judge said the scope and membership of the alleged anti-Trump venture was too uncertain to make such a finding.

  • To clarify for you, Typically prosecutors can ask to judge to make a premature ruling when the evidence being ruled on is not illegal. Because Hillary being apart of this conspiracy could be illegal, there would need to be more hard evidence, a premature ruling couldn't fit here. which is a good thing, you would never want a judge to prematurely rule against you in a criminal matter without ever getting your day in court.
  • Because he isn't charged with conspiracy, they need to limit evidence to what he is charged with or else you get two trials in 1.
  • Once he is charged and convicted, with doing something illegal he can then be put onto a separate trial of conspiracy if they choose to pursue that.
  • You are right, only his current crime alone is what's being looked at for now. But like a domino, once you prove one thing, he can go to trial and charged for another crime afterwards. Its possible, that they cannot put him on trial for conspiracy yet without first proving what he was doing was illegal. I am not a legal expert.
-1
Anynamesleft -1 points ago +1 / -2

Yes like i was saying, this may lead to other cases later on, but this case in particular is absolutely nothing. A very minor charge.

If another case is built from this then i'll be a little more on board that its something. But we're going to wait weeks for a probation conviction.

I just want everyone to know that this isnt what people are building it up to be. We need to help educate each other on these matters. I mean people are already talking about hanging hillary, not realizing that this case stands on its own as a minor charge and cant be linked to hillary.