When hearing about Sussman, just remember...
✅ - TRUTH - ✅
Sun Tsu's Art of War
Step 1 - Engage target in a battle that doesnt matter
Step 2 - Loose battle but only just.
Step 3 - Enemy believes they are winning (We are here)
Step 4 - Begin Endgame of the real battle and win
Now that Sussman has been found "innocent of lying to the FBI"... but has testified under oath (deposition + trial) and a mountain of new evidence has been entered into the court records due to his case...
... is it possible that HE will be brought back as a primary witness again and again in future trials? If Durham is actually going after past FBI leaders and DOJ officials... then having Sussman as a future witness is important. He can't plead the 5th and refuse to testify, because he already can't be charged again for lying to or coordinating false testimony with the FBI. His testimony is already on record... so he has to stick with what has already been revealed.
HE may be important in frying several high ranking ex-DOJ and ex-FBI officials.
Correct answer. Also, important to state his case was nullified by the jury. Words matter. Sussmann and the FBI admitted under oath that he was guilty.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jury_nullification
Where did you see that the case was nullified? I'm seeing only that he was acquitted. Did the judge nullify?
The jury chose to find him not guilty even though they had every bit of evidence and testimony from the FBI that he was guilty. That is Jury Nullification.
Can someone explain the difference to a simpleton
Jury Nullification is when a jury knows someone is guilty, but chooses to find them not guilty anyway. It's the exact reason why we are tried before a jury of our peers, because it lets the community of citizens choose to nullify unnecessary laws.
In a nutshell, a jury verdict can be nullified when the finding goes against what was clearly presented. In this case, Sussman clearly lied and was clearly shown by the prosecution to have lied and the jury still found him not guilty. Whether the prosecution requests a nullification is one thing; whether the judge will actually nullify the verdict is another story. Does that make any sense to you?
Where is this stated? It would make a big difference imho
Jury Nullification is when a jury knows someone is guilty, but chooses to find them not guilty anyway. It's the exact reason why we are tried before a jury of our peers, because it lets the community of citizens choose to nullify unnecessary laws.
I actually like this take. One thing that was off was that the judge wouldn’t allow certain emails to be admitted due to the fact that he wasn’t charged with conspiracy. The judge did say there was obvious evidence. This may be a lead up to being charged later with conspiracy. As others have said, it’s laying the groundwork