🔥⚖️🇺🇸 TechnoFog's Take: Michael Sussmann has been acquitted 🔥⚖️🇺🇸
(technofog.substack.com)
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
Comments (240)
sorted by:
TechnoFog says it all when he writes:
What are the odds of government losing cases? I remember reading government gets convictions 97% of the time. And here we have an admitted liar not being convicted of lying by the government. You can't make this shit up, folks.
Isn't it amazing during testimony to Congress the defendant, Sussmann, actually admitted he met with Baker on behalf of a client?
How does one not get a conviction of lying when the defendant admitted to congress it was on behalf of a client? Unbelievable bias from the jury.
FUBAR
Military is the only way period
Which part of the military because it's pretty cucked the hell up right now. The US military? Which branch?
not trying to be a dick but TechnoFog and many others are missing a point...
Meeting with Baker on behalf of a client was not what he was charged with.
He was charged with lying to James Baker about it behind closed doors, and that it tricked the FBI into conducting a false investigation.
James Baker didn't need to be lied to, he was part of it. Baker said Sussman said that it was not on behalf of a client, but that is how Baker skates being on trial himself.
Unless you think James Baker and 7th floor of the FBI was not in on this from the start, then there was NO NEED for Sussman to lie. He just had to show up and drop off the thumb drives so Baker could do his part.
I understand what you're saying. I agree. Sussman, Baker, Joffa, and others are all part of the conspiracy. Even if the jury recognized by the evidence shown that the FBI was part of the conspiracy, it doesn't negate the charge against Sussman. Sussman lied and its provable. I want all the fish, little and large, to fry.
by the way.. it was Sussman's attorney's strategy to convince the Jury that Baker and other agents knew that Sussman was working for Hillary.
essentially in on the lie, an not fooled by it, making the lie immaterial
Whether the lie was material or immaterial, it is still a lie. The jury was not tasked with this premise either. Did Sussman lie. Yes. His testimony before Congress proves this. Sussman lied, but was was not convicted because of a very biased jury.
someone lied... not sure why Sussman would have to lie, Baker was in on it
Sussman was innocent of the charges unless Baker was not in on it. The moment Baker is in on it, it makes Sussman's lie immaterial.
The charge against Sussman was lying to the FBI. He actually said to Baker he was not representing a client when he knowingly was. Sussman lied to the FBI and its provable by his statement before Congress. Whether Baker was in on the conspiracy is another case. Durham used Sussman's peccadillo for laying a wider net. I don't care how small the fish are. I want justice.
Lying to the FBI is considered to be verbal or non-verbal. The threshold is outrageously biased to anything the FBI wants to interpret. Many people have gone to prison for their silence in not answering a question or forgetting a detail of the event. All are considered lying to the FBI. On the flip side it is legal for the FBI to lie to you and me.