He's correct on the part about how Sussman didn't lie. Well...maybe he did, maybe he didn't. But that doesn't alter the second part of the equation - was the lie material? And the answer to that is unequivocally NO. Because the FBI was gonna FBI. Not a damn thing he could say would have any effect whatsoever on the FBI's investigation because it was already planned by the FBI to run a hoax rouse. He could have told Baker he got this from his niece's ouija board and it would have made no difference. The corrupt feds were all in on the rouse.

However, this has zero impact on Hillary. At least, from the standpoint of conviction or exoneration. She can still claim plausible deniability. Just because some jury acquits someone doesn't expunge the innuendo surrounding the charges rendering them inadmissible. Quite literally the best that could be offered to rebut that is "and Mr. Sussman was acquitted." with the corollary "just because the materiality of the statement was questionable." It doesn't push the needle one way or the other for her.

I do find it ironic that he says "USE YOUR BRAIN" & "Barr said...." in the same post. Like we close the case upon decree by Mr. KFC Bagpipes himself lol. That same dumbass also said that there was no evidence of election fraud. Suddenly his opinion on sedition carries weight...

Finally, this "gotta charge small to get evidence admitted" is a bogus assertion. What is useful are all the many witness statements under oath that make it hard to maneuver in future cases because they would be either lying then or lying now. MAYBE he got something useful out of the privileged docs that can either be used directly or used to get more "privileged" docs. But this guy has no clue how evidence works in criminal trials.