I'm not upset about the Sussman verdict. I believe that only 5% of the vote in DC went for Trump. Deep state apparatchiks will never convict one of their own.
But from a legal perspective, it doesn't matter if the FBI knew if Sussman was lying or not. The crime is lying to the FBI, not lying to the FBI if the FBI believes it.
It is common practice for the FBI to trick suspects into telling a lie, then nail them for lying to the FBI.
I think materiality requires the FBI to have acted on the lie because they believed it though. If that's true, then in fact a conviction would have required an "If the FBI believes it."
I am trying to find the standard. But usually there has to be reasonable reliance on the fraud, at least in the civil context which is more my area.
If I told you you would get a million dollars if you go to Taco Bell, but you were going to go anyway and you didn't really even believe me in the first place, you can't then say you were defrauded out of anything - even the gas money or bus fare to Taco Bell.
Do you think Durham's team 'threw' this prosecution to get this result? All I read the first week of this trial was 'Sussman's toast' and 'he's already caught'.
He picked two parties - Sussman and FBI - and created a case where they are pitched against each other. If Sussman wins, FBI loses and if Sussman loses, FBI wins. He just counted on the fact that Cabal would focus on "win" and not see the big picture.
Most of us were bugged by this fact without realising it clearly. We kept thinking - "how will Durham prove that Sussman lied and yet FBI conspired in the crime?"
Others assumed that Durham was cleaning up by throwing Sussman to the wolves and protecting the institutions.
We were all wrong. He never cared about winning this case. He will probably have more counts against Sussman (conspiracy?) where this case will actually work against him.
If people calm down, take a deep breath and think about it, they will see how beautiful this move was.
yea, you are correct about the narrative on this board, some of us were fighting against this narrative as well...
I spent several days and many hours wording arguments to explain, so it wasn't just 1 sided.
but I agree the overwhelming narrative on this board the last 2 weeks was an easy Sussman victory...
not sure that it didn't create doom from the letdown, but a little doom can be help provide balance... for many, doom can be motivating, and to others, it can be devastating...
I think materiality requires the FBI to have acted on the lie because they believed it though. If that's true, then in fact a conviction would have required an "If the FBI believes it."
How do we know he lied? How about the fact the last piece of evidence Durham presented to the jury was sworn testimony from a congressional hearing where Sussman said he was working for the Clinton campaign? Under oath.
The FBI knew he was working for the Clinton campaign. They were having constant meetings with the Crossfire Hurricane investigation.
This was not an unknown fact by any of the FBI investigators that worked on case.
The lie was created to prevent the investigation from never opening or being delayed until after the election.
Do you think Sussman, who is friends with Baker, create this big lie and tricked his friend into thinking all this was a big fucking coincidence that it is against Trump?
no.. that is not what happened...
Baker is not that stupid, he was in on it with Sussman. The proposed lie was actually all fabricated evidence to skate FBI rules and give them plausible deniability.
I'm not upset about the Sussman verdict. I believe that only 5% of the vote in DC went for Trump. Deep state apparatchiks will never convict one of their own.
But from a legal perspective, it doesn't matter if the FBI knew if Sussman was lying or not. The crime is lying to the FBI, not lying to the FBI if the FBI believes it.
It is common practice for the FBI to trick suspects into telling a lie, then nail them for lying to the FBI.
I think materiality requires the FBI to have acted on the lie because they believed it though. If that's true, then in fact a conviction would have required an "If the FBI believes it."
I'm no lawyer, but it is pretty clear the FBI acted on the lie, regardless if they believed it or not. Isn't that what materiality is?
I am trying to find the standard. But usually there has to be reasonable reliance on the fraud, at least in the civil context which is more my area.
If I told you you would get a million dollars if you go to Taco Bell, but you were going to go anyway and you didn't really even believe me in the first place, you can't then say you were defrauded out of anything - even the gas money or bus fare to Taco Bell.
Yeah, not sure why so many people are not getting this basic fact.
Do you think Durham's team 'threw' this prosecution to get this result? All I read the first week of this trial was 'Sussman's toast' and 'he's already caught'.
No, he didnt throw it:
https://greatawakening.win/p/15IEORWm5I/sussman-verdict-flow-chat-easy-t/c/
He picked two parties - Sussman and FBI - and created a case where they are pitched against each other. If Sussman wins, FBI loses and if Sussman loses, FBI wins. He just counted on the fact that Cabal would focus on "win" and not see the big picture.
Most of us were bugged by this fact without realising it clearly. We kept thinking - "how will Durham prove that Sussman lied and yet FBI conspired in the crime?"
Others assumed that Durham was cleaning up by throwing Sussman to the wolves and protecting the institutions.
We were all wrong. He never cared about winning this case. He will probably have more counts against Sussman (conspiracy?) where this case will actually work against him.
If people calm down, take a deep breath and think about it, they will see how beautiful this move was.
yea, you are correct about the narrative on this board, some of us were fighting against this narrative as well...
I spent several days and many hours wording arguments to explain, so it wasn't just 1 sided.
but I agree the overwhelming narrative on this board the last 2 weeks was an easy Sussman victory...
not sure that it didn't create doom from the letdown, but a little doom can be help provide balance... for many, doom can be motivating, and to others, it can be devastating...
how do you balance?
Yes they can. It's possible to know Sussman lied and they still run with it anyways.
I think materiality requires the FBI to have acted on the lie because they believed it though. If that's true, then in fact a conviction would have required an "If the FBI believes it."
How do you know Sussman lied? The only evidence we have to that fact is Baker's testimony.
So what you are saying essentially is that if an FBI official says you did something, than you fucking did it.... no other questions needed...
is that what your saying?
How do we know he lied? How about the fact the last piece of evidence Durham presented to the jury was sworn testimony from a congressional hearing where Sussman said he was working for the Clinton campaign? Under oath.
The FBI knew he was working for the Clinton campaign. They were having constant meetings with the Crossfire Hurricane investigation.
This was not an unknown fact by any of the FBI investigators that worked on case.
The lie was created to prevent the investigation from never opening or being delayed until after the election.
Do you think Sussman, who is friends with Baker, create this big lie and tricked his friend into thinking all this was a big fucking coincidence that it is against Trump?
no.. that is not what happened... Baker is not that stupid, he was in on it with Sussman. The proposed lie was actually all fabricated evidence to skate FBI rules and give them plausible deniability.