Popcorn time, folks. I was initially upset at the verdict, but now that it finally clicked I'm laughing because this is gonna get good.
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
Comments (15)
sorted by:
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.