Not only was Sussman acquitted …

But the jurors admonished the prosecution for wasting their time.

12 thoughts on “Not only was Sussman acquitted …

      1. Whenver somebody says “He lied” without an antecedent, I automatically assume they mean Donald Trump. I think that by this point in his life, Trump has told more than half the lies ever told, so the odds are with me!

        1. Whenever somebody says “moron” I figure they mean Trump. Secondly, he may also mean Steve. So Steve, you and Trump *together*. Sweet.

    1. Based on the testimony of an agent that said he couldn’t remember when questioned over 100 times.
      Not based on other witnesses at the interview or on any notes written down at the time of the interview, but solely on the word of an agent who clearly can’t remember things that well.

    2. There was no evidence of that. It was just an assumption. An assertion like that makes for a solid segment of political ranting by Tucker Carlson, but has no place in a court of law, where the standard of proof is “beyond a reasonable doubt.” The case should never have gone to court, as the jurors rightly noted. The prosecutors will be lucky to finish with their law licenses intact if “malicious prosecution” is pursued.

  1. Apparently not the kind of trial the right wing had in mind. They wanted a good old Salem Witch Trial.

    1. As a staunch liberal the left is guilty 😉 of this as well iow don’t prosecute unless it’s a slam dunk. And even then use extreme prejudice! One of many reasons Trump probably won’t be prosecuted re: his (4) yrs as potus. Plus, let’s say by some miracle he’s convicted of anything, then what? Probably can’t go to jail because of national security reasons. A total frickin’ mess! Digressing.

      Yielding back the balance of my time …

      1. If a former president were jailed, would his security detail have to serve with him?

      2. The really weird thing about this case is that the prosecution presented no evidence at all that Sussman lied to the FBI. If I had been the judge in that case, it never would have gone to the jury. After the prosecution rested, the defense would probably have made a motion to dismiss, and I probably would have granted the motion.

        The prosecution’s entire case consisted of, “Well, the report he made was damaging to Trump, and Hillary Clinton was his client, so he must have lied when he said he made the report on his own.” That’s a good basis to fill an hour of partisan ranting by a wacky talking head, but doesn’t exactly meet the standard of “beyond a reasonable doubt.”

        1. The point was never to get a conviction, it was just to pretend there was something there. The lack of conviction or evidence won’t even slow the true believers down.

          1. It won’t but I know some hardcore Trumpists, and they were PISSED. I was triggering them and they were getting legit mad.

Comments are closed.