Quote:
Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield
Two takeaways from that solid analysis:
1. The evidence is limited to a conversation with a witness with a dicey recollection of what was said. That indicates a situation where prosecutorial discretion should dictate refraining from seeking an indictment.
2. If the indictment is as long as the author suggests, and filled with woe-is-Trump sentiment, Durham has debased his office. It's bad enough to charge on facts so flimsy, and on which there's a better than usual chance that the govt will lose. To use it as a political tool and wreck the guy's life (Sussmann appears to be an asshole from what I've read, and clearly has poor judgment, but that's not a basis to destroy him) is vile.
I think Durham set out on a witch hunt (I know, but the term fits) and came up with nothing. But as so many in his position do (Ken Starr, Mueller to an extent, etc.), instead of admitting there's nothing there, he decided dammit, he'd find something to prosecute. And so now Sussmann is the sacrifice he can serve up to those who wanted heads to roll, and also his cover for those who claim his witch hunt was a witch hunt.
|
The oral statement before one person is especially surprising to me.
Once upon a time, I practiced with a former FBI agent and was involved in a couple of his investigations. The travel in pairs thing was so deeply ingrained in him - if his phone rang, he'd ask someone to come into his office and listen in on the call. There was always a witness.
