She explained, “It was the government’s job to prove it, and they succeeded in some ways and not in others... We broke it down, and it did not pan out in the government’s favor.”
So what Durham had was a Sussman visit to the FBI... and a billing to Clinton for 3 hours that day. Employing the “beyond reasonable doubt” mantra, one could conclude that, without a direct smoking gun such as a billing that was labeled “met with FBI”, that Sussman could have met with the FBI on his premise, and did other work for Clinton in the same day.
While that stretches the boundaries of reality, having sat on juries I know its hard to send someone to prison if there is a reasonable gap in explanation.
I think I agree with you, despite believing deep down inside that the defendant was a dirt-eating viper.
I knew when he showed billing info that he had done other work that day, they wouldn’t have solid evidence regarding FBI visit.
I don’t entirely disagree with you in principle but her other statements give the impression that her real reasoning was political.