Seeing accounts of the #SussmannTrial saying that materiality means the gov't must prove the FBI investigation was actually affected. That's not correct.
Materiality means only that a statement had the potential to affect the investigation - actual impact is not required. 1/
Materiality means only that a statement had the potential to affect the investigation - actual impact is not required. 1/
"Materiality" is a very low bar, although it's still a challenge for the government here. But prosecutors don't have to prove the FBI was actually influenced.
The defense might also raise a reasonable doubt about what was actually said and whether it was false. 2/
The defense might also raise a reasonable doubt about what was actually said and whether it was false. 2/
Given the nature of human language and memory, proving beyond a reasonable doubt precisely what was said in a single sentence in an unrecorded conversation with one other person six years ago is very, very tough. Slight variations in wording can make all the difference. 3/
That's a big reason you almost never see a stand-alone charge of false statements based on a single oral statement to a single witness with no contemporaneous recording. There is almost by definition a reasonable doubt, especially after six years. 4/end
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
