people in the video. this connection between people seen in the capitol complex the day before when tourists were not allowed in, they have to be escorted by a member. it would seem to me an absolute obligation to investigate who was this person who was with congressman loudermill being on january 5th and then who is it who appears to be part of the group who is attacking the capitol the next day? did he conduct surveillance of assistance to those who breached the capitol? representative loudermill being is a witness. he has obligation to share what he knows with the committee. maybe he was just a dupe or a pawn. maybe it s completely innocent. maybe just maybe he is part of a conspiracy that helped breach the capitol that day. if so, the worst case scenario is as a defendant in a seditious
they usually get eliminated as a juror but not this case. in order to figure out this case i any you have to make up your mind about what the fbi is. are they a dupe or a willing collaborator. durham staked his investigation on they were a dupe. you have to prove the duped party actually was fooled. i think the evidence was strong that even what sussmann told them was false, it was factually untrue, they weren t fooled at all by it. brian: what about the legal strategy? was it wrong not to say the fbi was comply snitd. no, i that that was the right legal strategy. one of the things that would be hard to do with the first case is to prove the fbi acted in bad
juror but not this case. in order to figure out this case i any you have to make up your mind about what the fbi is. are they a dupe or a willing collaborator. durham staked his investigation on they were a dupe. you have to prove the duped party actually was fooled. i think the evidence was strong that even what sussmann told them was false, it was factually untrue, they weren t fooled at all by it. brian: what about the legal strategy? was it wrong not to say the fbi was comply snitd. no, i that that was the right legal strategy. one of the things that would be hard to do with the first case is to prove the fbi acted in bad
they usually get eliminated as a juror but not this case. in order to figure out this case i any you have to make up your mind about what the fbi is. are they a dupe or a willing collaborator. durham staked his investigation on they were a dupe. you have to prove the duped party actually was fooled. i think the evidence was strong that even what sussmann told them was false, it was factually untrue, they weren t fooled at all by it. brian: what about the legal strategy? was it wrong not to say the fbi was comply snitd. no, i that that was the right legal strategy. one of the things that would be hard to do with the first case is to prove the fbi acted in bad
they usually get eliminated as a juror but not this case. in order to figure out this case i any you have to make up your mind about what the fbi is. are they a dupe or a willing collaborator. durham staked his investigation on they were a dupe. you have to prove the duped party actually was fooled. i think the evidence was strong that even what sussmann told them was false, it was factually untrue, they weren t fooled at all by it. brian: what about the legal strategy? was it wrong not to say the fbi was comply snitd. no, i that that was the right legal strategy. one of the things that would be hard to do with the first case is to prove the fbi acted in bad