# A serious question for Sam Stone on Factual Errors

**URL:** <https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-serious-question-for-sam-stone-on-factual-errors/955881>\
**Category:** The BBQ Pit\
**Created:** [December 11, 2021, 12:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-serious-question-for-sam-stone-on-factual-errors/955881 "2021-12-11T12:32:19Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 1\
**Showing post:** 195

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Lance\_Turbo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lance_turbo/32/6156_2.png) [@Lance\_Turbo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lance_Turbo)\
**Post date:** [September 15, 2022, 6:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-serious-question-for-sam-stone-on-factual-errors/955881/195 "2022-09-15T18:47:32Z")

</div>

> [@Sam\_Stone](#):
>
> Now, once the Durham investigation is actually closed we can go and look at what was and wasn’t found, just as we can when the current investigation into Trump is over. I have no trouble admitting that I am wrong when I am, especially over something speculative like what might happen in an ongoing investigation.

This isn’t what you said in when discussing the Sussmann case.

@iiandyiiii quoted [Benjamin Wittes on Lawfare](https://www.lawfareblog.com/special-counsels-weird-prosecution-michael-sussmann).

> Even taken on its own terms, the document is one of the very weakest federal criminal indictments I have ever seen in more than 25 years covering federal investigations and prosecutions.

You replied.

> [@The Durham indictments prosecuting fake Trump 'collusion'](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-durham-indictments-prosecuting-fake-trump-collusion/951215/3):
>
> As for it being one of the ‘weakest’ cases he’s seen, apparently a Grand Jury did not agree. So fhere will be a trial, and we’ll find out how weak the case is then.

You didn’t say we had to wait until the end of the Durham investigation for the facts on the Sussmann case. You specifically said we needed to wait until the end of the trial.

Have you seen how weak the Sussmann was? Because as far as I can tell, you believed some obvious bullshit about the case when Sussmann was indicted and you still believe that obvious bullshit today.

e.g.

> [@The Durham indictments prosecuting fake Trump 'collusion'](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-durham-indictments-prosecuting-fake-trump-collusion/951215/371):
>
> I don’t think the facts are disputed, which is that Sussmann presented material that originated from the Hillary campaign without disclosing it.

You posted that a month and a half after the trial ended that showed that to be a right wing fever dream.

---

_[View the full topic](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-serious-question-for-sam-stone-on-factual-errors/955881)._