For the past two weeks --- the last one completely dominated by yet another horrific and senseless school shooting --- I’ve brought you the day-by-day report and detailed analysis of the Michael Sussmann trial, as unfolding in federal court by Special Counsel John Durham. Some might wonder why we’ve paid so much attention to a case that most major media aren’t bothering to cover at all.
John L. Simon, writing for THE EPOCH TIMES, concurs, and has written a commentary called “Why We Are Praying for John Durham.” When it comes to Durham and the deep state he's exposing, Simon is reminded –- in a more secular way, of course –- of that old gospel song, “He’s Got the Whole World In His Hands.”
He’s dealing with something “extraordinarily significant,” Simon tells us. “He holds in his hands the future of democratic government under the law, republican (small ‘r’) or otherwise, as we know it –- if not forever, for the foreseeable future.”
You know, Hillary has done some bad things in her time, and has always gotten away with them, but this takes the (Devil’s food) cake. Sure, she’s responsible for mishandling classified documents as Secretary of State with a “secret server” arrangement to keep her dealings out of reach, and then deleting the evidence –- even having it destroyed it with hammers –- but this hoax takes us to a whole new depth of Hillary-ness, at least that we know about so far. And it seems to us that if treason was committed, it was by HER and her allies. As Simon writes…
“While this all may not be treason in the legal/technical sense, it’s certainly as treasonous as any behavior that has come from the political class of either party in any of our lifetimes and, though completely ignored by the legacy media whose culpability in it was nearly total, vastly more serious than Watergate that they still obsess about.”
“Whether or not you believe in American Exceptionalism,” he says (and we’d like to think it still exists, or could), “the country that has been almost since its inception the envy of the world was busy stomping on its own institutions and itself to the edge of being unrecognizable. Could our enemies have asked for more?”
As for this trial, he reminds us that all Sussmann needs for an acquittal is ONE JUROR and notes the similarity to the O.J. jury, as we have. It’s likely that, in solid-blue Washington DC, every last one of the jurors voted for Hillary in 2016, probably even believing that Trump really was being helped in his campaign by Vladimir Putin. Some of them might still believe it. It’s not as if the mainstream media and the DOJ had come out and issued an apology or anything.
But this might not matter, because, as Simon writes, whether Sussmann is convicted or not, “the door has been opened to explore the ‘myriad accomplices’...”
“The question is, will the buck stop at Hillary or will she be thrown under the bus so the other denizens of our political class from the FBI to the White House can skate?” Simon is thinking beyond Hillary, we assume to Main Justice and even the Oval Office. Usually it’s Hillary throwing other people under the bus; this time, depending on who else might be implicated; she might be the one covered with tire tracks.
He says it’s in Durham’s hands “to steer our ship of state back to the rule of law. If not him, who?” And we’ll continue focusing on his effort. In Simon’s words, “It’s our job, every one of us, to disseminate it --- factually and with a minimum of rancor --- as widely as possible as the truth emerges.”
Law professor Jonathan Turley is doing the same, and he has a great opinion piece in THE HILL, “Friends with Benefits: Sussmann trial is a black eye for the FBI.”
Turley writes that regardless of how quickly the verdict comes in for Sussmann, the verdict for the Department of Justice needs “little deliberation.” He calls Durham’s investigation “an indictment of a department and a bureau which, once again, appeared willfully blind as they were played by Hillary Clinton’s campaign.”
He points out the irony of it being Sussmann’s DEFENSE team that implicated Hillary as personally approving what he was doing. We would add that this was probably Durham’s strategy all along, though even he might have been surprised at how easily that testimony was elicited from defense witness Robby Mook.
Even on the stand, former general counsel at the FBI James Baker made it clear that he and Sussmann were friends –- as in, on the same side –- and that the real adversary was the special counsel. “This is not my investigation, it’s yours,” he said to prosecutors who were pressing him for information.
Joe Pientka told FBI agents that they were being ordered by the 7th Floor (Director James Comey) to investigate the Alfa Bank story, even though it had seemed preposterous to cyber analysts from Day 1. “It’s not an option,” Pientka emailed Special Agent Curtis Heide.
Of course, the FBI clung to the unverified “dossier” as well. As Turley writes, their eagerness “magnifies concern over the bureau’s alleged bias or predisposition on the Trump investigation.”
Jake Sullivan is implicated as well. He had to know the Alfa Bank story was unverified, yet he’s the one who created the sensationalistic bullet points to go along with Hillary’s tweet about it. This liar is currently working in the White House as Biden’s national security adviser. Remember this next time Sullivan comes to the podium to inform the nation about ANYTHING.
Will Durham even be allowed to write a final report on his findings? That’s hard to say, with Merrick Garland running the DOJ. Many in Washington no doubt hope there won’t be one, which is precisely why there MUST be one. Durham will find a way to get it out there.
BAD DAY IN WASHINGTON, DC
by Laura Ainsworth, staff writer
The 1955 movie BAD DAY AT BLACK ROCK, starring Spencer Tracy and a fine ensemble cast, ran last weekend on TCM, and I decided to see it, not realizing it was a morality play with obvious parallels to the Durham special counsel investigation.
It wasn’t intended to be allegorical at the time it was made; in fact, the director tried to minimize comparisons to the blacklisting of the ‘50s. But now –- as conservatives find themselves being the ones blacklisted (“canceled”) and called insurrectionists –- I see amazing similarities to Durham’s investigation of the Trump-Russia hoax.
The setting is a tiny, completely isolated Western town, Black Rock, which, to me, symbolizes the Washington bubble. The law has broken down there, as the sheriff is a figurehead, totally ineffectual. This town is run not by him at all but by a handful of corrupt men who put him there and have him and everybody else intimidated. About four years previously, they did a very bad thing that they’ve so far managed to keep under wraps. But a stranger arrives in town asking questions and sniffing around. He encounters obstacles at every turn but remains quietly undeterred.
Does that sound like the Durham investigation or what?