The Hill describes the acquittal of Michael Sussmann on charges of lying to the FBI as a "massive blow" to John Durham's special counsel investigation of the Russiagate scam.
I don't see it that way. Or at least I don't see it as a miscarriage of justice.
Nobody would reasonably expect a District of Columbia jury to convict a Democratic operative of offenses related to a Democratic scam carried out on behalf of a Democratic presidential candidate. The best Durham could have plausibly hoped for was a hung jury on the basis of one or two holdouts.
Furthermore, the acquittal was just. Over time the DOJ has become used to getting people convicted of lying to the FBI on the basis of nothing more than the FBI's claim that those people lied to the FBI. With no third party witnesses to Sussmann's alleged lies, there was certainly reasonable doubt, even if lying to the FBI should be treated as a crime, which it shouldn't.
What Durham got out of this for the purposes of justice was an admission, in public, under oath, by Hillary Clinton's campaign manager (Robby Mook), that Hillary Clinton was not just aware of, but personally authorized the perpetration of, the Russiagate fraud from the very beginning.
No, Clinton won't be going to jail, either, because she's Hillary Clinton.
But absent successful prosecution of Mook for perjury, or a successful defamation suit against Mook by Clinton, Mook's admission is now known fact rather than mere reasonable supposition.
I doubt that Durham is down in the mouth about the verdict. He got what we wanted, and what the historical record needed.
No comments:
Post a Comment