To prove that the old is new again, the late William Safire began his column in the January 8, 1996, New York Times:
“Americans of all political persuasions are coming to the sad realization that our First Lady – a woman of undoubted talent who was a role model for many of her generation – is a born liar.
“Drop by drop, like whitewater torture, the case is laid that she will be forced to mislead and entangle her subordinates and friends in a web of deception.”
Safire described a number of situations in which Hillary Clinton was caught in blatant lies, and there is a direct line to Hillary Clinton whose shadow hangs over the Michael Sussmann trial in Washington. Once again, Clinton is exposed as “coerced into misleading” and entangling “her subordinates and friends in a web of deception.”
And to think she almost got away with stealing the presidency.
It fits her story that she is portrayed as the main conspirator backstage in a trial that, like her, is something of a throwback. Six years after the 2016 presidential campaign, the Sussmann trial inevitably carries an air of disappointment.
After all, we have known since the 2019 Robert Mueller Report that the allegations that Donald Trump was collaborating with Russia were fake news. And we’ve known for almost as long that Clinton’s campaign secretly funded the smear dealers at Fusion GPS who hired Christopher Steele, who fabricated a “dossier” that was high in lies and gossip and low in facts.
The dirtiest of all dirty tricks
Finally, we know that Jim Comey’s FBI was drunk with power and some of its top officials were foaming at the mouth to help Clinton defeat Trump. They were so dirty they used the rancid dossier to get court approval to spy on Trump’s campaign.
This sequence adds an odd dimension to the Sussmann case in the sense that the only charge against him — that he lied to the FBI by denying he worked for Clinton when he tried to sell Russian junk — was the agency makes her look innocent when she was. just as guilty in his own way as Clinton.
Still, Special Counsel John Durham’s tireless efforts in unveiling the secrets of the dirtiest dirty trick of all time are valuable. His job was to investigate how and why the FBI took the unprecedented step of spying on the opposing party’s presidential candidate’s campaign, and while it’s slow going, he adds important details about a major taint in our national history.
The Biden administration would certainly like to shut down Durham, but convicting Sussmann would likely give the prosecutor new impetus and save his investigation from the Democrats’ axe.
It is vital that he proceeds, because while Clinton was not elected, the hoax has been sensationally successful in garnering media attention and instilling a deep suspicion of Trump, thanks in part to anonymous Deep State sources blasting the hysteria of the media fed.
Democrats, notably Nancy Pelosi, have insisted that Trump was an illegitimate president throughout his tenure. One result was that the party refused to negotiate with him, depriving America of any meaningful bipartisanship even on issues like infrastructure.
Another outcome was the Midterms of 2018, where the hoax certainly played a role in the public’s decision to hand control of the House of Representatives over to the Democrats, who immediately began and soon focused their investigation into Russia, Russia, Russia to impeach Trump.
So the Clinton lies did tremendous damage, and as Trump immodestly but correctly says, a weaker president would have responded to the bogus attacks by curling into a fetal position.
The associated misconduct by the media, the FBI and other government agencies led to an incalculable loss of credibility, which continues to increase with new facts.
In that sense, the most redeeming feature of the Sussmann case is the proof that the Steele dossier was not Clinton’s only attempt to fabricate so-called “evidence” about Trump and Russia. Testimonies show that the pattern followed by the two efforts was almost identical.
First her campaign fabricated a lie, only to secretly leak it to the Trump-hating media and the Trump-hating FBI. In both cases, she disguised the funding as a “legal service.”
In the Sussmann case, the role of Christopher Steele was played by tech executive Rodney Joffe, who produced data allegedly showing Trump computers communicating with a Russian bank. It was even considered a bunk by the FBI.
Still, it was Sussmann’s job to get the New York Times to run a story on the allegation, an effort which Clinton herself, according to her former campaign manager Robbie Mook, approved. Although the Times didn’t address it, other outlets did, and Clinton herself tweeted about the stories to increase their impact, hoping for an October surprise.
One of her assistants at the time, Jake Sullivan, also promoted the fake story as a national security threat, and he is now Joe Biden’s national security adviser. How reassuring.
The pattern raises the question of whether there were other fabricated attempts by Clinton to paint Trump as a traitor that we are not yet aware of. Never underestimate their venality.
Lousy and lazy
What we know is more than enough to condemn them for all time. She was a lousy, lazy presidential candidate who made up slanderous stories about her opponent to cover up her own unpopularity and failure.
As evidence, the trial has revived declassified September 2016 notes written by John Brennan, then CIA director. It said intelligence officials learned that Clinton planned to cover Trump’s ties with Russia “to distract the public from her use of a private email server.”
The notes suggest that Brennan briefed then-President Barack Obama on the finding, but Obama joined the FBI investigation into Trump and told Comey how he briefed the president-elect on the most salacious parts of the Steele dossier in January 2017 should.
Assuming Durham can continue, his real challenge will be finding someone in their circle who wasn’t caught up in Clinton’s web of fraud.
disinfo blame game
Nina Jankowicz, the lunatic chosen by the White House to head its sinister “Disinformation Governance Board,” blames her quick death on…disinformation.
She says it was “malicious intent” to criticize her and the board, which is why she resigned.
Her reaction proves that she was unfit and even dangerous. She considers anything critical of her to be “malicious intent.”
Good rid of her and hopefully the anti-free speech board will be next on the chopping block.
prove she can prez
Reader Collette Curry sees a bright side in Joe Biden’s stumbling and fumbling. She writes: He gave all underperforming students hope that one day they could grow up to be presidents.