Special Council John Durham's indictment of Hillary Clinton campaign lawyer Michael Sussmann met differing reactions Friday from the New York Times and the Wall Street Journal. Those who may still think it was Russia that "interfered" with the 2016 election owe it to themselves to read the Sussmann indictment/charging document.

Spoiler: It was the very top officials of the Clinton campaign aided by a lawyer crooked as a hound's hind leg that interfered in 2016. The tricks tried by Sussmann and associates might make even GOP "strategists" like Lee Atwater and Karl Rove blush.

One must recall that back in 2016 the Clinton campaign folks and their well-heeled coterie of attorneys were sure Mrs. Clinton would win. As the Sussmann charging document shows, there was some expectation of high-level posting in the "incoming" Clinton administration and -- alas -- absolutely no thought of indictment. This goes a long way to explain the brazenness of it all.

As discredited former FBI Director James Comey put it in his apologia-sans-apology book, A Higher Loyalty, "I was making decisions in an environment where Hillary Clinton was sure to be the next president..." Needless to say, a Clinton presidency would confer automatic immunity on key campaign miscreants and lawyers like Sussmann. Worse still for them, it appears likely that others of their breed may also find themselves criminally referred to the Department of Justice.

High Stakes

Were the stakes not so high, one might find it amusing how hard the Times tries to stanch the stench of that long-dead red herring about Donald Trump colluding with the Russians and blaming his victory on -- inter alia -- Russian "hacking". But the stakes remain high, and too many people are still suffering from Mad-Maddow/Trump Derangement Syndrome, with the attendant dangers of adding to the current high tension with nuclear-armed Russia.

In Friday's article, Times authors Charlie Savage and Adam Goldman bend over backwards in an attempt to "make the worse case the better." Socrates was accused (falsely) of precisely that, but there is no sign yet that anyone at the Times is about to take the hemlock.

Next Page  1  |  2

(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).