Tuesday, May 31, 2022

Sussman Syndrome


Friends, this guy is pretty happy.  He's Clinton campaign lawyer Michael Sussman, and he was just found not guilty of lying to the FBI -- by an arguably biased jury impaneled by an almost certainly biased judge.  But hey, in our system, not guilty=innocent, so good for him!  And so ends almost any possibility that any of the framers and purveyors of the Trump-Russia hoax will be held legally accountable for their mendacity.  And I, naturally, am not in the least bit surprised.  These are people who know how to skirt the law, and how to avoid legal jeopardy when they break it.  The real problem here, though, is that, in fact, almost everyone who shopped around the idea that Trump worked for Putin probably believed it.  These people are that deep in a rabbit hole of their own making.  More to the point, we can rest assured that there are plenty more hoaxes to come, because, as the Clinton crew proved in 2016-present, you really can accuse a sitting president of treason, day in and day out, without anything resembling credible evidence, and get away with it.  Expect a lot more to come!


In other news, it was just a matter of time before our wokest schools started to grade students differently based on their race/ethnicity.  That's "equity", in case you were unaware.  And what could be more equitable than treating people unequally!  Makes perfect sense. 

Canada is itching to terminate its citizens' gun rights, once and for all, and Justin Trudeau is the man to make it happen.  Hey, Canadians -- you recently had an opportunity to send this left-wing radical packing, and you chose not to.  Some would say you deserve what you get!


  1. Dr.Waddy from Jack: You are very much right! The American left will NOT relent uneteil it is forced into complete political disabilitg and consequent disgrace! And from there, let it bleat!

  2. Dr.Waddy from Jack: The leftist pollution of fundamental institutions such as elementary and secondary education will not relent until we enact political force at the teacher college level and until we disempower at high levels(and thereby discourage) presumptuous leftist dictation of education policy!

  3. Jack, I suspect an ideological purification of teachers' colleges would be even harder to achieve than a rejuvenation of the profession of journalism. We're talking about some institutions that are very, very far gone!

  4. Nick, I love how Trumpsters are trying to create a narrative that the fix was in on the Sussman case rather than the Durham side playing an extremely weak hand. The case should never have gone to trial.

  5. How so, Rod? Sussman claimed he wasn't working for anyone, when in fact he clearly was. Your view would be...that none of this matters, because any crime committed in the service of Trump-hatred is no crime at all?

  6. Nick, you misunderstand the case. Sussmann texted Baker saying that he was coming in to talk with Baker on his own, and not representing any client. Now, you could interpret that text message as a lie or as Sussmann telling the truth -- that he wanted to give Baker a heads-up about the Times story so that Baker wasn't surprised. The text is open to multiple interpretations, meaning that there is reasonable doubt about its truth or falsity.

    The rest of the "evidence" against Sussmann is Baker's testimony. Unfortunately for Baker, his previous statements to authorities have been riddled with inconsistencies, enough to raise reasonable doubt for Sussmann.

    If Durham's purpose was to dirty up the Clinton campaign, he succeeded. But, he had a weak case with a bad witness in terms of convicting Sussmann.

    Durham better have a more solid case against Igor Danchenko than he had against Sussmann or the DOJ could shut him down -- and Danchenko is not a slam dunk.

  7. Fair enough, Rod. I believe everyone is innocent until proven guilty -- even lawyers who work for Democrats (perhaps the most execrable category of human being imaginable?).