The Clinton Lawyer Indictment

reveals their “bag of tricks.”

Disband the FBI. Implode the Hoover building, and salt the ground.

[Monday-afternoon update]

More from Ed Morrissey.


[Update a while later]

More from Glenn Greenwald.

[Tuesday-morning update]

January 6th rioters come out as pedophiles so the FBI will look the other way.

[Update Wednesday morning]

The FBI’s incurable rot.


41 thoughts on “The Clinton Lawyer Indictment”

  1. Even if tried/convicted of lying to the FBI doubt if he will flip on Hillary Clinton as to how much she knew when she knew it etc. He would also likely get a very light sentence if convicted.

  2. Ft. Marcy Park awaits… I doubt that he will say anything because the “Code of Silence” practiced by Clinton’s flunkies has so far been impressive… most impressive.

  3. Alan Dershowitz thinks there is no there there:

    “Alan Dershowitz to Newsmax: ‘FBI Work Model Is to Lie to People'”

    The indictment of attorney Michael Sussman for lying to the FBI is “about the weakest indictment” legal expert Alan Dershowitz has “ever seen” in his 55 years.

    “First of all, nobody should ever be charged for lying to the FBI,” Dershowitz told Newsmax’s “Saturday Report.”

    “This is an indictment that will never result in a conviction and should not result in a conviction,” Dershowitz said. “If this is the best (special counsel John) Durham can do, after all this time and money, it was a complete waste of time. Now, maybe it’s the beginning of another process in which other people will be indicted for real crimes, for serious crimes.”

    He is probably trying to get back in the good graces of all the liberals he offended by his previous statements about the inappropriateness/illegality of impeaching Donald Trump.

    1. He’s right. Lying to the FBI should not be a crime. Lying under oath though, whether in court or congressional testimony, is not punished at all.

      1. If asked to make a *verbal* statement I would decline and ask for *written* questions to be submitted to my lawyer. The I. Lewis “Scooter” Libby farce (where no one was ever charged for the original so-called crime) irreparably damaged my respect for the judicial process.

    2. The only reason Durham sought the indictment when he did was that the statute of limitations for the charge ran out on September 19th, i.e. yesterday. I doubt if he wanted to do it just yet, since he seems to have more on the way. But the amount of detail in the indictment indicates that this is a very big thing.

      Nothing will come of it, of course. Arkancide and what not, don’t you know…

      1. “But the amount of detail in the indictment indicates that this is a very big thing.”

        I will believe it when I see it.

        Our civil service work force are too corrupt to allow justice to take place.

    3. I guess he never heard of Michael T. Flynn then. He was looking at a couple of years in the slammer on the same charge, after having to sell his house for the legal costs. He only was extricated by a Trump pardon.

      1. It didn’t even matter that the FBI admitted lying to Flynn and the court to coerce a confession, because the Judge preferred to blame the defendant for making a false claim. Judge didn’t care at all about the prosecution making a false claim, unless that claim was to exonerate the defendant, then the prosecution couldn’t be trusted either.

        Whether lying to the FBI should be a crime or not; the crime of the government lying in court documents should have a punishment on par with the alleged crime of the defendant. It is common law that punishments should be dolled out relative to the crime. When you knowingly alter an affidavit to bare false witness as part of a prosecution, then you should also face a punishment relative to the crime you falsely claimed to happen.

  4. Of course Dershowitz thinks the inevitable impeachment of Joe Biden if the Republicans take over the house in ’22 is equally wrong;

    However I would go with:

    “Law works on precedent. Once you establish the precedent of impeaching a sitting President (Trump) for a perfectly legal phone call and said impeachment is voted threw and upheld (no court threw it out not that it could have). That becomes the new precedent for impeachment. Once you impeach the same president for a speech he made calling for “peaceful protests” and as before voted through and upheld that is the new precedent. The Dems argued things like “beyond the pale”; “abuse of office” etc., and impeached him..that is the new standard going forward be it right or wrong. Dershowitz is likely correct in that the framers didn’t intend gross incompetence as grounds for impeachment but in the post-Trump era it is now because of said earlier precedents. Unless SCOTUS decides to throw out the two Trump impeachments as “unconstitutional” (very unlikely) that is where we are now going forward. So yes the Republicans very likely will impeach Biden for among other things “gross incompetence”, “dereliction of duty”, “failure to discharge the duties of this office (competently)” if they regain control of the House in ’22 (or Harris if Biden resigns before then). And no, I don’t think that said Republicans who were opposed to impeaching Trump are “hypocrites” for impeaching Biden; previous legal actions (precedents) have consequences.”

  5. Blow it up, burn the rubble, turn it under and salt the grounds with Cobalt 60…And reapply every 5 years for a century

  6. It was good to see this article in The Hill, rather than buried in some obscure publication (such as National Review) where even conservatives would never stumble on it. It astonishes me how many people still think that Donald Trump colluded with “the Russians ™” to steal the 2016 election. They can’t hide from the real story in The Hill.

      1. “How many still believe…”

        All those people whose source for news is through infotainment like The Daily Show, Saturday Night Live, National Public Radio, the New York Times, etc.

        (I didn’t include Cable “News” Network, because noone considers it to be a news source.)

      2. “How many still believe that Sarah Palin actually said “I can see Russia from my house!”…?”

        That was Tina Fey as you likely know not Palin. What I believe she actually said was something to the effect that you can see Russia from parts of Alaska which is factually correct. The Bering Strait being only 56 miles across you can see mountains in Russia from certain Alaskan islands. Just as you can look across the English Channel from the white cliffs of Dover on a clear day and see parts of the French coastline; admittedly a much closer distance ~21 miles.

        1. And Little Diomede Island (US territory) is all of 2.33 miles away from Big Diomede Island (Russian)…. Since the high spot on Little Diomede is 1600 feet above sea level, on a clear day you can EASILY see Big Diomede. Hell, on a clear day as long as you’re on the west side of the Island it’s hard to miss it, as long as you’re not IN the water

        2. But why say anything like that.
          Joe Biden got elected president by not saying much.
          Now one might say election was rigged- but if true, so will
          the next one- or more waste of words.
          She might said it as a long way to some joke- find shorter

    1. Abolish the Federal Government. Implode DC. With the right kind of nuke, you can create an indentation that will flood from the Potomac, no need to salt. You can sell boat tours to the top of the Washington Monument.

      1. In other words, there’s nothing wrong with this country that a 20 Megaton airburst, over the Washington Monument during the so-called “State of the Union Address”, wouldn’t solve?

        (Maybe we shouldn’t engage in this sort of thinkcrime, as it’ll get us included in all sorts of Intelligence lists.)

          1. As the humor columnist Art Buckwald wrote in the 1970s, neutron bombs are “Real Estate Bombs”. They kill the people but leave the real estate intact.

          2. Art Buckwald wrote in the 1970s, neutron bombs are “Real Estate Bombs”.

            I prefer to refer to them as “non-metallic jacket”…

  7. In other pedophilic news:

    Judge Tosses Kyle Rittenhouse defense motion to include Joseph Rosenbaum’s “other acts” prior pedophilia conviction:

    [Judge] Schroeder also rejected elements of the defense’s evidence having to do with the criminal background of Joseph Rosenbaum, one of Rittenhouse’s victims. Rosenbaum was a convicted child molester, which the defense alleged may have motivated him to take Rittenhouse’s gun because he couldn’t legally purchase one himself.

    “We don’t want the jury to decide this was justified because he got a pedophile off the streets,” said Assistant District Attorney Thomas Binger, one of the prosecutors.

    Apparently we need more on our streets? But more realistically, where are you going to find a juror who doesn’t know this? You can exclude it as evidence. But pretending a juror with only even a passing familiarity with this case won’t know this? This is judicial kabuki.

    1. Most people don’t know the background of the people that tried to lynch Rittenhouse. It’s similar to how most don’t know what Blake was doing when he had his encounter with the cops.

      Had the media told people Blake was kidnapping the children of a woman he was forbidden to see due to a restraining order for beating her, there wouldn’t have been the same reaction and those election drive race riots weren’t going to start themselves.

    2. One thing that we can all learn from the Rittenhouse case is that if you shoot an AR into an Antifa crowd, you’re likely to hit a wifebeater, a pedophile and a thief.

  8. We know there are no good men, women, or even otherkin in the FBI because none of them stood up to stop any of this.

    1. More damning, none of them stood up to stop the sexual assault of US Women’s Gymnastic Team over the course of 3 Olympic cycles. That’s a lot of underage girls being molested while the FBI is aware of the allegations and does nothing in the hopes that the Special Agent in Charge might get a coveted position on the US Olympic Committee.

  9. The FBI and all government agencies are filled with butt holes.
    And who built them?
    Their disconnection to reality and getting way too money for their
    lack of anything of value to American Public. Is predictably what happens when you build them.
    Generally all old farts still in elected office.
    I would start with defund the Unions, and highest priority is the teacher unions {which are bunch racists- just Hollywood is full of racists- but far more of them in the teacher unions}

  10. The lamentable fact is that the rot is in all of the federal institutions, and I would suspect that most states’ institutions are just as bad or worse.

    While I believe I am somewhere in the middle of the statist/libertarian scale, I am starting to believe that maybe we just gut the state and start over again; the Statists just give away too much stuff for any affective libertarian arguments to counter the idiots’ greed.

    1. Just like the economy, no one can manage a bureaucracy that is really big because no one has all the knowledge necessary. This means that there are a lot of people free to do whatever they want without any oversight.

      I was listening to this former SF/CIA guy talk about how the federal government is such a clusterfuck and how there is no Deep State because it is all a mess. But he doesn’t understand that the chaos and size of the federal government is what enables the Deep State to exist.

      By default, this helps the Democrats as they are the ones that create this environment through always growing the government and regulatory regime and they staff it with party operatives.

      Republicans view it primarily as a money/budget thing when the issues surrounding the ever expanding federal government are much more diverse. However, the only way to reduce it is by cutting budgets. Remove/reduce the incentives for corruption.

  11. They’re just about finished building a major FBI facility on Redstone Arsenal here in Huntsville. When it was announced, everyone was happy about the thousands of jobs it would bring. Now, there’s a measure of uneasiness about moving that many FBI agents here. The one saving aspect is that there is a lot of reluctance for FBI personnel who’ve been living in the Beltway to move to Alabama. I get it, when you’re used to living in a company town where government is the company and have all sorts of entertainment and museums paid for by taxpayers, the idea of moving to Alabama isn’t welcome. My biggest hope is that they will have to move people from other offices or hire new people.

Comments are closed.