Wider Corruption

For John, BLUF:  Reporter Glenn Greenwald widens the view of the indictment of Lawyer Sussmann to expose the role of the Media in trying to overturn the 2016 Election.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

The Indictment of Hillary Clinton's Lawyer is an Indictment of the Russiagate Wing of U.S. Media

Here is the sub-headline:

The DOJ's new charging document, approved by Biden's Attorney General, sheds bright light onto the Russiagate fraud and how journalistic corruption was key.

From the Greenwald Substack, by Reporter Glenn Greenwald, 19 September 2021.

Here is the lede plus three:

A lawyer for Hillary Clinton's 2016 campaign was indicted on Wednesday with one felony count of lying to the FBI about a fraudulent Russiagate story he helped propagate.  Michael Sussman was charged with the crime by Special Counsel John Durham, who was appointed by Trump Attorney General William Barr to investigate possible crimes committed as part of the Russiagate investigation and whose work is now overseen and approved by Biden Attorney General Merrick Garland.

Sussman's indictment, approved by Garland, is the second allegation of criminal impropriety regarding Russiagate's origins.   In January, Durham secured a guilty plea from an FBI agent, Kevin Clinesmith, for lying to the FISA court and submitting an altered email in order to spy on former Trump campaign official Carter Page.

The law firm where Sussman is a partner, Perkins Coie, is a major player in Democratic Party politics.  One of its partners at the time of the alleged crime, Marc Elias, has become a liberal social media star after having served as General Counsel to the Clinton 2016 campaign.  Elias abruptly announced that he was leaving the firm three weeks ago, and thus far no charges have been filed against him.

The lie that Sussman allegedly told the FBI occurred in the context of his mid-2016 attempt to spread a completely fictitious story:  that there was a "secret server” discovered by unnamed internet experts that allowed the Trump organization to communicate with Russia-based Alfa Bank.  In the context of the 2016 election, in which the Clinton campaign had elevated Trump's alleged ties to the Kremlin to center stage, this secret communication channel was peddled by Sussman — both to the FBI and to Clinton-friendly journalists — as smoking-gun proof of nefarious activities between Trump and the Russians.  Less than two months prior to the 2016 election, Sussman secured a meeting at the FBI's headquarters with the Bureau's top lawyer, James Baker, and provided him data which he claimed proved this communication channel.

Reporter Glenn Greenwald says what needs to be said.

It seems that when I begin to soften on Donald J Trump, more news comes out, showing that a) there is a swamp and b) the Democrats are into the swamp up above theiir Wellies and c) there is a need to drain the swamp.

Hat tip to the InstaPundit.

Regards  —  Cliff

Sussmann Indictment Could Go Either Way

For John, BLUF:  Blogger Ed Morrissey is no stranger to government scandle.  In the early days of blogging his blog, Captain's Cabin, helped bring down a Canadian government.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

Sussmann indictment:  "Bizarre coda," or harbinger of deep-state exposure?  Update:  Watch Sullivan?

From Hot Air, by Blogger Ed Morrissey, 20 September 2021, 2:41 PM ET.

Here is the lede plus two:

Just what does the indictment of Michael Sussmann portend? MSNBC’s Barbara McQuade called it a “bizarre coda” to John Durham’s investigation, which seems to be the most unlikely bet on this last-minute action by the special counsel.  To get there, McQuade tries to shift focus to an early-on debunked part of the overall-debunked Russia-collusion theory, and overlooks Sussmann’s links at the same time:

It is hard to see how the case Durham filed on Thursday against Washington lawyer Michael Sussmann meets Justice Department standards.  The indictment alleges that Sussmann met with FBI General Counsel Jim Baker in September 2016 to provide information about connections between a Russian bank and the Trump Organization.  The FBI was unable to substantiate any links between Alfa Bank and former President Donald Trump’s businesses, but the charge against Sussman — making false statements to the FBI — doesn’t allege that the substance of the information was false.  Instead, Sussman is accused of having misrepresented on whose behalf he was providing it.

Well, yes, and that misrepresentation turned out to be highly material.  Sussmann at the time represented the DNC and had been providing assistance to the Hillary Clinton campaign, a connection that Sussmnan kept hidden from the FBI.  Sussmann passed along the rumor that Vladimir Putin-connected Alfa Bank had a server dedicated to Donald Trump’s finances to Fusion GPS and Christopher Steele, which had the effect of laundering that claim right back into the Steele dossier.  He also passed that information to the FBI, without informing agents that he was working for Trump’s opponent at the time, as the indictment alleges:

At the end Mr Morrissey rings in President Biden's National current Security Advisor, Mr Jacob "Jake" Sullivan.

This looks ugly.

Hat tip to the InstaPundit.

Regards  —  Cliff

Media Plays Offense and Defense

For John, BLUF:  We are turning individual misconduct into political warfare, excoriating some and protecting others.  This is not fair and it is not conducive of good conduct by all.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

The media protected Jeffrey Epstein and crucified Brett Kavanaugh

From The Washington Examiner, an Editorial, 6 November 2019.

The Headlines says it all, but you can read more at the link.

Hat tip to the InstaPundit.

Regards  —  Cliff

Really?

For John, BLUF:  I suspect that if the Special Counsel delivers a lot of narrow legal technicalities against President Trump it won't go well with the American People, perhaps even those who are anti-Trump.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

CNN's Jeffrey Toobin says that for the first time, he thinks 'Trump might not finish his term in office'

From The Week, no named reporter, 29 November 2018.

Here is the lede:

"You know, today's the first day I actually thought Donald Trump might not finish his term in office," CNN legal analyst Jeffrey Toobin told Anderson Cooper Thursday night, after a week of revelations about the Trump campaign and Russia.  "Really?" Cooper asked.  "I mean, I think this thing is enormous," Toobin said.  He laid out a series of "preposterous" positions now being staked by President Trump, including that lawyer and fixer Michael Cohen negotiated Trump Organization deals in Russia for six months without telling Trump, that Trump and Roger Stone never discussed WikiLeaks, and that Don Jr. never talked to his father about the Trump Tower meeting with Kremlin-linked Russians offering dirt on Hillary Clinton.

The President needs 34 Senators to stand by him to avoid conviction in the event of Impeachment.  Not a very big number.

One of the early questions is if the Democrats have learned from the Clinton Impeachment that an impeachment can be politically costly.

Hat tip to the Drudge report.

Regards  —  Cliff

Hillary Wants a Comeback Chance

For John, BLUF:  Is she going to be like Harold Stassen?  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

What Is Hillary Clinton Thinking?

Here is the sub-headline:

She actually believes she still has a shot at the White House.

From National Review, by Kyle Smith, 22 September 2018.

Here is the lede plus one:

When Homer Simpson looks in the mirror, he sees ripped chest muscles and arms like the trunks of beech trees.  When Hillary Clinton looks in the mirror, she sees America’s sweetheart.  She thinks:  America adores me.  She thinks:  America already chose me to be president once!  She thinks:  Everyone is comparing me with Donald Trump and realizing I’m a better choice.  She is hoping for a call that will never come:  an earnest, sobbing plea from the Democratic party to be their standard bearer in 2020.

How else to explain Clinton’s latest media blitzkrieg? You’d think she’d be in Jimmy Carter mode:  quiet, making a display of humility, working hard to rebuild her reputation for posterity by doing good deeds and writing non-political books (like Carter’s disarming series of memoirs).  Instead, she is acting like a fired-up political candidate.  The poor dear actually thinks she’s still in the game.  The woman who, on Election Night 2016, slunk away in ignominy from thousands of supporters in the glass-ceilinged Javits Center without even saying thanks to the many who would have lain down in front of a bus for her, these days is once again singing her fight song.  But it’s a pathetic 4 a.m. karaoke act and no one can bear to tell this frail elderly lady to stop screeching so they can mop the floors and turn out the lights.  Because she has the personality of a cactus and hates everyone, H-Rod never should have entered politics to begin with, but her inability to leave it behind is an embarrassment.  Not to me, mind you.  Not to Republicans.  We all hope she keeps talking.  For us every HRC tweet and MSNBC appearance is a dopamine cookie. It is merely herself she is embarrassing.

Yes, she is running.  Only Hillary can save the Democratic Party and the nation.

Here is how Mr Smith winds up his article:

“You won’t be surprised to hear this,” Clinton informs us in the tweet calling for this radical revision of the Constitution.  No, we aren’t surprised, just as we weren’t surprised to learn that the end result of a Supreme Court case about whether it’s okay to censor a film critical of Hillary Clinton was Clinton calling for a rewrite of the First Amendment to prevent the likes of Citizens United from being rude to her.  It isn’t surprising at all that Hillary Rodham Clinton would keep relitigating the 2016 election she so astoundingly and hilariously managed to lose and call for the upending of norms as old as the Republic for such a self-serving purpose.  What might be surprising is that Clinton would be so brazen as to think “let’s abolish the Electoral College” is an applause line, rather than just a reminder that she failed to connect to voters in the heartland.  Hillary Clinton should do herself a favor and realize that big-time politics is done with her.  The good news is she has the rest of her life to spend more time on her hobbies. Like Chardonnay.

The thing that worries me is that there are Democrats running to the left of Mrs Clinton, who is to the left of her husband, former President William Jefferson Clinton, the last successful Democratic occupant of the White House.  I don't believe this to be a formula for success across the fruited plain.

Hat tip to the InstaPundit.

Regards  —  Cliff

Analysis: Mr Comey is Fudging

For John, BLUF:  Bureaucrtic self-preservation at its best, and least insightful.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

Gregg Jarrett:  Comey and Strzok — Two key players in the scheme to clear Clinton and frame Trump

That seems a little harsh, although plausible.

By the way, there is video at the link.

From Fox News, by Gregg Jarrett, 24 July 2018.

Here are three key paragraphs:

Based on Comey’s finding, Clinton should have faced a multiple-count criminal indictment, since the FBI discovered that she had stored 110 classified emails on her unauthorized, private computer server.  Other people had been prosecuted for similar conduct that jeopardized national security in violation of the law. Yet, Comey – despite characterizing Clinton’s actions with the clear language denoting violation of the law – saw to it that no charges were ever brought against Clinton.

Under questioning, Comey admitted to the Inspector General Michael Horowitz that he authored the May 2 statement and penned every word of it himself.  But then he offered the implausible claim that “he did not recall that his original draft used the term ‘gross negligence,’ and did not recall discussions about that issue.”

Comey’s amnesia is preposterous.  He would have us believe that, as FBI director, he memorialized in print his decision that the leading candidate for president of the United States had committed crimes, yet later could not recollect anything about the most important decision of his career.

Frankly, I like Gregg Jarrett, and his reporting.  I have no reason to doubt this report, which is worth reading in its entirety.

Hat tip to the InstaPundit.

Regards  —  Cliff

Judge Kavanaugh's Real Crime

For John, BLUF:  I think we have to accept that it will be all out war at least through the confirmation process.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

Dems:  We Unearthed Evil Plot with Nomination of Kavanaugh!

From The Victory Girls Blog, by Ms Kim Hirsch, 10 July 2018.

Here is the lede plus five:

Democrats are pretty sure they know why President Trump nominated Brett Kavanaugh to be a Supreme Court Justice.  And it may have less to do with Roe v. Wade than you may suspect.

It is, they claim, a Nefarious Plot to keep Trump from prosecution.

You have to look under the hood to see what is propelling this.  Remember Special Prosecutor Ken Starr?  Mr Kavanaugh was part of that expedition.  From that experience he concluded that Congress might wish to protect the President, while in office, from prosecutors other than the House of Representatives.

Hat tip to the InstaPundit.

Regards  —  Cliff

Separate Rules...

For John, BLUF:  A reference to Jack Kerouac.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

Bill Clinton’s Me Too Reckoning

Here is the sub-headline:

For Clinton, the real story of the impeachment drama was that he did nothing wrong.

From National Review, by Mr Jonah Goldberg, 8 June 2018.

It is longish, but here is a good sample:

For Clinton — both of them — all of his or her misdeeds were scandals because other people, nefarious forces, Comstocks and prudes, vast right-wing conspiracies, talk-radio critics, et al., unfairly turned them into scandals.  For Clinton, the real story of the impeachment drama was that he did nothing wrong.  “I did the right thing,” he said.  “I defended the Constitution.”

Yes, that is totally how history will remember that chapter.

I wonder how many times Bill told one of his paramours:  “Lie back and think of the Constitution.”

Speaking of history, I particularly enjoyed when Bill snapped, “You think President Kennedy should have resigned?  Do you believe President Johnson should have resigned?”

Comstock?

Hat tip to the InstaPundit.

Regards  —  Cliff

Not Talking About Bill

For John, BLUF:  I am thinking that the Democrats are not interested in talking about former President Bill Clinton.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

WATCH: #MeToo supporter Chuck Schumer gets asked about Bill Clinton (guess what happened next!)

From Twitchy, by Doug P, posted at 11:41 AM on 7 June 2018.

Here is the money tweet:

During a conversation with Chris Cuomo, Sen. Chuck Schumer said that #MeToo was very important to him, but just after that Cuomo asked about Bill Clinton, and Schumer slammed the door hard:

Burgess Everett
@burgessev

CUOMO:  What Bill Clinton said about Me Too, a lot of controversy.  Your take?
SCHUMER:  Not getting into that.
CUOMO:  Because?
SCHUMER:  I think it's irrelevant to what we need to talk about.
7:37 AM - 7 Jun 2018

What do they need to be talking about?

The $64,000 Question is if all this will have any impact come November.

Hat tip to the InstaPundit.

Regards  —  Cliff

They're Back

For John, BLUF:  Did they ever go away?  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

A new Clinton wave is coming this spring

Here is the sub-headline:

The Clinton family has made sporadic and often subdued appearances in the 18 months (538 days) since Hillary Clinton lost her presidential election. But we're about to see a lot more of them this spring.

From Axios And Mr Mike Allen, 30 April 2018.

I wouldn't call the tour of India subdued.  Not with Mrs Clinton's comment about how many American women vote the way their husband, boss or son tells them.  The hicks in the sticks didn't like that.

So, is this about money or about 2020, or about missing the adulation?

Am I going to need a Tag for Chelsea?  I am resisting.

Hat tip to the InstaPundit.

Regards  —  Cliff

As Pure As Caesar's Wife

For John, BLUF:  Maybe we are returning to a more traditional Puritanism.  Or maybe we are just going to jettison all standards.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

FBI sought Trump 'Access Hollywood' tape info in Cohen raid: report

From The Hill, by Ms Jacqueline Thomsen, 11 April 2018.

Here is the lede plus two:

FBI agents who raided the office of President Trump’s personal lawyer sought records related to the 2005 “Access Hollywood” tape released shortly before the 2016 election, The New York Times reported Wednesday. The agents wanted records related to the tape, in which Trump can be heard talking about grabbing and kissing women without their consent. They also were looking for any evidence that the lawyer, Michael Cohen, had tried to conceal damaging information about Trump during the election, sources briefed on the warrant told the Times.

If this is the direction the Special Counsel investigation is going it is surely going to set a new, higher, standard with regard to political campaigns.  There will be no more hiding of information from the public.  We will expect to know about all peccadillos.♠ 

I guess no more President Bill Clintons.

Or maybe our standards will change.

Regards  —  Cliff

♠  Will it be going too far to ask if any of the prosecutors have strayed from the straight and narrow if they go after Mr Trump or his Lawyer for trying to hid previous dalliances.

Swamp Animals in Trouble?

For John, BLUF:  I sense the Democrats are pivoting off the Mueller probe and on to the issue of security clearances.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

Does Mueller Indictment Mean Clinton Campaign Can Be Indicted for Chris Steele?

From the Blog Law and Crime, by Mr Robert Barnes | 8:02 am, February 17th, 2018.

Here is the lede plus one:

Special Counsel Robert Mueller indicted foreign citizens for trying to influence the American public about an election because those citizens did not register as a foreign agent nor record their financial expenditures to the Federal Elections Commission.  By that theory, when will Mueller indict Christopher Steele, FusionGPS, PerkinsCoie, the DNC and the Clinton Campaign?  Mueller’s indictment against 13 Russian trolls claimed their social media political activity was criminal because:  they were foreign citizens; they tried to influence an election; and they neither registered under the Foreign Agents Registration Act nor reported their funding to the Federal Elections Commission.

First, if Mueller’s theory is correct, three things make Steele a criminal: first, he is a foreign citizen; second, he tried to influence an election, which he received payments to do (including from the FBI itself); and third, he neither registered as a foreign agent nor listed his receipts and expenditures to the Federal Election Commission.  Also, according to the FBI, along the way, Steele lied…a lot, while the dossier he disseminated contained its own lies based on bought-and-paid for smears from foreign sources reliant on rumors and innuendo.

Hat tip to Memeorandum.

Regards  —  Cliff
-1, Thur 3.0

Family Disagreement

For John, BLUF:  Far bigger than Watergate.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

My wife and I are having a disagreement on the issue of the intersection of the Continuing Resolution and the Memo about FBI abuse of the FISA Court.  She says blow it up and expose all the hypocrisy and the hypocrites.  I say use it as a bargaining chip to keep the Government open.

Of course, this is speculation, as neither of us have seen the memo.

This is from a report at Zero Hedge, by Mr Tyler Durden, 18 January 2018.

Here is the lede plus one:

All hell is breaking loose in Washington D.C. after a four-page memo detailing extensive FISA court abuse was made available to the entire House of Representatives Thursday. The contents of the memo are so explosive, says Journalist Sara Carter, that it could lead to the removal of senior officials in the FBI and the Department of Justice and the end of Robert Mueller's special counsel investigation.

These sources say the report is “explosive,” stating they would not be surprised if it leads to the end of Robert Mueller’s Special Counsel investigation into President Trump and his associates. -Sara Carter

Here is what I propose:

• The Democrats agree to a budget deal.
• The Memo on the FBI messing with the FISA Court is kept secret.
• The Mueller investigation goes away with Special Counsel Mueller saying there is no there there.
• Senator Schumer and Rep Pelosi jointly announce that they agree with Special Counsel Mueller that there is no there there.
• The President provides broad amnesty to Ms Clinton, Rep Wasserman-Schultz, Mr James Comey and some others.
• Involved FBI and other involved DOJ officials quietly resign.
• The rest of us, the Citizens of this Great Nation outside DC, breath a sigh of relief that we weren't turned into a third rate banana republic.

My wife wants it all to come out, every wretched bit, so it doesn't look like the Republicans are hiding something.

What do you think?

Spill all the beans.

Get a deal and move on.

Don't know.

Don't care.

 

pollcode.com free polls

Hat tip to the Drudge Report.

Regards  —  Cliff

It Is Always Trump's Fault

For John, BLUF:  Yes, we would not be hearing about this if Ms Clinton had won the Electoral College.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

Here Is How The Defeat Of Hillary Clinton Led To The Sexual Harassment Revolution

From The Daily Caller, by San Francis Attorney Harmeet K. Dhillon, 12 December 2017.

Like I say, this, like everything else, is Donald Trump's fault.

Hat tip to the InstaPundit.

Regards  —  Cliff

Benghazi Follow-Up

For John, BLUF:  Under President Trump we are not letting the criminality of terrorism time out.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

US captures key militant in Benghazi attack

The report is by Reporter Lucas Tomlinson of Fox News, today, 30 October 2017, with contributions by the Associated Press.

As one person said a while ago, "What difference, at this point, does it make?".

On the other hand, President Trump said:

Our memory is deep and our reach is long, and we will not rest in our efforts to find and bring the perpetrators of the heinous attacks in Benghazi to justice.

No visit to Club Gitmo for Mr Mustafa al-Imam.  He is apparently going to D.C., to face Federal prosecution.

As Fox News Points out:

The attack, on September 11, 2012, killed four Americans, including Ambassador Chris Stevens.

Hat tip to the InstaPundit.

Regards  —  Cliff

The Mueller Investigation Spreads

For John, BLUF:  Once you launch a Special Council there is no telling where the investigation might end up.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

Mueller Now Investigating Democratic Lobbyist Tony Podesta

NOTE:  This is NOT Ms Hillary Clinton's Campaign boss, John Podesta, but his Brother.

This is from NBC News and Reporters Tom Winter and Julia Ainsley, 23 October 2017.

Here is the lede plus two:

Tony Podesta and the Podesta Group are now the subjects of a federal investigation being led by Special Counsel Robert Mueller, three sources with knowledge of the matter told NBC News.

The probe of Podesta and his Democratic-leaning lobbying firm grew out of Mueller's inquiry into the finances of former Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort, according to the sources.  As special counsel, Mueller has been tasked with investigating possible collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia.

Manafort had organized a public relations campaign for a non-profit called the European Centre for a Modern Ukraine (ECMU).  Podesta's company was one of many firms that worked on the campaign, which promoted Ukraine's image in the West.

Frankly, I don't believe any leaks supposedly emanating from the Mueller Investigation(s).

That said, there are some small signs that the Russia/Trump collision meme may be turning against the Democrats.

Hat tip to the InstaPundit.

Regards  —  Cliff

Attorney v Attorney

For John, BLUF:  Special Council Robert Mueller (Russia Gate) is not a choirboy.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

Silverglate: How Robert Mueller Tried To Entrap Me

This essay is from Attorney Harvey Silverglate, on 17 October 2017, at Boston Public Radio station WGBH (89.7 FM).

The first three paragraphs don't leave me with a good feeling about Special Council Robert Mueller:

Is special counsel Robert S. Mueller III, appointed in mid-May to lead the investigation into suspected ties between Donald Trump’s campaign and various shady (aren’t they all?) Russian officials, the choirboy that he’s being touted to be, or is he more akin to a modern-day Tomas de Torquemada, the Castilian Dominican friar who was the first Grand Inquisitor in the 15th Century Spanish Inquisition?

Given the rampant media partisanship since the election, one would think that Mueller’s appointment would lend credibility to the hunt for violations of law by candidate, now President Trump and his minions.

But I have known Mueller during key moments of his career as a federal prosecutor.  My experience has taught me to approach whatever he does in the Trump investigation with a requisite degree of skepticism or, at the very least, extreme caution.

Especially the Friar Tomas de Torquemada part.

Further down in the essay Mr Silverglate points out to us that Federal laws are so loose and so plenteous that just about anyone can be found to have violated one or another of them.

My impression, after reading the item, is that Mr Mueller will come up with someone to indict, no matter how long it takes to do it.  It may have nothing to do with the allegations of the Trump Campaign colluding with the Russians, but it will be something.

My question is, will there be any examination of the other side to see if they colluded with the Russians?

How silly of me.

My supplemental question is the one asked by former Labor Secretary Raymond J Donovan:  "Which office do I go to to get my reputation back?"

I would like to see Attorney General Jeff Sessions answer that question by publicly acknowledging the innocence of those who are smeared by the accusations of wrong-doing and are found to not be guilty of the crime or crimes of which they were accused, by indictment, innuendo or leak.

ADDED THOUGHT:  When Public Radio is turning against you it should be a sign that you are losing the PR Battle.

Hat tip to the InstaPundit.

Regards  —  Cliff

Hope Springs Eternal

TRIGGER WARNINGS:  In which I suggest that Professors at Harvard often speak through their hat.

For John, BLUF:  The Left, the Clintonistas, just cannot let go of the defeat of Mrs Clinton by Mr Trump.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

HOW HILLARY CLINTON STILL CAN, AND SHOULD, BECOME PRESIDENT AFTER THE TRUMP-RUSSIA INVESTIGATION

From Newsweek, by Ms Julia Glum, on 16 October 2017.

From the third paragraph:

Harvard University professor Lawrence Lessig offered a Clinton path to the presidency on Medium, putting forward a series of "if/then" scenarios that lead to House Speaker Paul Ryan handing the White House keys to Clinton.

Here is the Professor's proposed path:

If number 1:  If Trump is definitively found to have colluded directly with Russia, he would be forced to resign or be impeached.

If number 2:  If Trump is removed, Vice President Mike Pence would become president.

If number 3:  If Pence becomes president, he should resign too, given that he benefited from the same help from Mother Russia.

If number 4:  If Pence resigns before appointing a vice president, Ryan would become president.

If number 5:  If Ryan becomes president, he should do the right thing and choose Clinton for vice president. Then he should resign.

"The answer seems unavoidable: He should nominate the person defeated by the treason of his own party, and then step aside and let her become the president," Lessig writes. "Without doubt, if Ryan did the right thing, that would be the most extraordinary event in the history of America since the Confederate Army fired on Fort Sumter. But unlike that, this event would build the union, not divide it."

But, the first "IF" is the hard one, although "IF" Number 3 is also a huge leap.  The reason I say the first "IF" is the hard one is because it isn't clear there is a connection between the Trump Campaign and Putin and Putin's Russia.  The use of "Should" in the headline is a leap that probably won't reach the other side.  Oops.

Perhaps more important is the question of if Mrs Clinton and the Clinton Campaign had greater "ties" to the Russians than the putative Trump Campaign ties.

And, if all of Professor Lessig's scenario comes to fruition we would be stuck with Mrs Clinton as President.  The Government Official who, through her Libya Policy, gave us Benghazi, and then tried to cover it up.  Keep that in the back of your mind when you think about nKorea.

UPDATE:  Here is the Blog Post by Law Professor Ann Althouse.

UPDATE:  Professor Lessig just said, on The Tucker Carlson show that it hasn't been proven that Russian interference was connected to Mr Trump.

Hat tip to the InstaPundit.

Regards  —  Cliff

Surveillance Within Trump Tower

For John, BLUF:  Of course there was, but who cares now?  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

Here is the short form version of the story.

Tucker Carlson: "Patronizing Assurances That No One Was Spying On Political Campaigns Were False, Probably Intentionally So"

This is from Real Clear Politics and Reporter Tim Hains, posted 20 September 2017.  It includes a video.

Here is the lede plus three:

According to a new report from CNN, Paul Manafort, who for a time last year was the Trump campaign chairman, was indeed wiretapped by the federal government, both before and after the election.

Manafort, it ought to be noted, had an apartment inside Trump Tower at that time, so it is virtually certain that surveillance of him would have included other members of the Trump campaign staff, maybe even Trump himself.  In other words, it looks like Trump's tweet may have been right.  So why did three top members of Congress from both parties, and the country's top law enforcement officers all assure us that the surveillance didn't happen?  That there wasn't a shred of evidence to suggest it had happened? Were they lying or did tey simply not know?

Neither answer is comforting.

Either the intelligence agency has gone rogue, pursuing its own goals without meaningful oversight from elected officials, or, our elected officials are colluding with each other to lie to the public, apparently for political reasons.

Don't you wish Richard Nixon was still in the White House?  If he was this would are a major scandal.

Here is the long form version of the story.

WHY OBAMA REALLY SPIED ON TRUMP

The sub-headline is:

Obama had to spy on Trump to protect himself.

From Front Page Magazine and Writer Daniel Greenfield, it has a dateline of 20 September 2017.

The lede and a few:

Daniel Greenfield, a Shillman Journalism Fellow at the Freedom Center, is an investigative journalist and writer focusing on the radical left and Islamic terrorism.

Last week, CNN revealed (and excused) one phase of the Obama spying operation on Trump.  After lying about it on MSNBC, Susan Rice admitted unmasking the identities of Trump officials to Congress.

Rice was unmasking the names of Trump officials a month before leaving office.  The targets may have included her own successor, General Flynn, who was forced out of office using leaked surveillance.

While Rice’s targets weren’t named, the CNN story listed a meeting with Flynn, Bannon and Kushner.

Bannon was Trump’s former campaign chief executive and a senior adviser.  Kushner is a senior adviser.  Those are exactly the people you spy on to get an insight into what your political opponents plan to do.

Now the latest CNN spin piece informs us that secret FISA orders were used to spy on the conversations of Trump’s former campaign chairman, Paul Manafort.  The surveillance was discontinued for lack of evidence and then renewed under a new warrant.  This is part of a pattern of FISA abuses by Obama Inc. which never allowed minor matters like lack of evidence to dissuade them from new FISA requests.

Desperate Obama cronies had figured out that they could bypass many of the limitations on the conventional investigations of their political opponents by ‘laundering’ them through national security.

I am hoping the current Ken Burns series on Viet-nam will talk about the Domestic Spying that went on in the 1960s and early 1970s.  Things covered by the Church Committee.  Then there was the veneer of national security.  Today it is just politics.♠

Hat tip to the InstaPundit.

Regards  —  Cliff

♠  I wonder if Mrs Clinton thinks back to her time on the Senate Watergate Committee as a staffer and thinks about how wrong President Nixon was, or if she thinks that he was just wrong to get caught.

What is Truth?

For John, BLUF:  Remember, the Government lies to you with impunity, but reserves the right to punish you if you lie to them.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

COMEY’S FBI LIED ABOUT LYNCH-CLINTON MEETING

From the Power Line Blog, 4 August 2017, by Blogger John Hinderaker.

The American Center for Law and Justice has doggedly pursued information about then-Attorney General Loretta Lynch’s infamous tarmac meeting with former president Bill Clinton.  The Department of Justice has finally responded to ACLJ’s FOIA request with a small number of documents.  Several interesting points emerge from the DOJ’s emails, beginning with the fact that the FBI falsely claimed not to have any documents relating to the meeting:

If you are a Democrat you aren't going to believe this anyway.  Or, you are going to create a mental exception, in the back your mind, to the rule about the Government not lying to us based on the fact that it somehow involves "Trump".

Hat tip to the InstaPundit.

Regards  —  Cliff