I have no idea what this story is (as usual), but all the “why not talk to the police if you’re innocent” business seems oddly out of step this week.The American people, free and brave patriots steeped in vigilance against government, are committed to the Fourth, Fifth, and Sixth Amendments, unless a pretty white girl goes missing or something pic.twitter.com/DToGlgFpvQ
— OwMyPopehat (@Popehat) September 17, 2021
Which happened because:BREAKING: A federal grand jury has returned an indictment against cybersecurity attorney Michael Sussmann, who represented the DNC in connection with the 2016 Russia hack. The indictment was sought by Special Counsel John Durham. https://t.co/5msqPMbEUA
— Ryan J. Reilly (@ryanjreilly) September 16, 2021
The police are not your friends. Yes, your parents lied to you. The police are also not interested in the truth. Like prosecutors, they are only interested in convictions./4 The more questionable, and less palatable, uses of 1001 involve the FBI knowing the facts, rolling up on you to ask questions hoping you'll stupidly lie, then charging you for saying things they knew at the time were lies.https://t.co/Oz81DLLbKl
— OwMyPopehat (@Popehat) September 17, 2021
Conduct yourself accordingly.
I read an article that said the investigators testified to Congress last year that all of them were aware of where Sussmann worked, that it was common knowledge in DC. So how he could have concealed it from the people he is accused of concealing it from would seem to be kind of a problem for the accusation, if words mean what they mean.
ReplyDeleteThere are lots of questions about this indictment. Popehat, whom I regard as an "expert" on these matters, as he's a former federal prosecutor, wrote a lengthy, nuanced analysis of it that concluded basically: yeah, this can be done under the law. No, he's never seen it done before for just one instance as minor as this. He noted the indictment ran to several pages for just one count, an unusually high number of pages, full of stuff closer to political ranting than legal pleading. He stopped short of calling it bullshit, which is reasonable for a lawyer to do (one never know what the evidence is the prosecution has, what the defense will be, or what the court will do with it all).
DeleteI respect that kind of reserve, from a professional stance. OTOH, this is just Durham trying to justify his investigation. That's plain to everybody. It's Starr going after Clinton for a blow job because he couldn't find anything on Whitewater, all over again.
Prosecutors will run amok if you make them "special" and so release them from all constraints. Not unlike the Arizona "audit," which is reportedly going to report no problems in AZ because the state AG and the DOJ are threatening them with consequences for abusing election laws and other laws. Rightly so, I should add; that audit had no oversight, and so no reason not to go completely off the rails. Special prosecutors lack the oversight of conventional ones, leading to the same set of problems.