The big revelation in the Sussmann trial -- John Durham's second, and most high-profile, prosecution -- is that Hillary Clinton herself authorized the leak of the campaign's Alfa Bank conspiracy theory to the media. The theory claimed Trump was colluding with Russia via the bank. It was based on data that the campaign had mined via Sussmann -- though they had no reason to know it was credible. They hoped the FBI, or the media, would be able to authenticate it.
The leak, which apparently resulted in stories at Slate and the New York Times, was aimed at creating an "October surprise" against Trump, who was trailing badly in the polls at the time Sussmann, Marc Elias, Jake Sullivan, and others came up with the scheme -- though by the time the story hit the media, Hillary had suffered an "October surprise" of her own, with James Comey announcing that he was reopening the investigation into her email server.
https://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/01/us/politics/fbi-russia-election-donald-trump.html
The question is: why did Special Counsel Robert Mueller, who led a two-year investigation into the broader "Russia collusion" conspiracy theory, fail to find evidence of Hillary Clinton's role? Why didn't Department of Justice Inspector General Michael Horowitz find it, and why did he conclude that while political bias may have played a role later, the start of the inquiry was basically fine?
The revelation of this fact alone justifies the establishment of the Special Counsel. Clearly the DOJ -- not Mueller, with a team of partisan prosecutors; not the IG, appointed by Barack Obama; and not the rank-and-file agents, who included people like anti-Trump crusader Peter Strzok -- was incapable of handling this entire issue. Without Durham, we would not know that Hillary Clinton was personally responsible for one of the most pernicious lies in American history -- one the American media eagerly peddled to the public.
This week’s portion launches the great story of Abraham, who is told to leave everything of his life behind — except his immediate family — and to leave for “the Land that I shall show you.”
There’s something interesting in the fact that Abraham is told to leave his father’s house, as if breaking away from his father’s life — but his father, in fact, began the journey, moving from Ur to Haran (in last week’s portion). His father set a positive example — why should Abraham leave him?
Some obvious answers suggest themselves — adulthood, needing to make one’s own choices, his father not going far enough, etc.
But I think there is another answer. Abraham (known for the moment as Abram) needs to establish his own household. This is not just about making one’s own choice, but really about choosing one’s own starting point. It’s starting over.
Sometimes we start over in fundamental ways even if much that surrounds us remains the same. Sometimes the journey we have to ...
The story of Noah is familiar; the details, less so.
Noah is often seen as an ambivalent figure. He was righteous -- but only for his generation. What was his deficiency?
One answer suggests itself: knowing that the world was about to be flooded, he built an Ark for the animals and for his own family -- but did not try to save anyone else or to convince them to repent and change their ways (the prophet Jonah, later, would share that reluctance).
Abraham, later, would set himself apart by arguing with God -- with the Lord Himself! -- against the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah, saying that they should be saved if there were enough righteous people to be found (there were not).
Still, Noah was good enough -- and sometimes, that really is sufficient to save the world. We don't need heroes every time -- just ordinary decency.
Hi all -- as I noted last month, I'm going to be closing down my Locals page, at least for tips and subscriptions -- I may keep the page up and the posts as well, but I'm no longer going to be accepting any kind of payment.
Look for cancelation in the very near future. Thank you for your support!
