Quote:
Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop
|
Two takeaways from that solid analysis:
1. The evidence is limited to a conversation with a witness with a dicey recollection of what was said. That indicates a situation where prosecutorial discretion should dictate refraining from seeking an indictment.
2. If the indictment is as long as the author suggests, and filled with woe-is-Trump sentiment, Durham has debased his office. It's bad enough to charge on facts so flimsy, and on which there's a better than usual chance that the govt will lose. To use it as a political tool and wreck the guy's life (Sussmann appears to be an asshole from what I've read, and clearly has poor judgment, but that's not a basis to destroy him) is vile.
I think Durham set out on a witch hunt (I know, but the term fits) and came up with nothing. But as so many in his position do (Ken Starr, Mueller to an extent, etc.), instead of admitting there's nothing there, he decided dammit, he'd find something to prosecute. And so now Sussmann is the sacrifice he can serve up to those who wanted heads to roll, and also his cover for those who claim his witch hunt was a witch hunt.
Threaded Mode