Is Hillary Clinton really about to get what's coming to her?
Hillary Clinton's former campaign manager, Robby Mook, made news when he told a court on Friday that Hillary personally signed off on sharing debunked allegations linking Donald Trump and the Kremlin-backed Alfa-Bank with the media in the run-up to the 2016 presidential election.
Mook was a witness at the trial of former Clinton campaign lawyer Michael Sussmann, who has been indicted by Justice Department special counsel John Durham on charges that he lied to the bureau's general counsel to hide his connection to the Clinton campaign.
Mook testified that he and others at the Clinton campaign "weren't totally confident" regarding the veracity of the information, but they sent it to reporters anyway a few months before the election, hoping that reporters would follow it up and determine if it was "accurate" or "substantive."
Mook added that he discussed the matter with then-senior adviser Jake Sullivan — now the White House national security adviser — and campaign chairman John Podesta about whether to share the information with a reporter.
Ideally, Sullivan should have been asked to step down until the probe is complete. But morals have no place in the world of the Democrats. Democrat allies and puppets in the media are not going to challenge them on this.
The specifics of Mook's remarks were as follows:
I discussed it with Hillary as well. I don't remember the substance of the conversation, but notionally, the discussion was, hey, we have this and we want to share it with a reporter. I recall it being a member of our press staff. We authorized a staff member to share it with the media.
This statement did cause cheering among Trump supporters and right-leaning media outlets. They probably hope this is the first step toward punishing Hillary for her actions.
Before we jubilate, let's revisit the facts so far.
Mook has not accepted that Hillary and her accomplices concocted the Trump-Russia collusion hoax with nefarious intent. Mook has not conceded that the media were acting under orders from Hillary to conduct the most prolonged and vast disinformation campaigns in modern U.S. history.
Mook has not acknowledged that the Clinton campaign under Hillary's instructions colluded with rogue lawyers and personnel from investigation or intelligence agents to fabricate a link between Trump and Russia to delegitimize Trump's victory
Mook has also not claimed that Hillary and the Democrats purposefully circulated and eventually weaponized their fabrications to cause the appointment of Special Counsel Robert Mueller to undermine President Trump and block his agenda.
All that Mook has said is that they happened to discover some information. Since they were not sure of the veracity of its contents, they shared it with the news media people. He kept it purposefully vague and effectively placed the blame on the news media.
Hillary could easily claim that they expected the media to do their due diligence by rigorously fact-checking the allegation and debunking it. Also, it wasn't their fault that it was published.
There is nothing in Mook's utterances that links Hillary to any criminal wrongdoing. Campaigns always "discover" information about their opponents that is dubious. Campaigns often leak dubious information to the media.
This is an immoral practice, but it is not necessarily any violation of the law. Sadly, in today's world, legality and morality don't always run together.
Do not for a moment think Mook's utterances were spontaneous.
He is likely to have been coached to make it appear that this was just another occurrence during the campaign. In the future, when Hillary is linked to any other "troublesome" discoveries, the likes of Mook can merely claim they "ran [it] by her."
Hillary can always claim she has no recollection of the specifics of any meetings that occurred informally. You can be sure that there are no minutes of these meetings or emails. She may even say she used the word "alleged" before making her claims.
The fact that Sussmann is taking the blame is proof of the direction this is taking. The narrative will be that low-level actors such as Sussmann got carried away in their zeal for Hillary. They may even claim that Trump is such an immoral ogre that they felt they were acting in defense of the interests of the U.S. A sympathetic jury and judge in Washington may not even consider this unworthy of punishment.
If John Durham wants to go after Hillary, he has considerable challenges before him.
This isn't a theft, where the accomplice caught with stolen diamonds names the thieves and a DNA trail establishes their identity.
To indict Hillary, Durham will have to establish a trail of ironclad evidence that goes back straight to her. He will have to prove that she was a conspirator.
A great deal of time has passed since the actual events occurred — enough time for the power to destroy evidence. Also, expect Washington to place considerable impediments before the investigation to cause delays that will be so considerable that the conclusions are rendered meaningless.
Durham also has to prove intent: Hillary abused her power and her position with malicious intent to baselessly cause an investigation to delegitimize an elected president. It may seem obvious to the Republicans and Trump supporters, based on all we know, but Durham needs evidence. If he begins with Hillary, it will pass through corrupt government officials and eventually end up at Obama's doorstep. Washington will exercise all its might to stop that.
The powerful have numerous ways to pressure witnesses and even investigators to bend and eventually capitulate.
The sole benefit these headlines have is that they remind people of the Washington Democrat establishment and how it is rotten to the core. It will help the GOP campaign and fundraise.
Will the top tier among the conspirators ever be punished for the Russia hoax?
That would be very difficult but not entirely impossible.