The rift and polarization between right and left is increasing day by day.
In the US, the intention. The voices on both sides herald the future of American society. One of the main sources of polarization is the left's takeover of public discourse and radical politicization of the law enforcement and prosecution system. .
On Tuesday, Attorney Michael Sussman, a former partner in the Perkins Koi law firm representing the Democratic Party, won his lawsuit. Sussman and his firm represented Hillary Clinton's 2016 presidential campaign. Between the company of the Republican candidate and later US President, Donald Trump, and a Russian bank close to the Kremlin.
In 2019, the Attorney General of the Trump administration, Bill Barr, appointed Special Prosecutor John Durham to investigate the conspiracy known as the "Russiagate."
This, after all the allegations against Trump and his people were refuted in a two-year investigation conducted by former FBI chief Robert Mueller.
Russiagate is made up of a number of allegations, all of which have been refuted, according to which Trump and his people had an improper and even treacherous connection with the Russian regime.
The source of the allegations was Clinton's campaign that invested tens of millions of dollars in the run-up to the 2016 election to produce, assimilate and distribute the false information in a suspicious manner.
During the years of Trump's presidency, these suspicions dominated the media noise box.
Clinton and her supporters argued from the moment the election results were announced until the end of Trump's term (and some to this day) that Trump's victory and presidency were illegitimate because the one who put Trump in the White House is none other than Vlad the Terrible, he is Putin.
All the (almost) presidential men
Following suspicions that did not make headlines, Müller was appointed special investigator.
His investigation was conducted by investigators close to Clinton and her party, and was characterized by frequent and criminal leaks designed to blacken the names of Trump and his people.
Muller and his investigators, while collaborating with the media and Hillary Clinton's men, pumped the suspicions around the clock.
Russiagate fatally undermined Trump's ability to build normal relations with Putin and Russia, and adversely affected his ability to set policy in general.
Although Durham has been investigating the story for three years, Sussman was the first of those involved in the conspiracy to be prosecuted as a result of his interrogation.
Durham accused Susman of lying to his FBI counterpart.
Two months before the election, Sussman contacted the FBI's legal counsel (with whom he was personally friendly) and asked for information.
In the same application, he claimed that he was acting as an individual and not as a customer representative, while the truth was that he was acting on the campaign mission of almost all of the presidential staff.
Sussman wins the lawsuit thanks to two lines of defense.
First, he claimed that his lie was not material, because his friends at the FBI knew he was representing Clinton and acting on her campaign mission.
And second, he argued that even if they knew (and knew) he was acting as Clinton's mouthpiece, they would be acting the same way.
Consistent with defense arguments Sussman has revealed significant information about the nature of the conspiracy against Trump and her associates.
Among other things, it was revealed that FBI investigators in the field refuted the allegations against Trump in real time, and sought to turn the tables and investigate Sussman and his friends who disseminated the false information.
Instead of responding to the request, the FBI chiefs at the FBI headquarters in Washington ignored the requests and took command of the investigation themselves to pursue it.
As revealed in the trial, the Clinton people acted in two directions in parallel.
They used the fact that the detective had suspicious information against Trump (which they provided) to persuade reporters to publish articles in the same spirit.
Subsequently, the same articles were used as material to persuade the FBI and the Ministry of Justice to continue investigating.
All this while the people of Clinton knew that the accusations were fabricated in their propaganda production line.
The FBI knew that all the information came from Clinton's campaign, and yet he investigated it and continued to investigate even after it became clear that the suspicions were unfounded.
And the media also continued to make headlines.
Axis 4000 flooded
What is it like?
For a trial in the Jerusalem District Court.
The Sussman trial is similar to the trial of former Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, with the collapse of the 4000 case in the background. There are two main parallels. Between the close partnership between the legal system and the media - in both cases.
He stumbles from one lawsuit to another - in the Netanyahu trial, the truth becomes clearer: the lawsuit has no information that indicates bribery.
Netanyahu received hostile, or at least unfriendly, coverage from the Walla website.
His political opponents received a much more "exceptional" response to their requests compared to Netanyahu and his people.
As for Matat, as is clear from the testimony of Shlomo Pilber, Netanyahu was not involved in the regulatory proceedings of Bezeq, owned by Shaul Alovich, who also owned the Walla website.
The Netanyahu trial also shows that prosecutors and investigators used improper interrogation methods to force the former prime minister's advisers to become state witnesses even though they had no information to base suspicions of criminal acts on Netanyahu. Prosecution witnesses including state witnesses Netanyahu, whatever.
When this oppressive legal vision is combined with the decision of former State Attorney Shai Nitzan and Liat Ben-Ari to invent a new definition of bribery - the purpose for which the ceremony was held is obtained: media coverage of a politician is bribery;
It is a definition that makes the press and politics essentially criminal organizations.
It is clear from this that, as in the case of Trump, so in the case of Netanyahu - the legal proceedings against them are intended in advance to bring political change with legal tools.
As for the media, investigators and the prosecution in the Netanyahu trial used frequent and illegal leaks to selected reporters to tattoo Netanyahu's figure and to suspect criminal activity among the public - again, to bring about political change.
Justified or not, Sussman's acquittal teaches us that even if judges act according to the book, their judgments can not bring justice to the world as long as the systems that built the legal reality that led to political trials operate out of political motives.
The same is true of the media.
And another thing, as long as the stables in the State Attorney's Office and among police investigators are not cleansed of political factors and motives, more than half a people will not believe in them.
The socio-political price paid will only intensify.
Were we wrong?
Fixed!
If you found an error in the article, we'll be happy for you to share it with us