Scott Johnson belatedly adds his voice to suggest that he and the WSJ regard the Sussmann trial evidence as some watershed moment in US political history.

Maybe, boys — but… just not in the way he and they imagine….

As we previously showed (via the absolutely spot on, cogent and irrepressible EmptyWheel transcript efforts), Team Durham has — in direct violation of not one, but TWO of USDC Judge Cooper’s explicit orders, introduced emails and texts that were to be redacted for prejudicial, non-probative invective.

But that Durham team of lawyers had a witness read them into the record — thus this frothy far right maelstrom of outrage, against HRC. But what these whyte boyz miss… is that it implicates Tangerine, even more so, since it was part of a prior investigation of Alfa Bank, and the Tangerine campaign’s use of it for… yep — money laundering, and illicit undisclosed Russian contributions (mostly in kind).

So — while neither HRC or Trump are on trial in the Sussmann matter, each time these folks (Hinderaker, Hayward, Johnson, Tucker Carlson, Glenn Reynolds and now WSJ op editors) amplify this misleading-at-best narrative, they collectively increase the odds that a mistrial is declared, or Durham flames out entirely on appeal, for violating two direct court orders, in presenting “evidence” ruled out of bounds.

So — the watershed moment (or “Watergate” one, if you like!) is now likely to be the complete collapse of the prosecution… if even one juror says they saw the WSJ this past Sunday.

How very droll.