With breaking news over the weekend that Special Counsel John Durham has alleged Hillary Clinton’s 2016 campaign conspired to spy on Donald Trump as a candidate and as president, one might think this story would dominate headlines.
And yet, as it turns out, mention of Durham and his findings are information non grata for the majority of the prominent left-leaning news outlets.
That the Fourth Estate has determined this story is not to be seen by the public is made more astonishing by the fallout that came soon after the Durham revelations. None other than Trump directly weighed in on the matter, releasing a damning statement. He wrote:
“This is a scandal far greater in scope and magnitude than Watergate and those who were involved in and knew about this spying operation should be subject to criminal prosecution.
“In a stronger period of time in our country, this crime would have been punishable by death. In addition, reparations should be paid to those in our country who have been damaged by this.”
Despite all this, as of noon on Monday, Feb. 14 – three days after the story dropped – the vast majority of the Biden-friendly media had been largely silent on the whole affair.
However, what did become apparent through the searches was that the whole investigation by Durham has been subtly pooh-poohed from the beginning. In fact, it seems that the legacy media have been slowly poisoning the well regarding the investigation’s credibility for some time.
It was not until late Monday when White House Principal Deputy Press Secretary Karine Jean-Pierre was questioned on the topic that cracks started to appear in the united wall of silence. What follows is the exchange between Ms. Jean-Pierre and Jacqui Heinrich of Fox News; it displays how resolute the government is in ignoring the whole affair.
Heinrich: [T]his news about the Durham investigation: Does the President have any concerns about a candidate for president using computer experts to infiltrate computer systems of competing candidates, or even the president-elect to — for the goal of creating a narrative? Is that something that —
Jean-Pierre: That’s something I can’t speak to from this podium, so I refer you to the Department of Justice.
Heinrich: Is what [sic] being described in that report — monitoring internet traffic — is that spying?
Jean-Pierre: Again, I can’t speak to that report. I refer you to the Department of Justice.
Heinrich: Generally speaking though, would monitoring internet traffic be —
Jean-Pierre: Jacqui, my answer is not going to change. I refer you to the Department of Justice.
Jean-Pierre: I can’t speak to that from here.
After this brief altercation, cracks in the dam began to leak trickles of water. As of Tuesday, Feb. 15, some of the aforementioned outlets designed to run articles on the Durham documents. But yet again, the effort appeared designed to cast doubt on the investigation rather than illuminate the public.
Much as in the case of Hunter Biden’s laptop, the media have coordinated their efforts to keep the information out of the public eye or to dismiss it as right-wing propaganda. But as more people and agencies get pulled into the investigation, the omission becomes starker.
Clinton’s name means something to America. Whether she is considered a former presidential contender, secretary of state, New York senator, first lady, or even a potential candidate in the 2024 election, Clinton is newsworthy. That Durham’s findings implicate her in a spying scheme that resulted in the Russia-collusion hoax should be the top story for every individual who earns a living as a journalist.
The fact that it is not should have Americans seriously worried.
For those who have followed the sad demise of media respectability over these last few years, the actions of the Fourth Estate will come as little surprise. But what is the motivation?
Covering up the existence of Hunter Biden’s laptop and then disparaging all questioning of it as “parroting Russian disinformation” had a clear and timely agenda: to limit damage to then-candidate Joe Biden. With the Durham report, the goal appears a little more nebulous, yet equally dishonest: to prevent the vindication of Trump.
Should the final chapter in the Durham investigation reveal that the Clinton campaign did indeed spy on the Trump campaign in order to further a false narrative that the 45th president colluded with the Russian government, then the bombastic president was right all along. When he called out the Democrats for their “witch hunt,” when he railed against the system, all of this would be proven true.
Ultimately, the media organs that spent more than five years parroting the lies will have to admit that, had it not been for Democrat skullduggery, Trump would now rightfully be the sitting president.
Is it any wonder the Democrat-aligned press doesn’t want to mention it?
Published With Permission from Liberty Nation