Analysis by WorldTribune Staff, February 15, 2022
The New York Times finally got around to reporting on John Durham’s bombshell filing, which potentially implicates current National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan, in today’s print editions.
Why the delay? According to national security and legal policy correspondent Charlie Savage, Durham’s revelations “tend to involve dense and obscure issues, so dissecting them requires asking readers to expend significant mental energy and time.”
So, after insulting the intelligence of readers of the Times, Savage provides the kicker which should be memorialized in future Journalism textbooks: The Durham filing that the Hillary Clinton campaign paid operatives to spy on President Trump raises “the question of whether news outlets should even cover such claims.”
So readers can grasp the sensational and Pulitizer Prize-winning lie that Trump was a Russian agent, which was trumpeted by Sullivan in the 2016 campaign, but the same readers are too obtuse to grasp the truth?
Townhall.com’s Spencer Brown pointed out that The New York Times “has covered multiple other ‘developments’ in the Durham investigation, of course in stories that undermine the Durham probe. So much for ‘All the News That’s Fit to Print,’ I guess. And so much for treating readers and subscribers like intelligent people who can read a story and decide for themselves what it means.”
The Savage report goes on to regurgitate the leftist talking point that coverage of the Durham revelations by conservative and independent media is “misinformation.”
But, Brown noted, “even that claim doesn’t make sense given Monday’s White House press briefing in which Karine Jean-Pierre did nothing to cast doubt on the revelations. If the entire narrative around the latest Durham bombshell was fake, wouldn’t she have pointed that out instead of saying the White House ‘can’t speak to’ the revelations? And if the stories coming from the development were baseless, wouldn’t some of the mainstream outlets that remained silent have rushed exculpatory evidence to air in defense of Hillary Clinton and her campaign — including Biden’s current National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan?”
Fake News NYT: You’re too stupid to understand that Hillary paid operatives to spy on President Trump, so why bother covering it? pic.twitter.com/UQrM1Qkpwd
— Liz Harrington (@realLizUSA) February 15, 2022
Meanwhile, Hillary Clinton on Tuesday refused to answer questions about the allegations that her allies spied on the Trump campaign and the Trump White House.
Exclusive photos and video obtained by DailyMail.com “show a stoney faced Clinton silently waving away repeated questions of whether she spied on Donald Trump,” the Daily Mail reported.
“She refused to say when or if she planned to comment. Clinton was arriving at her daughter Chelsea’s Manhattan apartment mid morning. Wearing a blue coat and black pants, she looked strained behind her black face mask as she stoically ran the gauntlet of questions,” the report added.
Clinton is slated as the keynote speaker at Thursday’s New York state Democrat Party convention.
Republicans are calling for increased scrutiny on Sullivan, currently Team Biden’s national security adviser, after the longtime Democrat operative’s links to Durham’s investigation were revived.
Sullivan had been a top foreign policy adviser to Clinton’s 2016 campaign.
Indiana Republican Rep. Jim Banks told DailyMail.com Sullivan should be removed from office if the allegations were proven to be true.
“No one who has spied on the White House is fit to serve in the White House. Jake Sullivan is already a notorious partisan and if he participated in Clinton’s illicit spying on President Trump, he must be removed from office and held responsible,” Banks said.
Just days prior to the 2016 election, Clinton shared a statement from Sullivan in response to an article in Slate covering a team of computer scientists who claimed to have discovered a link between Trump and Russia-based Alfa Bank.
“This could be the most direct link yet between Trump and Moscow,” Sullivan said. “Computer scientists have apparently uncovered a covert server linking the Trump Organization to a Russian-based bank. This secret hotline may be the key to unlocking the mystery of Trump’s ties to Russia.”
The FBI investigated the purported link between the Trump Organization and Alfa-Bank and found no evidence to support it.
On several occasions during the four years Big Media pushed the lie, Washington Post Watergate reporter Carl Bernstein characterized Trump-Russia collusion as worse than Watergate.
Trump White House adviser Garrett Ziegler noted in a Telegram post that Durham’s revelations furth cementing growing evidence that, compared to Russiagate, Watergate was indeed a “third rate burglary.”
“My cousin (Ron Ziegler) was the one who declared, 50 years ago, that Watergate was a ‘third rate burglary.’ He was right then and, of course, TRVMP confirms that to this day.”
Per Wikipedia:
Ron Ziegler was the White House press secretary during the political scandal known as Watergate. In 1972, he dismissed the first report of the break-in at the Watergate Hotel as a “third-rate burglary attempt”, and repeatedly dismissed reports by Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein in the Washington Post ….
In 1974, Ziegler became Assistant to the President. Particularly in the period following the resignations of such senior administration officials as Bob Haldeman and John Ehrlichman, Ziegler became one of Nixon’s closest aides and confidants. During the impeachment process against Nixon, he defended the president until the bitter end, urging Nixon not to resign, but rather fight conviction and removal from office in the Senate. During the unfolding political scandal, Ziegler appeared before Congress at least 33 times.
Unlike many other former aides following President Nixon’s resignation in 1974, Ziegler remained very close to him. Ziegler was on the plane that Nixon took to Marine Corps Air Station El Toro, near San Clemente, California, as Gerald Ford was sworn into office.
INFORMATION WORLD WAR: . . . . How We Win . . . . Executive Intelligence Brief
NY Times explains: Democrats’ spying on President Trump too ‘dense and obscure’ for its readers added by Editor Two on
View all posts by Editor Two →