THE RUSSIAGATE MEDIA COVERUP

The lefty press is giving Hillary Clinton a pass for Russiagate 

 

By Michael Goodwin

 

New York Post

February 15, 2022

 

 

Clinton did not answer questions about the investigation from Post reporters Tuesday

 

Here’s a quick quiz: How do we know the new developments in special counsel John Durham’s investigation are important? 

Answer: Because The New York Times and Washington Post claim they aren’t important. 

Big Media’s messengers for the Deep State are nothing if not consistent. For years they sold the Russia, Russia, Russia hoax as the greatest story ever told. And now that the entire story is being unmasked as a figment of Hillary Clinton’s presidential ambition, the same suspects insist there’s nothing to see here. 

Move along, they say. And by the way, did you see what Donald Trump did today? 

Readers will not find this revelation in The New York Times or Washington post

 

It is awfully late in the game to be surprised that our national press corps puts its political agenda ahead of the national interest, but the refusal to treat the Durham probe with the seriousness it deserves takes the dereliction to a new level. The refusal involves deliberate attempts to mislead the public. 

Then again, the motive is obvious. Giving Durham his due would require the media to re-examine its role in perpetuating the dirtiest dirty trick in American political history. 

They won’t do that re-examination now for the same reason they wouldn’t do it after Robert Mueller couldn’t find the Trump-Russia collusion the press and Democrats insisted was in plain sight. The truth of how they screwed up would destroy careers and ruin reputations.

Bogus Pulitzers

A deep dive into the facts would prove all those collusion “exclusives” were flat-out wrong. In that case, scores of anonymous sources would have to be re-questioned and outed and the Pulitzers and other awards would have to be returned. 

That would be a horror show for the cream of the media crop — and so it can’t be allowed to happen. Most of all, the outlets who bet their business on turning Trump into a traitorous monster couldn’t bear to see him crowing in vindication at their expense. So they are battening down the hatches and sticking to their story. 

Yet even now, nearly six years after the Russia lies first burst into the headlines, it still boggles the mind that the scam succeeded for as long as it did. Key among the unanswered questions is how Clinton operatives managed to sell the FBI, the Obama-Biden White House and the Washington media the lie that Russia and Trump were working together to steal the 2016 election. 

What we do know is that once that sale was made, all the rules about fairness and due process were jettisoned like so much trash. In the rush to demonize Trump and elect Clinton, trusted institutions abandoned their standards and shattered their public trust. 

And to judge from the reaction to Durham’s latest court filings, those same individuals and institutions intend to defend their misconduct with all their power. 

The Friday filings relate to an earlier indictment of Michael Sussmann, a lawyer charged with lying to the FBI. Sussmann allegedly tried to convince the bureau that a private Internet executive found reams of evidence that the Trump campaign had established secret connections with a Russian bank. 

Asked the name of his client, Sussmann allegedly said no one, he was there on his own as a private citizen. In fact, Durham alleges, Sussmann was working to help Clinton get the FBI to investigate Trump. As proof, the indictment says Sussmann billed the Clinton campaign for his FBI meetings. 

The new filings go a giant step further in claiming the tech executive working with Sussmann, Rodney Joffe, used researchers and his own special access to gather “derogatory information” about Trump from computer traffic at Trump Tower and later, the White House. 

Media coverup

Those actions were allegedly in addition to the collusion narrative Clinton had created with the phony Steele dossier. 

If Durham can prove these broad new claims, he will have performed a huge public service. Indeed, that was his assignment — to investigate the role of the FBI, CIA and other federal agencies in spying on the presidential nominee of the opposition party. So far, all roads lead to Clinton. 

Durham’s probe has been slow moving, partly because of COVID and partly because it has been difficult cutting through the tangled web of deceit, parts of which include classified documents.

But his pace does not justify the sneering tone of the Dems’ media handmaidens. In its Tuesday story, the Times was especially dismissive, with a headline on a supposed straight news story declaring that “Court Filing Started a Furor in Right-Wing Outlets, but Their Narrative Is Off Track.” 

The article insisted that “The latest alarmist claims about spying on Trump appeared to be flawed” and essentially argued that journalists should feel free to ignore them. 

The Washington Post also framed the story as nothing new with a headline that said “Here’s Why Trump is Once Again Claiming ‘Spying’ by Democrats.” 

In both papers, the obvious intent to undermine the idea that Trump was the victim of government spying should be recognized for what it is: disinformation. 

But don’t hold your breath waiting for Twitter or the rest of Big Tech to label it as such. In this case and others, they are part of the disinformation complex. 

“Democracy dies in darkness,” reads The Washington Post’s motto. “All the news that’s fit to print” declares the Times. 

If only they practiced what they preach.