Even the “Wall Street Journal” Admits Trump Spied On! But What is He Going to Do about It? By Charles Taylor (Florida)
You do not get any more mainstream than The Wall Street Journal. Now even they have admitted that Hillary Clinton’s campaign associates “spied” on Donald Trump’s campaign and “protected White House communications.” That is far worse than the past Watergate affair, as Trump has said. “White House communications are supposed to be secure, and the notion that any contractor—much less one with ties to a presidential campaign—could access them is alarming enough,” the Journal wrote. “The implication that the data was exploited for a political purpose is a scandal that requires investigation under oath.”
It is impossible to suppose that Hillary Clinton was not involved. If so, she should also be tried for numerous criminal offences. But given that there are entire books written about the “crimes of the Clintons,” my guess is that they will evade justice, having plenty of dirt on big players to use if necessary. America is so corrupt and evil now, that Hillary could well replace Biden as president at some point.
“Recent John Durham court filings suggest Hillary Clinton’s campaign associates “spied” on Donald Trump’s campaign and “protected White House communications,” the Wall Street Journal declared Monday.
After ignoring for 48 hours a tantalizing development in one of the largest political scandals in the past ten years, the Journal’s Editorial Board highlighted Durham’s court disclosures that indicate evidence of “a scandal that requires investigation under oath.” The Journal also slammed the establishment media for ignoring allegations that may prove Trump’s alarm of foul play was actually correct.
The Editorial Board cited Hillary’s 2016 “campaign effort to compile dirt on Donald Trump,” which lead to “exploited” data for a “political purpose” that began during a presidential campaign and continued into Trump’s presidency.
The alleged spying for a political purpose involves former Clinton Campaign lawyer Michael Sussmann, who is charged with lying to the FBI about not working for Clinton’s campaign. Sussmann allegedly conveyed data to the CIA that suggested Trump was somehow involved in a Russia hoax, according to the New York Times. Sussman is also suspected of having a conflict of interest involving Latham & Watkins LLP, which is also mixed up in Durham’s investigation.
“White House communications are supposed to be secure, and the notion that any contractor—much less one with ties to a presidential campaign—could access them is alarming enough,” the Journal wrote. “The implication that the data was exploited for a political purpose is a scandal that requires investigation under oath”:
The disclosures raise troubling questions far beyond the Sussmann indictment. How long did this snooping last and who had access to what was found? Who approved the access to White House data, and who at the FBI and White House knew about it? Were Mrs. Clinton and senior campaign aides personally aware of this data-trolling operation?
Mr. Durham’s revelations take the 2016 collusion scam well beyond the Steele dossier, which was based on the unvetted claims of a Russian emigre working in Washington. Those claims and the Sussmann assertions were channeled to the highest levels of the government via contacts at the FBI, CIA and State Department. They became fodder for secret and unjustified warrants against a former Trump campaign official, and later for Robert Mueller’s two-year mole hunt that turned up no evidence of collusion.
Along the way the Clinton campaign fed these bogus claims to a willing and gullible media. And now we know its operatives used private tech researchers to monitor White House communications. If you made this up, you’d be laughed out of a Netflix story pitch.
“But the unfolding information underscores that the Russia collusion story was one of the dirtiest tricks in U.S. political history,” the Journal continued, while noting “it remains unclear” where Durham’s probe is going next.
The Journal’s editorial decision to express an opinion about Durham’s revelations follows the New York Times and Washington Post, which cast doubt on the court filing’s significance 48 hours after the story broke Friday night. The Times and Post framed its articles around chiding “right-leaning media” for “carefully” scrutinizing “off track” narratives that are “often based on a misleading presentation of the facts or outright misinformation.”
The Journal hit back at the establishment media’s press corps on Tuesday, asserting their reporting on Clinton’s political hoax is notably oblivious to the allegations that may prove Trump’s assertion true:
The press corps doesn’t usually support government spying, but when it comes to Donald Trump they are making an exception. The journalists who gave themselves prizes for pressing the Russia collusion narrative that turned out be false are now dismissing news that their narrative was inflated with false information collected by eavesdropping on Mr. Trump.
The establishment media’s reporting on the scandal proceeds undeveloped implications, such as the extent to which President Biden’s national security adviser Jake Sullivan may be implicated. Breitbart News reported:
On October 31, 2016, about a week before the 2016 presidential election, Sullivan, who was working on the Clinton campaign at the time, pushed a Slate report “showing that the Trump Organization has a secret server registered to Trump Tower that has been covertly communicating with Russia.”
…
Sullivan’s role in pushing these claims is receiving fresh scrutiny after a recent filing by Special Counsel John Durham laid out allegations that a lawyer who was with the law firm representing Clinton’s campaign had worked with a tech executive to gather the evidence for those claims.
In a Monday press briefing, the White House declined comment about the recent court filings. Hillary on Tuesday declined comment to the Daily Mail.”
“Hillary Clinton has responded to the accusations that she paid a tech executive to spy on the Trump administration, writing in a Wednesday tweet: "Trump & Fox are desperately spinning up a fake scandal to distract from his real ones. So it's a day that ends in Y," adding "The more his misdeeds are exposed, the more they lie."
As Glenn Greenwald opines, "Hillary Clinton's lawyer has been criminally indicted by the Durham probe for lying to the FBI about Russiagate/Alfa Bank. An FBI lawyer pled guilty to lying to the FISA court to spy on Carter Page. Nothing Hillary or Dems' media servants can say will ever negate these facts."
After which he added:
"I also love how the article Hillary encourages everyone to read to clear everything up about the Durham indictment of her lawyer is a 5-paragraph clichéd-driven partisan screed in Vanity Fair by a standard DNC-loyal liberal: as if it's some complex legalistic dissection.
As The Epoch Times' Zachary Stieber detailed earlier, a technology executive accused of wrongdoing and a lawyer who worked for Hillary Clinton’s campaign hit back Feb. 15 after Special Counsel John Durham laid out new detailed allegations against them.
Durham, who is probing the origins of the counterintelligence investigation against Donald Trump’s campaign, said in a recent court filing that a tech executive spied on the White House for the purpose of “gathering derogatory information about Donald Trump.” It’s believed the spying took place while Trump was president.
Though Durham did not name the executive, he has been identified by media outlets including The Epoch Times as Rodney Joffe, who until recently headed a U.S.-based company called Neustar. Joffe once said he was offered a top position in a Clinton administration, provided Clinton—whom Trump beat in the 2016 election—became president.
A spokesperson for Joffe, who has not been charged with a crime, challenged Durham’s filing in a statement to news outlets.
“Contrary to the allegations in this recent filing, Mr. Joffe is an apolitical Internet security expert with decades of service to the U.S. Government who has never worked for a political party, and who legally provided access to DNS data obtained from a private client that separately was providing DNS services to the Executive Office of the President (EOP),” the spokesperson said.
DNS refers to domain name system; Durham says Joffe exploited access to DNS internet traffic for not only the executive office but Trump Tower and Trump’s nearby apartment, and that Joffe had a group of university researchers explore internet data with the goal of establishing “an inference” and “narrative” tying Trump to Russia. Joffe, Durham said, was trying to “please certain ‘VIPs.'”
“Under the terms of the contract, the data could be accessed to identify and analyze any security breaches or threats,” Joffe’s spokesperson said. “As a result of the hacks of EOP and DNC servers in 2015 and 2016, respectively, there were serious and legitimate national security concerns about Russian attempts to infiltrate the 2016 election. Upon identifying DNS queries from Russian-made Yota phones in proximity to the Trump campaign and the EOP, respected cybersecurity researchers were deeply concerned about the anomalies they found in the data and prepared a report of their findings, which was subsequently shared with the CIA.”
Durham said his team has “identified no support for” the allegations that the data reflected suspicious DNS lookups by internet addresses affiliated with a Russian mobile phone provider, or Yota.
Lawyers for Michael Sussman, the Clinton campaign lawyer who has been charged with lying to the FBI, also responded Monday to the Durham filing.
They argued that Durham’s motion, which was ostensibly about potential conflicts of interest, included “prejudicial—and false—allegations that are irrelevant to his motion and to the charged offense, and are plainly intended to politicize this case, inflame media coverage, and taint the jury pool.”
The allegations pertaining to the DNS traffic, for instance, were not included in Sussman’s indictment and “were not necessary to identify any of the potential conflicts of interest with which the motion is putatively concerned,” they added. “Why then include them? The question answers itself.”
Sussman wants the court to strike the portion of the motion that outlines the allegations against Joffe and to allow him to retain his counsel, Latham & Watkins, a law firm that has represented other parties that are being or have been investigated by Durham.
Comments