Eventually, the MSM is going to have to report this

WSJ Durham court filing implicates Clinton campaign

The MSM will squeal and deflect, but sooner or later they’re going to have to report on this. Trump was spied on by the Clinton campaign, before and after the election, and even while in office for the purpose of creating a false narrative of collusion with Russia.

This not only lead to false allegations against Trump, but weighed heavily on the 2018 mid-term elections.

Watergate times 10.  And the MSM was complicit all the way.

69 thoughts on “Eventually, the MSM is going to have to report this

  1. Yea, it’s really hard to believe that this has not been covered. Not surprising though. They have to cover their own asses.


  2. Apropos the title of the post, no they don’t. That is to say, MSM can gaslight forever.

    There are many people who believe that no such thing as the Deep State exists. This particular story might awaken them, if they can be.


  3. What you people LOVE to forget is that the WSJ is part of the MSM. And so is Fox News and everything they spew is also part of the MSM. If they want to take this minor story about people with links to other people with links to somebody in the Clinton campaign and blow it out of all proportion to reality, they will find a willing and eager audience as you have demonstrated.

    In spite of all your wishful thinking to the contrary there is a growing mountain of evidence showing how deeply the Trump campaign and the Trump administration was entangled with Putin’s gangster regime in Russia. So, go ahead, grasp at this straw.

    Liked by 2 people

      1. “Mueller couldn’t find it.”

        I am not going to play your childish games. The Mueller Report is NOT as fake AG Barr characterized it. It includes a very long list of specifics. It did not find the final smoking gun and that was because the key witnesses who could have provided it were promised pardons for their silence, and they got them.


        Liked by 2 people

          1. He found that Trump obstructed Justice and that Congress, in his opinion, was the proper route to go for investigation and action.

            Russia did interfere and Trump gleefully sought it out. That Manafort did provide campaign polling info, and strategy, for key states to Russian intelligence.

            Since you asked.

            Liked by 2 people

          2. “Neither Jerry Nadler, nor Politico’s, characterization of Mueller report is of interest.”

            The story I linked to is about MUELLER’S characterization of what is in the report. But if you do not trust him (“corrupt?”) then read the report yourself.

            Liked by 2 people

  4. https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2022/02/15/heres-why-trump-once-again-is-claiming-spying-by-democrats/

    Plenty of coverage, without the breathlessness of MSM FOX.

    Please, keep up the coverage on Clinton and “legitimate political discourse”. Add in the censure of GOP legislators and you have a circular firing squad in the making.

    This lets Democrats try to deal with inflation, supply line, Russia, China while you guys are crying over dinner invitations.

    After years and millions of dollars, Durham has come up with a few very tenuous, mostly irrelevant, connections to deflect Trump’s well known, if serendipitous, connections that involved acceptance of Russian interference in our elections.

    No, about all those papers Trump stole from us, logs he erased or bypassed, and his extortion of GA election officials.

    Liked by 2 people

    1. Even were they not paywalled, I would not be particularly interested in the NYT and Wapo’s “analysis” of the filings any more than I would be interested in Ted Bundy’s lawyers analysis of the case against him.

      The NYT and Wapo are co-conspirators


          1. Reported the “facts”?


            “But the entire narrative appeared to be mostly wrong or old news,” the conclusions “based on a misleading presentation of the facts or outright misinformation,” Savage writes. Gabriel Malor, a lawyer who writes for several conservative media outlets, lays out a few specific points on Durham’s filing, including that it never uses the word “infiltrate” or accuses the Clinton campaign of ordering Sussmans or anyone else to pass the tech company’s analysis of DNS data to the FBI or CIA.”

            In other words, the FOX “reporting” was opinion couched in false reporting.

            Liked by 2 people

      1. “The NYT and Wapo are co-conspirators”

        You have already attracted a characterization of childishness by someone else on another subject today. This silly comment confirms it.

        I notice you did not take up Trump’s destruction and theft of significant amounts of highly classified documents. Hypocrite? Hilary Clinton, according to you people, should have been locked up indefinitely for far less in the way of mishandling of non-Presidential communications.

        Liked by 1 person

          1. “If Trump did anything unlawful, I’m sure he will be prosecuted. I haven’t read of any charges being made.”

            So now the standard of unlawful conduct is “charges being made?” Funny how that standard did not exist when you people were chanting “Lock her up” or you personally calling for the execution of FDA officials.

            You can tap dance all you want, but there is enough evidence already in the public record that in this matter of the handling of Presidential and HIGHLY CLASSIFIED documents, Trump applied his lifelong default position – The law is for the little people, not for me.

            Liked by 2 people

      1. Trump had the Mafia connections to get a hit done.

        “Trump had a personal connection to some of the city’s most powerful mobsters through his friend, mentor, and lawyer Roy Cohn. Cohn, who’s these days remembered as one of the most malignant figures in 20th century America, was an attorney for mafia leaders including “Fat Tony” Salerno, Carmine Galante, and Paul Castellano, bosses in the Genovese, Bonanno, and Gambino crime families, respectively.”


        Liked by 2 people

          1. Epstein was a “good friend” of Trump who also remarked that they both liked beautiful women and Epstein like his on the “younger side”. Really, how did Trump know this?

            Liked by 2 people

          2. I find it reassuring that Trump noted that Epstein’s companions were inappropriately young but there is a lot troubling in that mess.

            Starting with the parents who sent their teenage girls off to a private island with a rich weirdo.


          3. I am not sure about the Epstein case, but sex trafficking is not normally done with a permission slip from home. Maxwell was apparently the procurer of choice with him.

            NB: Trump did not say “inappropriately young”, just beautiful women on the younger side.

            I think Epstein was a problem for more than a few rich and famous. Prince Andrew just “settled” with the woman he is supposed to have had sex when she was underage.

            I imagine there were plenty of those folks sweating a bit so Epstein’s demise was fortunate for them no matter who did the deed, including Epstein himself.

            Liked by 1 person

          4. I still have a problem with parents pimping out their daughters and none of the parents reported their daughters missing while they were on that island for weeks at a time.


          5. You know more about Epstein’s modus operandi than I do. Of course parents are culpable if they had any inkling of what Epstein was up to.

            As I have asserted before, money is power and he was very. very wealthy. Promises made, connections established, who knows how folks got to trust him, but evidently some did.

            Liked by 1 person

          6. Well, I would rather Maxwell spilled all the beans and let the chips fall where they may.

            If we were just talking about 17 and some fraction then it wouldn’t be that big a deal for me, as I could look at it as a career choice by the girls, but reportedly some of the girls were much younger, and that crosses a line.


          7. “If we were just talking about 17 and some fraction then it wouldn’t be that big a deal for me,”…

            Lots of guys are in prison for that little difference between 17 and 18. Joe Morrissey comes to mind (should have been locked up, IMO).


          8. “Nevertheless, there is a huge difference.

            Even under the law, the difference in penalties is clear”

            So once again you choose how the rule of law applies and to whom. Well played. NOT


          9. “Sure, Trump put out a hit on the guy who could destroy his worst political enemies.”

            Uh, hardly a counterpoint. His motive – if he had one – would have been what Epstein knew about him, not about what he knew about, say, Bill Clinton.

            Liked by 1 person

          10. Whatever makes you think Trump would have needed Epstein’s help getting women, and there is no indication anywhere that Trump had a desire for underage women. Legal age women, at that time in Trump’s life would not have been a problem as his reputation there has already been assaulted.


          11. “Whatever makes you think Trump would have needed Epstein’s help getting women”

            Uh, this is not about “women.” It is about underaged girls. A lot of people needed Epstein’s “help” procuring them. People with money, titles, and reputations. I see no reason to doubt that someone as pervy as Trump could be one of them.

            “There is no indication anywhere that Trump had a desire for underage women.”
            Except years paling around with Epstein and Maxwell? Or countless photos of inappropriate closeness to daughter and comments about Ivanka when she was a child? Or that notorious comment about a child on an escalator?



            Liked by 1 person

  5. Hah, fat chance!! We all know honor among thieves is alive and well with MSM and far left wing extremist apologists teeth gnashing like in this thread.


  6. The key allegation WSJ focuses on is that Rodney Joffe, a tech executive, used his companies and university contacts to access non-public/proprietary Internet traffic pertaining to the Executive Office of the President (Donald Trump), as well as Internet traffic related to Trump Tower and Trump’s apartment on Central Park West.

    Not surprisingly, the responses in the thread have focused on other matters:

    • Fox News and its relation to the MSM.
    • The Mueller Report.
    • J/6.
    • Dr. Tabor’s maturity.

    Unaddressed in the commentary is that the allegation, if verified, proves the claim that Trump was spied on. We knew this by other means at the time. Today, the same people who denied the claim when it was first made are denying it again.

    The denials were fatuous then and they are fatuous now. We should all want to know the truth about this apparent spying.


    1. The point of the post was whether or not MSM reported this dubious case with the same breathlessness that FOX did. My answer was yes and that Washington Post and NYT, among others, shot holes in the convoluted and vague connections among some of the players.

      Don brought up the Mueller report. Paul answered it. Russell slipped in Epstein, and sex being a more interesting subject than whether Trump is a felon, that is the direction of the thread.

      Liked by 2 people

    2. “As a result of the hacks of EOP and [Democratic National Committee] servers in 2015 and 2016, respectively, there were serious and legitimate national security concerns about Russian attempts to infiltrate the 2016 election,” the spokesperson said. “Upon identifying DNS queries from Russian-made Yota phones in proximity to the Trump campaign and the EOP, respected cyber-security 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” Spokesperson for rodney Joffe, the Tech expert in question.


      Considering the close ties with Russia and Trump with banking, business deals, and the like, checking on possible connections would certainly be the prudent thing to do with regards to the president of our nation.

      Liked by 2 people

      1. RE: “Considering the close ties with Russia and Trump with banking, business deals, and the like, checking on possible connections would certainly be the prudent thing to do with regards to the president of our nation.”

        Maybe prudence was involved somehow, but why Joffe? Who was paying him and was he in fact authorized to perform the surveillance?

        Well, in any case, we now know (again) that the spying was real.


          1. Well, yes, we do.

            Worse, the very simple detection of a Russian made phone in the vicinity of the White House was spun into evidence of collusion with Russia, even though the same kind of phone had been present there when Obama was in office as well.

            But when you have a national press corps acting as an advocate for the Democrats, you can spin a lot.


          2. “But when you have a national press corps acting as an advocate for the Democrats, you can spin a lot.“

            The right has the biggest press corps. FOX alone has more audience than other news. WSJ, NY Post, Washington Examiner, Washington Times are big also. Plus the right wing echo chamber is almost infinite.

            So I would say your lament is pretty lame.

            Liked by 2 people

          3. You need to read more carefully and try to ignore what you would like to find.

            In this case, the reaction to the presence of those Russian phones sniffing around the White House was not about collusion. Or Trump. It was about the possibility of a repeat of past Russian hacking attempts at the DNC and the White House.

            Not hard to understand if you take the time to read carefully.

            Liked by 2 people

    3. …”the allegation, ”

      They were mischaracterized by right wing MSM. Nothing in the report indicates that Clinton “infiltrated” the Trump campaign, the tech guy may or may not have been digging into the WH under Trump, and to quote Charlie Sykes, the right wing “analysis” of the report is “codswallop”.


        1. “So you would have been OK with the Trump administration monitoring Biden’s email and phone to cast suspicion on his campaign?”

          Okay, in this analogy who in the government was monitoring Trump’s email? Who in the government was tapping Trump’s phone? Who in the government discredited Trump from these sources during the campaign?

          Liked by 1 person

          1. If Trump had conceded like Clinton you mean?

            Or if Trump hadn’t turned over campaign strategies to Russian intelligence via his campaign chief?

            Is that what you are referring to?

            If so, we might be a lot better off today.

            Liked by 2 people

          2. No, if Trump had unlawfully tracked the Clinton’s banking activity and cherry picked data from that to get a FISA authorization for wire tapping her campaign, for example.

            Or passing scores of anonymous leaks to FOX news to create a false connection with a foreign power in the public mind as the election approached.

            WOuld that have been OK with you?


          3. Why are you saying things happened that DID NOT HAPPEN? You want to believe it is true because the right wing talking heads cherry picked information, tuned it on its head and LIED about what it said, just like Bill Barr did with the Mueller Report.

            What Fox News and other right wing MAINSTREAM MEDIA OUTLETS have “analyzed” and come up with has been called out for what it is: LARGE PILES OF FERTILIZER.

            DJT is a criminal who should be prosecuted for his several crimes against the state of NY,(tax cheat), this country (fomenting sedition, destroying records, perjury to the American people) and the world in general (attempting to extort the leader of a free country and ally).

            Liked by 1 person

          4. “. . . Hillary/Obama did in 2016?”

            Uh, what do you think you are talking about? Since you failed to even try to answer the simple questions above, I conclude that you have no idea whatsoever. Typical empty blather.

            Liked by 1 person

          5. “No, if Trump had unlawfully tracked the Clinton’s banking activity blah,blah, blah”

            None of that happened but my oh my what a dutiful Trump parrot you are!

            Trump is cany. He uses simple words in his lies so that people like you can repeat them without having to think about them. In this case the word is “spied.” Oh my! That’s bad.

            Liked by 1 person

          6. Contact tracing between the Trump Tower, and even the White House, were used to create a narrative of improper contact between the Trump Campaign and Russian banks.


          7. Straws noticeably grasped. Desperation palpable. Fertilizer spread. Grass green.

            NONE of what you have stated was proven. NADA, ZILCH, ZIP, Zero! Yet here you are trying to say it did. Even with all of the evidence telling you what you (and the right wing talking heads of the MSM), what they are peddling is garbage. Kind of like Trump’s China deal.


          8. Like Trump’s China deal. They were supposed to spend upwards of $2 Billion because that was the deal Trump got “done”. Yet do you know how much China spent as part of the agreement. The total spent by China on the products negotiated was $0


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s