Dirty Tricks: The Sequel | Newsbusters

“Dirty tricks” was a term used to describe the behavior of operatives within the Nixon administration to smear the reputations of opponents and undermine the appeal of certain politicians. This false allegation was made fifty years ago. Sen. Henry “Scoop” Jackson (D-WA.) Had fathered an unnatural child with a 17 year-old girl. The break-in at Democratic National Committee Headquarters at the Watergate complex in Washington, D.C., was when Nixon Aides and operatives attempted to find materials the Nixon team could use against his perceived “enemies.”

Dirty tricks should not be confused with negative campaigns, which may have some element of truth but is filed by special counsel. John Durham that alleges the 2016 presidential campaign of Hillary Clinton paid a technology company to “infiltrate” or “spy” – the word Donald Trump uses – on his presidential campaign and later while he was president, goes beyond dirty tricks into the illegal.

In the following: Filings to the court, Durham alleges the purpose behind Russian “collusion” allegations was to establish a “narrative” between then-Republican presidential candidate Trump and Russia. Trump has repeatedly denied the allegations, both at that time and in interviews with Durham. Lesley Stahl on ”60 Minutes.” Stahl said there was “no evidence” for Trump’s claim. Trump stated that there was evidence and it was her responsibility to look into the matter and make sure she finds it. Stahl will correct the error now that at least one credible allegation has been made. It is unlikely, and it’s not likely that other media majors, who have distorted the Russian collusion story by denying its existence, will admit to error. The Washington Post, The New York Times and CNN are all involved. These websites seem to be able to create their own stories, which are rooted in a deep hatred for Donald Trump. Take this as an example: Donald Trump was effectively called a Russian agent or a minimally Russian asset.

This Tuesday The New York Times published a story about the Durham report on its website, but seemed to dismiss it as “old news,” a familiar tactic often used when it reported on the various Clinton scandals.

Pulitzer Prizes went to Washington Post and Times, who basically repeated Democrat talking points. They should return the prizes and penalize newspapers by not allowing them apply for another for at least 10 more years.

Rep. Adam Schiff (D.CA), didn’t cover his face in glory when he headed a House investigation into Trump. He repeatedly denied that Trump had violated laws. Don’t expect an apology from him, either. There were also the FISA warrants that were issued in response to claims made by James Comey, then-FBI Director, and others. Two warrants were not supported by probable cause, and the Justice Department acknowledged that this was true. The Justice Department also said that all information would be destroyed.

 New York Post editorial summed up the matter: “A candidate for president (Hillary Clinton) weaponized the nation’s Justice Department to pursue an investigation into their political opponent based on what they knew were lies. Americans were wiretapped Some people were wiretapped for making bogus claims of perjury. Comey, the FBI director, went to the Oval Office and told the President that there was a sexual conspiracy. He wanted it to be quickly leaked to media outlets. ‘Outrageous’ doesn’t cover it.”

Durham has only scraped the surface of what could, if proven, be the biggest scandal in American political history and that’s saying something, given past political behavior by members of both parties.

Is the grand jury being given this information going to indict higher-ups? The powerful and well connected will finally face accountability after so many others have avoided it in the past. Because they’re engaging in cover-ups that are similar to what Richard Nixon did, news consumers might have to look for information elsewhere than major media.