Hillary Refuses to Answer Questions About Her Own (Worse) Watergate – Opinion

Political observers of a certain age will remember Watergate, where men affiliated with the Committee to Re-Elect the President (CRP) — that would be Nixon — were financed by the CRP to break in to the headquarters of the Democratic National Committee (DNC), housed in the Watergate hotel, for the purpose of installing listening devices on phones to spy on the DNC. One of the pertinent questions surrounding that event, which ultimately led to Nixon’s resignation, was: what did the president know and when did he know it? It also gave us the infamous political adage: it’s not the crime, it’s the coverup.

Well, in Hillary Clinton’s case as it relates to the new Durham filing, it’s both. It’s also important to ask the question of when and what Clinton knew. As indictments keep coming with more threats, the media cannot ignore this story. They are now asking the 2016 Presidential candidate and former Secretary of State those very questions. And she’s not talking.

Hillary Clinton, former Secretary of State, refused to answer any questions about whether her presidential campaign had spied upon Donald Trump.

“Did you payYou can find more information here spy on the Trump campaign,” Hillary was asked by a Daily Mail reporter in New York City on Tuesday. “When are you going to comment on the spying allegations, Hillary?”

Clinton declined to answer both questions as she simply waved at the reporter while continuing to walk inside a building.

Clinton’s lack of comment comes after special counsel John Durham’s Feb. 11 filing alleging that lawyers from Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign in 2016 had paid to infiltrate servers belonging to Trump Tower, and later the White House, in order to establish an “inference” and “narrative” to bring to federal government agencies linking Donald Trump to Russia.

Durham alleged in the filing that Clinton campaign lawyer Michael Sussmann, who has been charged with making a false statement to a federal agent as part of the special counsel’s investigation, brought Trump-Russia allegations — which Durham said “relied, in part” on the “traffic” that had been “assembled” from the servers — to the FBI and a second government agency, which has since been Identified by the CIA.

What makes the latter-day scandal worse is that it wasn’t simply confined to spying — successful spying, it should be noted — on a rival’s campaign. The spying, as Durham’s newest filing makes clear, continued after the election of Donald Trump and took placeIn the oval office. That makes it, as the Wall Street Journal notes, “one of the dirtiest tricks in U.S. political history.”

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. It is scandalous that data could have been used for political purposes. This should be investigated under oath.

…

There are troubling issues beyond those raised by the Sussmann case. What was the duration of this spying? Who had access to the data that was discovered? Which White House officials were aware of the White House access and who approved it, as well as the FBI and White House personnel responsible. Was Mrs. Clinton, or any of her senior campaign aides aware that this operation was being conducted to collect data?

…

The Clinton campaign made these false claims throughout the process to willing media. We now know that its operatives used private technology researchers to spy on White House communications. If you made this up, you’d be laughed out of a Netflix story pitch.

Hillary might be able dodge reporters, but Republicans will make significant gains in 2022. There should be an investigation into spying by a sitting president. (He was insistent that his campaign was being monitored and laughed at as though he were pitching a Netflix spy story).

This is not to say that Lady Clinton won’t ever admit to knowing what happened or the source of the dirty money. However, the American public deserves to see what Durham revealed about her knowledge and when it occurred. The crime was much worse than any coverup.