Watergate’s and the Russian Collusion Hoax’s Growing Eery Similarities
Watergate’s and the Russian Collusion Hoax’s Growing Eery Similarities
Except for the media coverage. And a couple of other notables, including the FBI’s role
Most Americans today were not alive when burglars clumsily broke into Democratic National Headquarters at the sprawling Watergate office and apartment complex in northwest Washington, DC on June 17, 1972. We’re coming up to that notorious event’s 50th birthday. The average age in the USA last year was 38.5.
The late Mark Felt, a disgruntled Associate Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, purportedly operating under the nom de guerre “Deep Throat,” the title of a porn movie of that era, surreptitiously guided two young Washington Post writers to publishing and movie stardom. Richard Nixon remains the only President in American history to resign from office (August 9, 1974). Dozens of Nixon Administration and campaign officials were prosecuted, including the Attorney General, John Mitchell.
Nixon was never impeached, but the handwriting was on the wall. For a 16-18 year old rural Oklahoma high school student, it was a mesmerizing experience that remains seared in my memory. One of my high school teachers made watching live, wall-to-wall broadcast coverage of the Senate Watergate hearings a daily experience. There was no CSPAN back then, just the three major networks and PBS. Every purported major Washington scandal now has “gate” attached for media effect.
Nixon came to dominate and define that political era in so many ways, from his election to Congress in 1946 to his presidential resignation 28 years later.
Fast forward to last week and Russia Collusion Hoax (Russiagate) special prosecutor John Durham, the former non-partisan and fierce US attorney from Connecticut. You’re forgiven if you’re not aware of the story, which the Washington Post and nearly all of the “mainstream media” completely ignored. Then again, Durham’s latest filing was made on the Friday afternoon of Super Bowl weekend. Probably a Justice Department decision. We’ll let Matt Margolis from PJ Media summarize the explosive story.
Lawyers for Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign paid a technology company to “infiltrate” servers that belonged to Trump Tower and, later, the Trump White House “for the purpose of gathering derogatory information about Donald Trump,” according to a motion filed Friday by Special Counsel John Durham. (Emphasis added)
This begs more questions than answers. Who were all the lawyers and Clinton campaign officials involved (the firm Perkins Coie, including legendary Democratic uberlawer Mark Elias, then represented the Clinton campaign)? Who, exactly, was hired to infiltrate both campaign and official government servers? Why weren’t they caught earlier, especially by the FBI or CIA, or was this White House “infiltration” not illegal?
Such irony between this surveillance and Hillary’s own sloppy use of a private server to conduct sensitive government business, including emails with President Obama.
Let’s consult Durham’s court filing, specifically the fourth and fifth paragraphs, courtesy of attorney Ron Coleman writing for legalinsurrection.com:
The Indictment also alleges that, beginning in approximately July 2016, Tech Executive-1 had worked with the defendant, a U.S. investigative firm retained by Law Firm-1 on behalf of the Clinton Campaign, numerous cyber researchers, and employees at multiple Internet companies to assemble the purported data and white papers. In connection with these efforts, Tech Executive-1 exploited his access to non-public and/or proprietary Internet data. Tech Executive-1 also enlisted the assistance of researchers at a U.S.-based university who were receiving and analyzing large amounts of Internet data in connection with a pending federal government cybersecurity research contract. Tech Executive-1 tasked these researchers to mine Internet data to establish “an inference” and “narrative” tying then-candidate Trump to Russia. In doing so, Tech Executive-1 indicated that he was seeking to please certain “VIPs,” referring to individuals at Law Firm-1 and the Clinton Campaign.
The Government’s evidence at trial will also establish that among the Internet data Tech Executive-1 and his associates exploited was domain name system (“DNS”) Internet traffic pertaining to (i) a particular healthcare provider, (ii) Trump Tower, (iii) Donald Trump’s Central Park West apartment building, and (iv) the Executive Office of the President of the United States (“EOP”). (Tech Executive-1’s employer, Internet Company-1, had come to access and maintain dedicated servers for the EOP as part of a sensitive arrangement whereby it provided DNS resolution services to the EOP. Tech Executive-1 and his associates exploited this arrangement by mining the EOP’s DNS traffic and other data for the purpose of gathering derogatory information about Donald Trump.)
The internet gathering arrangement may not, in and of itself, be illegal. But former Elias partner Marc Sussman lied to the FBI about it, and that’s a crime (18 USC 1001). That’s why Sussman was largely indicted. Just remember a lesson from Watergate: The coverup is almost always worse than the crime. Except it may no longer be true.
This may be just the tip of the iceberg, given the weaponization of the FBI and our intelligence agencies during and after the 2016 presidential campaign.
With the advent of the internet and sophisticated spying tools (Al Gore had not yet created the internet in 1972), old-fashioned break-ins and listening devices implanted into landline phones are stuff of legend. But the similarities between Watergate and Russiagate are growing by the day. One need only ask Hillary Clinton herself, who once briefly served on the House Judiciary Committee panel that investigated the Watergate scandal. Or better yet, ask her boss, who fired her.
Except in one way. This time, the FBI, Justice Department, and perhaps federal intelligence agencies were in on the scandal. The Russiagate allegations were fed to the FBI to generate an official investigation, an act by itself that would discredit Trump, launch a $30 million investigation led by former FBI director Robert Meuller, and eventually, a House impeachment. The Clinton campaign used - some say conspired with - our federal law enforcement and intelligent agencies for political purposes. It does make one wonder if this investigation — official or media — would even exist were Hillary Clinton President of the United States.
Apparently, only conservative-leaning media and their consumers find this of interest. Sure, congressional Republicans may pounce on the political ramifications but they don’t have a stellar track record when it comes to effectively investigating such malfeasance (former US Rep. Devin Nunes, R-CA, and House Intelligence Committee ex-counsel Kash Patel excepted). Democrats conduct only partisan investigations; they turn a blind eye and worse when their fellow travelers become suspect. At least John Durham hasn’t been shut down, not yet, anyway.
There may be good reasons (ahem, political calculations) behind Attorney General Merrick Garland’s refusal shut far to shut down Durham’s investigation, given rumors that Hillary is availing herself for another run for President in 2024, when she turns a sprightly 77 years of age. Even most Democrats don’t seem particularly enamored by that idea, and would rather she be investigated for her Russiagate role. Tangled webs are being spun everywhere, and Watergate increasingly looks like child’s play compared to Russiagate when it is all said and done.
Thus is the state of journalism, politics, and justice in America today. Where are the Bob Woodwards and Carl Bernsteins of the mainstream media today when you need them? Anyone? Bueller? And will it make any difference if and when Republicans take control of the House and/or Senate early next year?
Meanwhile, we all have to admit - especially the media - that Trump was right: he, his campaign, and his presidency were spied upon. Just like he said.
Hate to say I don’t think this will go anywhere, the Democrats seem immune to taking responsibility for any of their nefarious actions.