Hillary Clinton Fails Spectacularly to Debunk Story About Spying on Trump
Court documents filed in special counsel John Durham’s investigation connected Clinton campaign lawyers with a technology executive at the center of the investigation, potentially supporting some of the claims former President Donald Trump has been making for years.
The executive in question, identified by Fox News as Rodney Joffe, allegedly “exploited his access to non-public and/or proprietary Internet data” out of a desire to “please certain ‘VIPs'” in the Clinton campaign and one of its law firms, according to the court filing.
Former first lady Hillary Clinton would be understandably desperate to deflect such allegations.
After days of ignoring the reports on her Twitter feed, Clinton finally located an unlikely and unconvincing defender: the pop culture magazine Vanity Fair.
Seriously. Vanity Fair. As if that meant the case were closed.
Trump & Fox are desperately spinning up a fake scandal to distract from his real ones. So it's a day that ends in Y.
The more his misdeeds are exposed, the more they lie.
For those interested in reality, here's a good debunking of their latest nonsense.https://t.co/iYY8Uxuogx
— Hillary Clinton (@HillaryClinton) February 16, 2022
Nothing more to see here! It’s a lie, because … well, she says so. You know. Reasons.
To lend more intensity to her assertions, in the tweet Clinton lumped Trump together with Fox News, another bogeyman for progressives.
The so-called Trump misdeeds Clinton referred to are probably on-going persecutions by the Jan.6 committee and New York state district attorney Letitia James. So far these partisans have produced smears and innuendos, but nothing in the way of evidence of real crimes.
Nonetheless, Clinton claimed that Trump was trying to escape his own scandals by inventing ones for her. Projection, much?
The Vanity Fair article “You’ll Never Believe It but Hillary Clinton Did Not, in Fact, Spy On Trump’s White House” is subtitled “In Less Breaking News, Donald Trump Remains a Moron.” Ah, that unbiased establishment press.
Ironically, the setup of the article described the accusations of spying as earth shattering, if they were true. Such an acknowledgment may come back to haunt Vanity Fair as Durham’s work continues.
As reported by the New York Post, the establishment media’s message continues to be that this action by Durham is unimportant. Away from social media, however, Democrats seemed less confident.
White House press secretary Jen Psaki did not answer questions about Durham and referred inquiries to the Department of Justice.
Clinton herself refused to engage with reporters when she was spotted on the streets of New York. The U.K.’s Daily Mail shouted questions, but were met with a blank stare and an awkward wave from a masked Clinton. (Note that it took reporters from outside the American establishment media to pursue this story.)
The special counsel’s developing case suggested Clinton could be at the center of a vast criminal enterprise. Polls showed even a majority of Democrats wanted Clinton investigated for Russiagate.
Clinton may choose never to believe it, but if she did, in fact, spy on Trump’s White House, she remains accountable.
Vanity is not fair. It demands preferential treatment — like Clinton received during her entire political career.
What is fair is justice. And the latest revelations from Durham suggest it may be coming.
CORRECTION, Feb. 21, 2021: As originally written, this commentary stated that Hillary Clinton was alleged to have paid “spies” to obtain data from Donald Trump or his associates. In fact, a motion filed by the special counsel’s office in United States of America v. Michael A. Sussmann does not make such a connection. We have therefore updated the first sentence of this commentary to more accurately convey the nature of the connection between Clinton and Joffe and added a second sentence with more clarifying information and a link to the motion itself.
Truth and Accuracy
We are committed to truth and accuracy in all of our journalism. Read our editorial standards.