Posted on 02/17/2022 5:50:09 AM PST by Kaslin
"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. Fifty years ago, these dirty tricks included a false allegation that Sen. Henry "Scoop" Jackson (D-WA.) had fathered an illegitimate child with a 17-year-old girl and the break-in at Democratic National Committee headquarters at the Watergate complex in Washington, D.C., when Nixon aides and operatives attempted to find materials the Nixon team could use against his perceived "enemies."
Dirty tricks are not to be confused with negative campaigning, which at least has some component of truth, but a filing 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 a court filing, Durham alleges the purpose behind Russian "collusion" allegations was to establish a "narrative" between then-Republican presidential candidate Trump and Russia. Trump denied it at the time and many times since, including during an interview with Lesley Stahl on "60 Minutes." Stahl said there was "no evidence" for Trump's claim. Trump said there was and that her job was to investigate and find it. Now that there is at least a credible allegation, will Stahl deliver a correction? Not likely and neither is it likely other major media, which flogged the Russian collusion story, will acknowledge error. These include The Washington Post, The New York Times, CNN, MSNBC, and NPR, as well as numerous liberal websites. They seem to have their own narrative and it is based on a visceral hatred of Donald Trump. Consider this: Donald Trump was being effectively slandered as a Russian agent, or minimally a Russian asset.
On 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.
The Times and Washington Post won Pulitzer Prizes for basically repeating Democrat talking points. The prizes should be returned and the newspapers penalized by not allowing them to apply for another one for at least 10 years.
Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA), did not cover himself in glory as he chaired a House panel investigation into all things Trump and repeatedly accused Trump of violating laws. Don't expect an apology from him, either. And then there were the four FISA warrants obtained because of allegations by then-FBI Director James Comey and others that proved to be untrue. The Justice Department later admitted that two of the warrants lacked probable cause and said information from all four warrants would not be used.
A 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 were entrapped for flimsy claims of perjury. The director of the FBI (Comey) went into the Oval Office to tell the president that there was a sexual rumor floating around, so that it could be promptly leaked to the media. '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
Will the grand jury that is being presented this information issue indictments of higher-ups? Will the powerful and connected finally be held accountable when so many have escaped accountability in the past? News consumers may have to search for their information in other places than the major media because so far they are engaging in a cover-up that resembles what Richard Nixon did.
Good to see Cal post on this topic
Stahl: It’s ‘debunked’.....Because it’s debunked................
“Will the grand jury that is being presented this information issue indictments of higher-ups?”
Sittin’ in a jail cell does wonders for communication and memories.
I had an indifferent to positive view of Henry Jackson until I found out his role in the McCarthy Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations hearings from 1954.
Jackson was on that Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations chaired by Senator Joseph McCarthy, and there was a woman named Annie Lee Moss who was being investigated as a security risk working at a secure Army Communications station.
After hearing testimony, Jackson agreed she should not be allowed to work there. But in one of the meetings afterwards, he did a 180 and said that it was a case of mistaken identity, they were talking about some other woman named Annie Lee Moss and they use her as an example of a innocent victim of McCarthy’s excesses.
It was nothing of the sort.
Annie Lee Moss was a member of the Communist Party, and was putting on a big act of how stupid and slow she was. There were only two three Annie Mosses living in that area, and investigators contacted two of them and immediately ruled them out, and neither went by “Annie Lee Moss”.
Of course, she lied through her teeth and put on the dumb and stupid frail old lady act. When she discussed it a few years later, she said she had been a paying member of the Communist party, but said she was done with all that.
Henry Jackson as a Freshman Senator was part of the Democrat portion that put their heads together and concocted the hoax of “mistaken identity” and refused to nail her.
All done to protect the Democrat Party. Just like today. The well being of the Democrat Party came far before the national security of the United States.
As far as I am concerned, he was a leftist political scumbag, regardless of his blather about being a conservative on national security issues. It was all lies and posturing.
.
p
You haven’t seen any tricks. AS 2024 draws closer.....
Interesting. I knew about Annie Lee Moss being a real commie, but I did not know about “Scoop” being a willing dupe.
That stuff really angers me.
Truman was much the same in this respect. He protected a notorious Soviet spy, Harry Dexter White, knowing full well he was a spy having been informed by multiple communications from the FBI, yet promoted him to the head of the International Monetary Fund, with a glowing letter to go along with it.
This was a spy identified in the Venona decryptions. (intercepted and decoded Soviet communications)
He did this to protect the Democrat Party from scandal, which should have been brought down on his head.
There were things I used to like about Truman, but I view him now more as a duplicitous party hack.
That is disillusioning and sad for me.
These are key questions in the search for truth. Until fully answered we can be confident that the conspiracy continues.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.