“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-Wash., 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 Trump’s 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 claimed there was, and Stahl said that it was her job to find it. Stahl will now correct the error, as there is at least one credible allegation. It is unlikely, and it is unlikely that other major media outlets, which have flogged the Russian collusion story with falsehoods, will admit to error. These include The Washington Post (The New York Times), CNN, MSNBC and NPR as well as many liberal websites.
They seem to have their own narrative and it is based in a visceral hatred for Trump. Consider this: Trump was being portrayed as a Russian agent or at least as 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.
Pulitzer Prizes were won by The Washington Post (The Times) and The Washington Post (The Washington Post) for basically repeating Democrat talking-points. The prizes should be returned, and newspapers should be punished by not allowing them apply for another one for at most 10 years.
Rep. Adam Schiff, D.Calif., didn’t cover himself in glory when he chaired the House panel investigating all things Trump and repeatedly accused Trump for violating laws. Don’t expect an apology from him, either.
The four FISA warrants were obtained due to allegations made by James Comey, then-FBI Director, and others. These were later proven to be false. Later, the Justice Department admitted that two warrants did not have probable cause and that information from all four warrants would be deleted.
The New York Post editorial summarised the issue:
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 wiretapped for making flimsy claims about perjury. Comey, the FBI director, entered the Oval Office and told the president there was a sexual gossip going around. He wanted it to be immediately leaked to 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 presented with this information indict higher-ups? The powerful and connected will finally be held accountable after so many people have escaped accountability in past. News consumers might have to look for their information elsewhere than the major media, as they are engaging in a similar cover-up to Nixon’s.
(C) 2022 Tribune Content Agency LLC
The Daily Signal offers a variety perspectives. This article is not meant to represent the views of The Heritage Foundation.
Do you have a comment about this article? Please email to share your thoughts. [email protected] and we’ll consider publishing your edited remarks in our regular “We Hear You” feature. Include the article’s URL or headline, as well as your name and hometown.
