NYT no-news story: Durham asked for info on Clinton Foundation probe

0
201

Some aspects of U.S. Attorney John Huber’s investigation into the Clinton Foundation have been taken over by U.S. Attorney John Durham as part of his review into the origins of the Russia probe, according to Fox News.

The unreliable NY Times is unhappy with the Attorney General, the U.S. attorney John Durham, and the entire second look at the Russia-Trump collusion fiasco. They claim Mr. Durham “has sought documents and interviews about how federal law enforcement officials handled an investigation around the same time into allegations of political corruption at the Clinton Foundation, according to people familiar with the matter.”

The Times concludes that Durham’s team might be comparing the Clinton Foundation probe and the Russia-Trump collusion [hoax] probe.

Additionally, the newspaper thinks the probe is very broad, broader than they originally thought given the fact that the two probes are very different. The Clinton probe is about bribery and corruption while the other concerns a presidential campaign and a foreign adversary interfering in the election.

The Times then noted that Democrats and some anonymous people in the Justice Department are concerned the probe is weaponized.

That’s funny given the fact that Democrats and their friends in the media are the ones who weaponized the probes to begin with.

The newspaper also claims that Durham’s “top aide abruptly resigned, reportedly over concerns that the team’s findings would be prematurely released before the election in November.”

Another claim by the outlet is that some law enforcement refused to respond to Durham’s inquiries because the nature of the probe is so unusual.

Yeah, sure. They should say some Democrat law enforcement refused to respond.

The Clinton Foundation issued a statement:

“The Clinton Foundation has regularly been subjected to baseless, politically motivated allegations, and time after time these allegations have been proven false,” the foundation said in a statement.

No one’s really bothered to investigate them so how will we ever know. The Times says there wasn’t much of a probe because the evidence was too weak.

That is laughable given the fact that they proceeded with the probe of Trump’s campaign on no evidence.

The Grey Lady then went into an attack on the Republicans for questioning the Mueller probe. They also criticized the idea of a double standard. Then they knocked Bill Barr. The authors mocked the probe since only one person has been indicted — Kevin Clinesmith. They concluded by dismissing the idea of a quid pro quo in the Uranium One case. There was more, all negative towards the Republican point of view, including a crack about a Trump comment.

The word ‘biased’ barely covers what the NY Times is feeding us these days.


PowerInbox
0 0 votes
Article Rating
Subscribe
Notify of
guest

0 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments