White House, Hillary Clinton Decline to Comment on Durham Allegations
A White House spokesperson on Monday declined to comment on Special counsel John Durham’s allegations that Hillary Clinton’s 2016 campaign and the Democratic National Committee (DNC) spied on former President Donald Trump’s residences and the White House when he was in office in order to bring a “narrative” to federal government agencies linking him to Russia.
Deputy press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre was asked three times at a press briefing by Fox News correspondent Jacqui Heinrich to answer questions regarding the allegations.
But each time, the White House spokesperson referred her to the Department of Justice.
“Does the President have any concerns about a candidate for president using computer experts to infiltrate computer systems of competing candidates, or even the president-elect to—for the goal of creating a narrative?” Heinrich asked.
“That’s something I can’t speak to from this podium, so I refer you to the Department of Justice,” Jean-Pierre initially answered.
“Is what’s being described in that report—monitoring internet traffic—is that spying?” Heinrich then asked, to which Jean-Pierre responded, “Again, I can’t speak to that report. I refer you to the Department of Justice.”
Trying again to get an answer, Heinrich continued, “Generally speaking though, would monitoring Internet traffic be—” but was cut-off mid-sentence by Jean-Pierre who replied, “Jacqui, my answer is not going to change. I refer you to the Department of Justice.”
The Epoch Times has contacted The Department of Justice for comment.
Meanwhile, former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton refused to answer questions regarding the alleged spying when asked by a Daily Mail reporter on Feb. 15.
Did you pay to spy on the Trump campaign,” Hillary was asked by the reporter in New York City. “When are you going to comment on the spying allegations, Hillary?”
Clinton declined to answer both questions and continued walking while waving at the reporter.
Special counsel John Durham’s team alleged in a court filing (pdf) on Feb. 12 that a tech executive aligned with the Democratic Party spied on Trump’s residences and the White House when he was president.
Durham’s team alleged that Michael Sussmann, a lawyer who had worked on behalf of the DNC and Hillary Clinton’s 2016 campaign, had “assembled and conveyed the allegations to the FBI on behalf of at least two specific clients, including a technology executive (Tech Executive 1) at a U.S.-based internet company (Internet Company 1) and the Clinton campaign,” according to a section in the court filing, titled “Factual Background.”
Billing records he obtained reflect that Sussmann “repeatedly billed the Clinton Campaign for his work on the Russian Bank-1 allegations.”
Sussmann is currently charged with making a false statement to the FBI when he gave the agency false documents that allegedly linked the Trump Organization to a Russian bank.
He has pleaded not guilty and is scheduled to go to trial in May.
“In connection with these efforts, Tech Executive-1 exploited his access to non-public and/or proprietary Internet data,” the filing stated. “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.”
The executive also “tasked these researchers to mine Internet data to establish ‘an inference’ and ‘narrative’ tying then-candidate Trump to Russia,” the filing states, adding that the executive’s employer “had come to access and maintain dedicated servers” for Trump’s executive office.
The technology executive was not named in the filing.
Lawyers for Sussman, in response to the Durham filing, said on Feb. 14 that the motion included “prejudicial—and false—allegations that are irrelevant to his motion and to the charged offense, and are plainly intended to politicize this case, inflame media coverage, and taint the jury pool.”
They also argued that the information that Sussmann provided to federal government agencies related to the Executive Office of the President concerned the time period when Democrat Barack Obama was still president, not Trump.
Trump also issued a statement regarding the unsealed filing, stating on Feb. 12 that it “provides indisputable evidence that my campaign and presidency were spied on by operatives paid by the Hillary Clinton Campaign in an effort to develop a completely fabricated connection.”
Trump has continuously denied that he had any business interests in Russia or colluded with Russian officials during the 2016 election and asserts he is the target of a witch hunt.
Jack Phillips contributed to this report.
The New York Times and Washington Post are among the first establishment media outlets to report on the allegations against Hillary’s campaign associates, though the reporting came at least three days after the news first broke. CNN reported the court filings Tuesday morning.
MSNBC, NBC, ABC, and CBS news channels have ignored the recent revelations, according to Fox News.
The Act of 1871: The “United States” Is a Corporation – There are Two Constitutions
(POPEYE) Since the Act of 1871 which established the District of Columbia, we have been living under the UNITED STATES CORPORATION which is owned by certain international bankers and aristocracy of Europe and Britain.
In 1871 the Congress changed the name of the original Constitution by changing ONE WORD — and that was very significant as you will read.
Some people do not understand that ONE WORD or TWO WORDS difference in any “legal” document DO make the critical difference. But, Congress has known, and does know, this.
1871, February 21: Congress Passes an Act to Provide a Government for the District of Columbia, also known as the Act of 1871.
With no constitutional authority to do so, Congress creates a separate form of government for the District of Columbia, a ten mile square parcel of land (see, Acts of the Forty-first Congress,” Section 34, Session III, chapters 61 and 62).
The act — passed when the country was weakened and financially depleted in the aftermath of the Civil War — was a strategic move by foreign interests (international bankers) who were intent upon gaining a stranglehold on the coffers and neck of America.
Congress cut a deal with the international bankers (specifically Rothschilds of London) to incur a DEBT to said bankers. Because the bankers were not about to lend money to a floundering nation without serious stipulations, they devised a way to get their foot in the door of the United States.
The Act of 1871 formed a corporation called THE UNITED STATES. The corporation, OWNED by foreign interests, moved in and shoved the original Constitution into a dustbin. With the Act of 1871, the organic Constitution was defaced — in effect vandalized and sabotage — when the title was capitalized and the word “for” was changed to “of” in the title.
THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA is the constitution of the incorporated UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.
It operates in an economic capacity and has been used to fool the People into thinking it governs the Republic. It does is not!
Capitalization is NOT insignificant when one is referring to a legal document. This seemingly “minor” alteration has had a major impact on every subsequent generation of Americans.
What Congress did by passing the Act of 1871 was create an entirely new document, a constitution for the government of the District of Columbia, an INCORPORATED government. This newly altered Constitution was not intended to benefit the Republic. It benefits only the corporation of the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA and operates entirely outside the original (organic) Constitution.
Instead of having absolute and unalienable rights guaranteed under the organic Constitution, we the people now have “relative” rights or privileges. One example is the Sovereign’s right to travel, which has now been transformed (under corporate government policy) into a “privilege” that requires citizens to be licensed.
By passing the Act of 1871, Congress committed TREASON against the People who were Sovereign under the grants and decrees of the Declaration of Independence and the organic Constitution.
The Act of 1871 became the FOUNDATION of all the treason since committed by government officials.
Freedom Force Battalion TV Show
Which performers/celebs supported HRC during the 2016 election?
Katy Perry, Lady GAGA, Madonna, Beyonce, Jay Z, Amy Schumer, Miley Cyrus Julianne Moore, Elton John, Jamie Foxx, Olivia Wilde, Adele, Steven Spielberg, Drew Barrymore, Kerry Washington, Ellen Degeneres, Eva Longoria, Robert De Niro https://www.cbsnews.com/pictures/celebrities-who-support-hillary-clinton-election-2016/
Bruce Springsteen, Sigourney Weaver, Meryl Streep, Demi Lovato, Lena Dunham, Ja Rule, Kim Kardashian, Magic Johnson, Miley Cyrus, Brittney Spears, Cee Lo Green, Kanye West, Drake, Lil’Wayne, Jamie Foxx, Justin Timberlake, Justin Beiber, Rosie O Donnel, Oprah Winfrey, Snoop Dogg, Numerous Sports figures, I.e. (Shaquille O’Neal, Kobe Bryant, Lebron James, Michael Jordan, The Williams Sisters, etc), Tyler Perry, R. Kelley, All the Kardasians, Taylor Swift, Amber Rose, Martin & Charlie Sheen, Barbara Walters, Kathy Griffin, Stephen Colbert, Jimmy Kimmel, Woody Allen, Brad Pitt, Johnny Depp, Seth Mc. Farlane, Matt Groening, George Takei, Harvey Weinstein, Tom Cruise, Kevin Spacey, Wendy Williams, William Baldwin, Dr. Dre, Eminem, Bon Jovi, George Clooney, Jennifer Lopez, Pharrell Williams, Billy Joel, Sister Sledge, Jessica Biel, Demi Lovato, Amy Schumer, Sarah Silverman, Ellen DeGeneres, Elizabeth Banks, Elton John, Lady Gaga, Bryan Cranston, Kat Dennings, Angela Bassett, Drew Barrymore, Shonda Rhimes, J.J. Abrams, Eva Longoria, Scarlett Johansson, Kerry Washington, Olivia Wilde, Reese Witherspoon, Julianne Moore, Lena Dunham, Robert De Niro, Matt Damon, Cher, Madonna, John Legend, Samuel Jackson…basically all the MSM icons.Cbsnews (https://www.cbsnews.com/pictures/celebrities-who-support-hillary-clinton-election-2016/)
Celebrities who support Hillary Clinton
No industry seems to be bluer than Hollywood, and these stars are lining up to give Clinton their praise … and cash
