Whenever there is even any hint of a scandal in Washington, politicians and pundits alike spout the clichéd phase that it is "bigger than Watergate" and add the suffix "-gate" to the subject of the scandal.  This has been happening for over 45 years.  The phrase has been so overused that the proponent sounds like the boy who cried "wolf!"

Beyond wordsmithing and perception-pushing, the reference to Watergate is the deep liberal yearning to repeat their feat of forcing a Republican president out of office.

The key components of the Watergate scandal included a failed attempt at spying on political opponents and an eventual cover-up attempt.

Finally, after all these years, there may finally be a scandal that is really bigger than Watergate.

Last Friday, Special Counsel John Durham filed a motion in D.C. federal court alleging that Hillary Clinton's political allies had paid a contractor to spy on both the Trump campaign and the Trump presidency.  The goal was to dig up information to push the narrative of Trump-Russia collusion.

Why is this bigger than Watergate?

Because the targets were not just political opponents, but also the U.S. president.  Also, unlike Watergate, spying most likely did occur. 

Based on this, there are a few valid concerns.

Top-secret information is frequently accessed in the White House.  If agents hired by Hillary's campaign could monitor that top-secret information, the implications are very serious. 

Perhaps their intentions were not just to spy on Trump, but alter information to make it appear that Trump was colluding with Russia?

If they went this far to do it online, what did they do in the real world?  Perhaps they had spies and saboteurs planted within Trump's White House?

Did any intelligence agencies know of these acts of snooping?

If communication lines in the White House are not secure, what hope do regular people have?

This implicates Jake Sullivan, who is part of the Biden administration.  Sullivan should be compelled to step aside until the investigation is complete. 

The fact that, despite their intents, they found nothing proves that Trump is probably among the cleanest of politicians.

Unsurprisingly, the media have remained mum on the matter.

Are you surprised? pic.twitter.com/QCEqJxDG8U

— RNC Research (@RNCResearch) February 15, 2022

Just to put this into perspective, the Media Research Center found that from Jan. 20, 2017 through July 20, 2019, the evening newscasts at ABC, CBS, and NBC alone devoted an astounding 2,634 minutes to pushing the Trump-Russia narrative.  That number has to be considerably higher since the media still pushes that narrative.

Every article or claim was replete with statements that began with "our sources tell us" or "unconfirmed reports suggest."  When they made up a preposterous allegation, they used it as a provocative headline, merely adding a question mark to protect themselves.  Hence, we had headlines such as "The unanswered question of our time: Is Trump an agent of Russia?"  At times, they didn't even bother with the question mark and had headlines such as  "An Ex-KGB Agent Says Trump Was a Russian Asset Since 1987."

Several other smaller outlets would cite the article and write pieces of their own with further embellishments.  The TV media used these articles to conduct panel discussions.  All that emanated from tertiary articles and discussions fed the next cycle of news. 

This is probably the first focused and large-scale disinformation campaign by the media in modern times. 

The ecosystem is so corrupt and self-serving that the New York Times and the Washington Post won Pulitzer Prizes for their vicious lies.

These baseless allegations were legitimized following the appointment of Special Counsel Robert Mueller.  After more than two years and a cloud of doubt over the Trump administration, when Mueller found nothing, he didn't exonerate Trump; he just claimed he hadn't found evidence to prove guilt, which caused the media to proceed with their baseless speculations.

The media by their definition are a mere carrier of news.  Over the decades, the media have abandoned that role and have become willing Democrat propagandists.  However, during the Trump era, they were blatant about being partisans.  In their self-righteous minds, they had rationalized that Trump didn't deserve to be treated fairly like other presidents.  They frequently referred to the Democrats as "we."

This relentless campaign was the first step toward the rigging of the 2020 elections.

The bombshell revelations from the Durham investigation were largely ignored by most of the mainstream media.

When compelled to cover the story, they always begin with a disclaimer that it is a "right-wing" conspiracy theory, or that the "right-wing" media were occupied with covering it.

Breitbart tracked the media coverage and reported the following:

The New York Times headlined its story, "Court Filing Started a Furor in Right-Wing Outlets, but Their Narrative Is Off Track" and claimed the "alarmist" narrative highlights "the challenge for journalists in deciding what merits coverage."

The Post published an "analysis" that claimed there was no evidence "Trump Tower was 'wiretapped.'"  The article didn't state links between Hillary's campaign and her associates who allegedly spied on Trump.

CNN merely reported the court filings.

MSNBC, NBC, ABC, and CBS news channels have now ignored the recent revelations, according to Fox News.

So what happens in the unlikely situation that Durham delivers indictments that go right to the top?

It will be called a right-wing coup to enable Trump to become president.  They will call it a conspiracy to undermine the Jan. 6 investigations.  Finally, Durham will be personally attacked as a racist and Putin stooge.  The cacophony will continue.

Apart from the partisanship, the real reason that this story isn't being covered is that the media were culpable in driving the Trump-Russia collusion narrative. 

If they were to write op-eds or conduct discussions on this story, all fingers would, at some juncture, point at them for their fabrications. 

It helps that they have built a robust, almost self-sustaining ecosystem that some have called the Washington Democrat Media Complex.  Proponents of this unholy alliance also include Big Tech, showbiz, corporate houses (sponsors), NGOs, and the woke mob who have been brainwashed by decades of propaganda.

These are ardent subscribers of the groupthink and tune in every day to have their daily dose of hate.  They have a monopoly on the mainstream media, and like tyrants, they suffer from an illusion of their permanence.

President Trump was right when he said the mendacious media are the enemy of the people.  It is the media that drive the divide across the U.S. with their disinformation campaigns and amplifying and censoring news stories to push their narrative.

The good news is that the public is waking up, and the audiences are rapidly dwindling.

Image: Pixabay, Pixabay License.