Durham for dummies

In his Sunday morning email editorial report, Wall Street Journal editorial page editor Paul Gigot writes: “For an example of media conformity in action, look at the lock-step reaction to Special Counsel John Durham’s recent court filing. Nothing to see here, so please don’t look, said the New York Times, whose line was picked up seriatim by Axios, Politico, and the rest.”

Gigot briefly provides background and poses the relevant question: “The filing says a tech executive, a private contractor named Rodney Joffe, had collected internet data from surveillance of Trump Tower and even the White House and shared it with representatives of the Hillary Clinton campaign in 2016. Mr. Joffe’s lawyers say he was apolitical and provided suspicious data appropriately to the CIA, but how did the Clinton campaign get involved?”

Gigot invites refers readers to the Journal’s “redoubtable columnist Kim Strassel to break from the press pack and explain why the filing is important.” Her excellent column is behind the Journal’s paywall, but the New York Post has published it in accessible form as “Truth about techies who targeted Trump” — and added some illustrations to boot.

Peter Van Buren’s Spectator column seems to me to pierce the fog. As they say in certain precincts, Van Buren bottom lines it: “[T]his is not a fake scandal. Durham has potentially uncovered the most destructive political assassination attempt since Kennedy.”

Notice: All comments are subject to moderation. Our comments are intended to be a forum for civil discourse bearing on the subject under discussion. Commenters who stray beyond the bounds of civility or employ what we deem gratuitous vulgarity in a comment — including, but not limited to, “s***,” “f***,” “a*******,” or one of their many variants — will be banned without further notice in the sole discretion of the site moderator.