she talks weird
https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2022/02/donald-trump-hillary-clinton-white-house-spying
You’ll Never Believe It but Hillary Clinton Did Not, in Fact, Spy On Trump’s White House
Imagine, if you will, that a special counsel appointed by the federal government declared in a court filing that he had evidence that a major political figure—let’s call her Hillary Clinton—had paid spies to infiltrate the White House and run surveillance on Donald Trump in order to frame him as a foreign asset. The whole thing would be a big flipping deal! One for which there would be major, major consequences and far-reaching fallout. The country, nay, the world would be gripped by the story, and for good reason—a former candidate for office spying on the president? In the White House? That would be crazy! And you’re right—it would be crazy if something like that had actually happened. Which it didn’t, though unfortunately for reason, logic, and the concept of the truth, Donald Trump, Fox News, and various other deranged conservatives cannot be convinced of that.
Yes, as you’ve probably heard, on Saturday the former president released a statement claiming “Special Counsel Robert Durham”—he meant to say “John Durham” but was apparently too angry to keep his Johns and his Roberts straight—had uncovered “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 to Russia,” a “scandal far greater in scope and magnitude than Watergate” for which Trump suggested those involved should be executed but would settle for criminal prosecution. The problem? Neither Robert Durham nor John Durham nor anyone else for that matter had actually provided evidence of any such crime, let alone even suggested it.
https://www.nytimes.com/2022/02/14/us/politics/durham-sussmann-trump-russia.html
Court Filing Started a Furor in Right-Wing Outlets, but Their Narrative Is Off Track
The latest alarmist claims about spying on Trump appeared to be flawed, but the explanation is byzantine — underlining the challenge for journalists in deciding what merits coverage.
In the spring of 1775, the Colonial Governor of Massachusetts was determined to disarm the rebellious citizens and arrest their leaders. Prior to April 19, 1775, Thomas Gage had sent his troops out twice to seize arms and arrest patriots. Both of the previous ventures had failed thanks to good intelligence, spying, on the part of the colonial citizens.
On the night of April 18, 1775, Gage ordered his officers to muster their men and secretly move them to Concord to seize or destroy any and all arms and “military stores” and to arrest Samuel Adams and John Hancock. As you should have learned in school, the British Regular troops, Redcoats, encountered the local Massachusetts Militia mustered on Lexington green led by Captain John Parker. Regardless of who it was that fired the first, the Regular troops rushed the “damned, rebels” and fired into them. Eight American patriots died in Lexington.
Rather than cower and flee from what was, at the time, the most powerful army on Earth, the Massachusetts Militia send out the alarm and rallied meeting the Redcoats again on the North Bridge in Concord. This time, when the Regular forces fired on the advancing militia, those men fired back and charged ahead. During the initial melee, 3 British soldiers were killed and 9 wounded. It was only around 8 a.m. The Massachusetts Militia engaged the strongest army on Earth as they retreated back to Boston all day long. In the end, the American patriots suffered 49 dead and 39 wounded. The British Regulars lost 73 killed, 174 wounded, and over 50 men captured. The all volunteer force of the Massachusetts Militia were pipe hitters.
panic everywhere
>panic everywhere
This is actually soap opera calibre, she's crying.