That muffled sound you hear is the mainstream media trying to silence the explosion that is HillaryGate.

And one of the first questions to ask: Will Hillary’s 2016 “senior policy adviser” Jake Sullivan — now President Joe Biden’s national security adviser — be prosecuted?

Note well that back there in the ice age of 2016, Hillary Clinton tweeted out this, as reported by the New York Post:

Computer scientists have apparently uncovered a covert server linking the Trump Organization to a Russian-based bank.

Right below her tweet was a retweet from Hillary for America Senior Policy Adviser Jake Sullivan, prominently displayed beneath the Clinton campaign logo. The headline on the Sullivan tweet: “Statement from Jake Sullivan on New Report Exposing Trump’s Secret Line of Communication to Russia.”

Sullivan began by falsely accusing Trump of a “direct link” to Russia. He ended by saying this:

We can only assume that federal authorities will now explore this direct connection between Trump and Russia as part of their existing probe into Russia’s meddling in our elections.

Six years later, ensconced in the Biden White House as the president’s national security adviser, Jake Sullivan is getting his wish that “federal authorities will now explore the direct connection between Trump and Russia as part of their existing probe into Russia’s meddling in our elections.”

Now comes the news that federal prosecutor John Durham, in doing just what Sullivan demanded, has discovered in the course of his investigation some facts that could easily wind up with a prosecution of … Jake Sullivan.

My colleague George Parry, a former prosecutor himself, says this of the blockbuster Durham filing:

When Donald Trump claimed that he and his campaign had been spied upon by Democrat operatives, the corporate media mocked him as either a delusional paranoid or an outright liar. But now, thanks to the latest court filing by Special Counsel John Durham, it appears that once again Trump has been proven right.

In the case of United States v. Michael Sussmann, Durham has filed a motion to inquire into defense counsel’s possible conflicts of interest in which he states that his office possesses evidence proving that, while attempting to establish a false narrative tying Trump to Russia, Sussmann and others serving Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign “exploited” Internet traffic pertaining to “Trump Tower,” “Donald Trump’s Central Park West apartment building,” and “the Executive Office of the President of the United States (‘EOP’).” (Emphasis added.)

As stated in the indictment, Sussmann, a partner at the law firm which represented the Clinton campaign, worked in concert with others to concoct a false but “plausible” narrative that the “Trump Organization, owned by Donald J. Trump” was using a “secret channel of communications” to interact with “a particular Russian bank,” i.e., the Alfa Bank.

… Durham’s motion states that, in trying to establish a tie between Trump and the Russians, Tech Executive-1 indicated that he was “seeking to please certain ‘VIPS’, referring to individuals at [Sussmann’s law firm] and the Clinton Campaign.”

Well now.

So just who were the other “certain “VIPS” in the Clinton Campaign that “Tech Executive-1” wanted to “please”? As Hillary’s own tweet of Jake Sullivan illustrates, ol’ Jake, described as the “Hillary for America Senior Policy Adviser,” was exactly a “Clinton Campaign” VIP.

Thus the old Watergate question arises: What did Jake Sullivan know and when did he know it? A question as well that, for sure, needs to be asked of Hillary Clinton herself and every other “VIP” running her 2016 campaign.

Is it any wonder that Trump quickly put out this statement on learning of the Durham filing:

What Hillary Clinton and the Radical Left Democrats did with respect to spying on a President of the United States, even while in office, is a far bigger crime than Watergate.

In a separate statement he added:

The latest pleading from Special Counsel Robert [sic] Durham 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 to Russia. This is a scandal far greater in scope and magnitude than Watergate and those who were involved in and knew about this spying operation should be subject to criminal prosecution. In a stronger period of time in our country, this crime would have been punishable by death. In addition, reparations should be paid to those in our country who have been damaged by this.

Over there at Fox, former Trump Director of National Intelligence John Ratcliffe was headlined this way: “John Ratcliffe on ‘America’s Newsroom’: Durham probe unraveling a ‘deep criminal conspiracy: Former DNI on allegations Clinton lawyers infiltrated servers at Trump Tower, White House.”

A major story for sure. But curiously? Not for CNN or the New York Times or the Washington Post and more. Which, of course, generated this Trump statement:

The fact that a story so big, so powerful, and so important for the future of the nation is getting zero coverage from lamestream [media], is being talked about all over the world.

Just like they wouldn’t talk about the many Biden corruption scandals prior to the Election, (or for that matter now!), they won’t talk about this, which is potentially even bigger. It shows how totally corrupt and shameless the media is.

Exactly.

Call this latest news what it is — HillaryGate. And as with the original Watergate — which began in June of 1972 and very slowly unraveled before finally ending with the Nixon resignation over two years later — the last of HillaryGate has decidedly not been heard.

Without doubt, America finds itself at a crossroads. A corrupt presidential campaign spying on the sitting president of the United States, with the mainstream media providing cover during the campaign — and now long after it?

As the old astronaut line used to go? Houston, we have a problem.

And some people are mystified as to why so many millions of Americans are livid with American elites?

Shocking.

Not.