JACQUI HEINRICH: Durham says there was an outside company with ties to the Clinton camp monitoring server data info and the Executive Office of the President through the Obama administration, possibly into the Trump administration. Do you know if there’s still a system picking up server data on the GOP and if not, when it stopped?

PSAKI: Again, I — I know you asked my colleague a few questions about this the other day. Uh, but I would point you any questions about this. The Department of Justice.

JACQUI HEINRICH: And then is what was described in the filing there — “monitoring internet traffic” — is that generally speaking with that, because considered something along the lines of spying?

PSAKI: Again, I would point to the Department of Justice.

BUCK: “I’ll point you to the Department of Justice,” Psaki Bomb tells everybody about the Durham report, which is not much of an answer here. Is monitoring internet track of a rival political candidate spying? Well, let’s ask. If this was happening in…? I don’t know. If this was happening in Honduras or in Vietnam or in Ukraine, I think the answer would be, “Yes, it is spying to do that.”

But we can’t get any answers from this White House on anything. Look, Clay and I are gonna follow the Durham report situation closely as it continues to unfold. Durham has a reputation for being a dogged, relentless, and nonpolitical — as much as one can be, everybody brings their own thoughts to this stuff — prosecutor and investigator. But remember — and, Clay, this is the key point, and we’re seeing more and more of this.

It doesn’t matter what the evidence is. It doesn’t even matter what the report finds. If the Biden DOJ does not want to bring charges against anybody up to and including Hillary Clinton herself, it doesn’t happen. So I don’t want to people getting ahead of themselves thinking, “Oh, we’re gonna lock her up.” Not while Biden’s in office, you’re not. No way.

CLAY: Here’s an easy thought experiment. You just heard what Jen Psaki said when she was asked that question — which, credit, by the way, the media member who asked that question ’cause it is a very valid thing to be asking — what do you think the response would have been if the allegations had come out the exact same way except Trump had been being accused of spying on Hillary Clinton?

Do you think that they would have said, “Oh, we’re not really gonna get into that; that’s a Justice Department question,” or do you think they would have said, “Well, this is further evidence of why the former president was a direct threat upon the sanctity of American life and democracy and why we need to investigate January 6th to such an extent,” on and on and on? Her answer would have been totally different.

BUCK: You’d have an endless parade of half-wit legal analysts on CNN talking about whether you could try a president in office for treason or something. They would be taking the dial of their hysteria to 11 on this stuff. There are no good answers they can offer up on this, ’cause for anybody who’s been paying attention to the Russia collusion lie from the very beginning, this was all a setup. It was a political hit job. It was a hoax. And it’s the biggest dirty trick that anyone’s ever seen in politics in my lifetime for sure. So, what are they gonna say? It’s kind of like the mask thing. “We were wrong, we’re idiots, sorry”? No they’re never gonna say that.

CLAY: You don’t think that’s gonna be in the State of the Union opening line from Joe Biden, “I’m sorry. I was wrong. I’m an idiot. There’s no justification.”

BUCK: That would be great. “I’ll tell you, I’m too old for the job. I’m not smart enough for the job, and I’m gonna give it to Kamala, except that’s gonna make it worse.” Think about it.

CLAY: I think there will probably be a prolonged uncomfortableness at the attempt to take his mask off and then begin reading off the teleprompter.