Category: Bill’s Wife

When The FBI Does It, That Means That It’s Not Illegal

Washington Free Beacon;

Failed presidential candidate Hillary Clinton approved a plan during the 2016 campaign to feed false allegations of Trump-Russia collusion to the media, her campaign manager said Friday.

Testifying to a federal court in the trial of Clinton campaign lawyer Michael Sussmann, Robby Mook noted that Clinton signed off on a scheme to send journalists data about possible links between Donald Trump and Russia’s Alfa Bank. The effort was successful, as a news outlet just days before the election published a story that alleged covert connections between Trump and the bank. The allegation has since been debunked, with the FBI finding there was not a nefarious link between Trump and Alfa Bank.

Mook’s testimony is the first confirmation that Clinton was involved in the decision to give the Trump-Alfa Bank story to journalists. Mook said that campaign leaders “weren’t totally confident in” the allegations and wanted to share them with reporters to investigate further. Mook said he discussed the strategy with Clinton, who okayed the plan.

Slate on Oct. 31, 2016, published a report that said a team of anonymous computer researchers had discovered that Trump’s real estate company, the Trump Organization, had a secret communications channel with Alfa Bank. Unmentioned in the story was that the computer researchers were collaborating with Sussmann and other political operatives working for the Clinton campaign.

Related testimony: How FBI bigwig aided and abetted Hillary Clinton plot

When The FBI Does It, That Means That It’s Not Illegal

Examiner;

The judge in the case of Democratic cybersecurity lawyer Michael Sussmann has agreed to review dozens of records currently withheld because of assertions of attorney-client privilege by Hillary Clinton’s 2016 presidential campaign to see if they have been improperly concealed.

The agreement is a win for special counsel John Durham in his case against Sussmann, who has been indicted on charges of concealing his clients, the Clinton campaign and tech executive Rodney Joffe, from FBI general counsel James Baker when he pushed eventually debunked claims of a secret back channel between the Trump Organization and Russia’s Alfa Bank.

Judge Christopher Cooper said Wednesday he would grant the government’s motion, arguing he did not believe it was breaking attorney-client privilege for him to review the records in dispute in an “in camera” setting, away from the public and the press.

British ex-spy Christopher Steele created a dossier on then-candidate Donald Trump after being hired by the opposition research firm Fusion GPS, which was itself hired by the Perkins Coie law firm and Marc Elias, the general counsel for Clinton’s campaign. […]

The Clinton campaign’s filing last week included a declaration from Elias, who claimed, “Fusion’s role was to provide consulting services” that Perkins was giving related to defamation and libel laws.

Fusion co-founders Glenn Simpson and Peter Fritsch wrote in their 2019 book that they met with Elias in April 2016.

Fritsch told Elias, “We think you guys will really want to pay attention to the Russia angle.”

“This angle was all new to Elias, and he loved it,” Fusion said.

The judge quoted from an email by Fritsch to a reporter in October 2016 in which the Fusion co-founder said to “do the f***ing Alfa bank secret comms story.”

The judge said: “How is that assisting Mr. Elias providing legal advice? … That is assisting a media strategy.”

The judge said he was “not convinced” that the Clinton campaign should just have a blanket assertion of privilege.

When The FBI Does It, That Means That It’s Not Illegal

On Monday night, special counsel John Durham released what could be the smoking gun in the case against Hillary Clinton lawyer Michael Sussmann in his investigation of Russiagate. According to newly published documents, Sussman, who was indicted last September for concealing his clients, messaged the FBI general counsel on Sept. 18, 2016, and said unambiguously that he was not working for any client while he was, in fact, working for Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign. […]

Sussmann was charged with lying to the FBI for his false claim that he wasn’t working on behalf of a client when he delivered the bogus Trump dirt to federal agents. Sussmann claimed that Trump had a secret communications channel with the Kremlin. FBI agents found no evidence that such a channel existed. Sussmann’s lawyers have been trying to get the case against him dismissed but likely won’t have any luck since tangible evidence of Sussmann’s lie has now been produced.

Plenty more here.

When The FBI Does It, That Means That It’s Not Illegal

Well, this’ll teach them.

The Federal Election Commission has fined the Democratic National Committee and Hillary Clinton’s 2016 campaign for lying about the funding of the infamous, and discredited, Russian “dossier” used in a smear attempt against Donald Trump weeks before he shocked the world with his 2016 presidential victory.

The election agency said that Clinton and the DNC violated strict rules on describing expenditures of payments funneled to the opposition research firm Fusion GPS through their law firm.

Ukraine’s Deadly Gamble

After all, Putin’s reputation until this moment has always been as a shrewd ex-KGB man who eschewed high-risk gambles in favor of sure things …

That Ukraine has allowed itself to be used as a pawn against a powerful neighbor is in part the fault of Kyiv’s reckless and corrupt political class. But Ukraine is not a superpower that owes allies and client-states judicious leadership—that’s the role of the United States. And in that role, the United States has failed Ukraine. More broadly, the use of Ukraine as a goad against enemies domestic and foreign has recklessly damaged the failing yet necessary European security architecture that America spent 75 years building and maintaining.

Why can’t the American security establishment shoulder responsibility for its role in the tragedy unfolding in Ukraine? Because to discuss American responsibility openly would mean exposing the national security establishment’s role in two separate, destructive coups: the first, in 2014, targeting the government of Ukraine, and the second, starting two years later, the government of the United States.

In the last year there have been two attempted “pro-democracy” inter-elite coups in pro-Kremlin states on Russian borders: Belarus and Kazakhstan. Both of those so-called “color revolutions” failed, but Ukraine represents a much more pressing concern, especially given the country’s push for NATO membership, which Biden officials like Secretary of State Antony Blinken publicly encouraged last year with no intention or possibility of actually making it possible. Yet rather than compelling the United States to rethink the wisdom of planting the NATO flag on Russia’s border, Putin’s escalating rhetoric—and troop movements—only made the Biden team dig in deeper.

This is a game that Biden and key figures in his administration have been playing for a long time, beginning with the 2013-14 Obama administration-backed coup that toppled a Russia-friendly government in Kyiv. This was the so-called Maidan Revolution, a sequel of sorts to the George W. Bush-backed Orange Revolution of 2004-05. Much of that same Obama foreign policy team—Blinken, Jake Sullivan, Victoria Nuland, Susan Rice, and others—is now back in the White House and State Department working in senior posts for a president who personally ran Obama’s Ukraine policy.

What did all these figures have in mind for Ukraine? The White House and U.S. foreign policy experts from both parties are united in claiming that Ukraine is a U.S. ally, a democracy, and a beacon of freedom, which are no doubt fine words to hear when you have been left to fight Vladimir Putin on your own. But to understand what Ukraine truly is, we must start where all geopolitics begins: by looking at a map.

Grab a coffee. This is a good one.

When The FBI Does It, That Means That It’s Not Illegal

The Durham Probe Has ‘Accelerated’

Many have expressed frustration with the lack of developments from Durham’s investigation. “Where’s Durham?” Trump asked in a statement released last March. “Is he a living, breathing human being? Will there ever be a Durham report?”

But the lack of developments prior to Friday was not for a lack of progress.

According to the Fox News sources, John Durham, unlike Robert Mueller, has run his investigation “very professionally,” the investigation’s activities are rarely leaked, and more witnesses are “cooperating” and testifying before the federal grand jury than have previously been reported.

Roger Simon (via Instapundit) – [It] was all instigated by people close to Hillary Clinton or, quite possibly, by Hillary herself. We don’t know yet. One of those involved we do know was Jake Sullivan, currently our national security adviser, charged with overseeing the conflict on the Ukraine–Russia border. Think about that. What a disgrace to our country that is. If you and I know about it, every nation in the world knows it.

Bill’s Wife

There’s nothing that Trump would relish more than beating her twice;

Bad approval ratings, two-dozen Democratic retirements, and nothing to run on is a recipe for a wipeout year. So, how can Democrats turn things around? Pass a compromised spending bill that can get bipartisan support, clamp down on criminal illegal aliens, get saner about COVID? Nope. They’re looking to …Hillary Clinton for salvation in 2024

Deathstyles Of The Rich And Famous

Loose ends, tied in a bow;

U.S. prosecutors decided to end their criminal case against two Manhattan jail guards who admitted to falsifying records on the night the financier Jeffrey Epstein killed himself on their watch.

In a Thursday filing in Manhattan federal court, prosecutors asked a judge to dismiss claims against Tova Noel and Michael Thomas, after both complied with the six-month deferred prosecution agreements they agreed to in May.

“Here Comes The Limited Hangout”

Since Watergate, conventional Washington wisdom holds that the cover-up is worse than the crime. Richard Nixon’s Committee to Re-Elect the President (CREEP) tasked former intelligence operatives to break into Democratic National Committee headquarters to wiretap the opposition. To cover up his involvement in the Watergate break-in, Nixon lied about what he knew and when he knew it, resulting in his resignation from office.

Whether Hillary Clinton was aware of the crimes committed between 2016 and 2020 to further her political ambitions is a question that may never be answered. What has been proved beyond any shadow of doubt by the U.S. Justice Department over the past few months is that top operatives in her 2016 campaign used concocted falsehoods to leverage active law enforcement officials who in turn used U.S. government programs and resources to spy on the Trump campaign — a violation of American political norms whose only real parallel is Watergate. We also know that under the pretext of “investigating collusion,” at least 40 Obama officials, including then-Vice President Joe Biden, spied on the Trump team. There is circumstantial evidence that Barack Obama knew what was going on, but since, miraculously, no one has ever publicly asked him about Russiagate, not even once, he hasn’t had the opportunity to either lie or come clean.

But with Trump now safely out of office, it appears that the cover-up is now cracking wide open. […]

Now the media is scrambling to distance itself from the dossier, with the New York Times “explaining” that just because the prestige press poisoned the public sphere with Clinton-funded smears doesn’t mean that the larger Russiagate story they peddled is also fake. That is, the press has taken another page from the Watergate playbook. As that scandal started to unfold, Nixon’s White House aides discussed strategies to deal with the looming disaster. They talked about a standard spy service ploy called a “limited hangout.” When it’s no longer possible to sustain a phony cover story, dangle some partial truths in public and acknowledge some small, albeit honest, miscues in order to keep the most damning parts of the truth under wraps. Just as this strategy failed to protect Richard Nixon and his men, chances are it won’t help culpable reporters and news organizations avoid responsibility for their active role in the country’s biggest political crime of the past half-century. But it does show quite plainly what the American press has become.

Grab a coffee. It’s first rate.

When The FBI Does It, That Means That It’s Not Illegal.

Victoria Taft, PJ Media;

The special counsel tasked with chasing down the origins of the Russia collusion conspiracy perpetrated against candidate and President Donald Trump reportedly has issued more criminal indictments in federal court. […]

Techno Fog has been connecting dots between this additional reported indictment and the reporting from the New York Times alleging that “Tech Executive-1” is Rodney Joffe, who’s also a Perkins Coie client. Joffe tried to frame Trump with DNS data he allegedly lifted from the Defense Department.

Ready to get into the weeds a bit?

Good.

Reporter Chuck Ross of the Washington Free Beacon opined on Twitter that these new additional indictments, which are still under wraps, could explain why another Democrat attorney, Marc Elias, quit Perkins Coie right before Sussman’s indictment prompted his ouster from the same law firm.

Elias is the Clinton lawyer who hired Fusion GPS, which then hired former MI6 spy Christopher Steele, to create “evidence” of the Russia collusion scandal “dossier” and shop it to reporters and intelligence operatives.

Some believe the plan to smear Trump with the fake Russia scandal was hatched to distract from the Hillary Clinton email and server scandal, which was huge in the months leading to the election. Clinton deleted thousands of emails against the House Select Committee on Benghazi’s legal order to preserve them. Clinton destroyed the emails and used a service to “bleach bit” her computers and server.

And don’t forget the alleged DNC server “hack,” which also fueled the Russia collusion story line. Former Perkins Coie attorney Sussmann was also the attorney for the company CrowdStrike, which was brought in by Sussmann to check the DNC servers. The same day the company was hired to look at the DNC servers, CrowdStrike proclaimed the Russians were responsible. The FBI, which was never allowed to look at the computers at the DNC, took their word for it.

At Substack, Techno Fog provides some additional background on what surely looks like a conspiracy.

When The FBI Does It, That Means That It’s Not Illegal

Never-Trumper Ed Morrissey, via Instapundit;

Over the weekend, I spoke with a senior Trump administration official with access to intelligence regarding the significance of the Sussmann indictment. He pointed to House Intelligence Committee transcripts declassified in a fight between the White House and Adam Schiff last year. Pay attention to those transcripts, the former official advised, because those made it clear that the FBI knew the Alfa Bank theory was nonsense — but used it to push forward nonetheless on the Russia-collusion theory. That was one reason Schiff tried to stop declassification of the transcripts, and those are the reason that Durham could get the grand jury indictment on Sussmann at all. Some of the agents that worked with Sussmann remain in the bureau, he also said, and that will go to McCarthy’s larger point about the “deep state” and the effort to push Trump out of office. There may also be a broader scope involving former officials in the Obama administration regarding politicization of intelligence, a few of whom have returned in the Biden administration — notably in the State Department. Stay tuned.

Clearly, more is happening than a mop-up for Durham.

More: Jonathan Turley thinks one person in the White House should be very, very worried.

Another good summary by Glenn Greenwald here.

The lie that Sussman allegedly told the FBI occurred in the context of his mid-2016 attempt to spread a completely fictitious story: that there was a “secret server” discovered by unnamed internet experts that allowed the Trump organization to communicate with Russia-based Alfa Bank. In the context of the 2016 election, in which the Clinton campaign had elevated Trump’s alleged ties to the Kremlin to center stage, this secret communication channel was peddled by Sussman — both to the FBI and to Clinton-friendly journalists — as smoking-gun proof of nefarious activities between Trump and the Russians. Less than two months prior to the 2016 election, Sussman secured a meeting at the FBI’s headquarters with the Bureau’s top lawyer, James Baker, and provided him data which he claimed proved this communication channel.

It was in the course of trying to lure the FBI into investigating this scam conspiracy theory when Sussman allegedly lied to Baker, by concealing the fact — outright denying — that he was peddling the story in his role as lawyer for the Hillary Clinton campaign as well as a lawyer for a “tech executive” hoping to be appointed as the top cybersecurity official in the soon-to-be-inaugurated Clinton administration. Sussman’s claims that he was just acting as a concerned private citizen were negated by numerous documents obtained by Durham’s investigation, including billing records where he charged the Clinton campaign for his work in trying to disseminate this story, including his meeting with Baker at FBI’s headquarters.

Related: The FBI’s Incurable Rot

When The FBI Does It, That Means That It’s Not Illegal

Jonathan Turley, for The Hill;

The 26-page indictment of former cybersecurity attorney and Hillary Clinton campaign lawyer Michael Sussmann by special counsel John Durham is as detailed as it is damning on the alleged effort to push a false Russia collusion claim before the 2016 presidential campaign. One line, however, seems to reverberate for those of us who have followed this scandal for years now: “You do realize that we will have to expose every trick we have in our bag.”

That warning from an unnamed “university researcher” captures the most fascinating aspect of the indictment in describing a type of Nixonian dirty tricks operation run by — or at least billed to — the Clinton campaign. With Nixon, his personal attorney and the Committee to Re-Elect the President (CREEP) paid for operatives to engage in disruptive and ultimately criminal conduct targeting his opponents. With Clinton, the indictment and prior disclosures suggest that Clinton campaign lawyers at the law firm of Perkins Coie helped organize an effort to spread Russia collusion stories and trigger an investigation.

Durham accuses Sussmann of lying to the general counsel of the FBI in September 2016 when Sussmann delivered documents and data to the FBI supposedly supporting a claim that Russia’s Alpha Bank was used as a direct conduit between former President Trump’s campaign and the Kremlin. According to Durham, Sussman told the FBI general counsel that he was not delivering the information on behalf of any client. The indictment not only details multiple billings to the Clinton campaign as the data was collected and the documents created; it claims Sussman billed the campaign for the actual meeting with the FBI. At the time, Perkins Coie attorney Marc Elias was general counsel for the Clinton campaign. Both men have since left the firm.

The big trick in 2016 was the general effort to create a Russia collusion scandal with the help of Justice Department insiders and an eager, enabling media.

It was only last October, for instance, that we learned that then-President Obama was briefed by his CIA director, John Brennan, on an intelligence report that Clinton planned to tie then-candidate Trump to Russia as “a means of distracting the public from her use of a private email server.” That was on July 28, 2016 — three days before the Russia investigation was initiated.

On a local note, I’ve heard nothing about this indictment on Rawlco news-talk radio, despite their moment-by-moment coverage of the Russian collusion hoax at the time. But maybe they haven’t heard.

Help them out by emailing the story to their alleged news department here. Click early, click often.

Navigation