Articles

Thursday, February 15, 2018

The Clinton Dossier

There were many damning revelations in the Nunes memo released by a House Intelligence Committee vote. But the most damning of them all doesn’t raise questions about process, but about motive.

The memo told us that the FISA application would not have happened without the Steele dossier. The document known as the Steele dossier was a work product of the Clinton campaign. Not only was Christopher Steele, the former British intel agent who purportedly produced the document, working for an organization hired by the Clinton campaign, but he shared a memo with the FBI from Cody Shearer, a Clinton operative, listing some of the same allegations as the ones in his dossier. That memo has raised questions about whether Steele had been doing original research or just dressing up a smear by Shearer.

A redacted memo by Senate Judiciary Committee members Chuck Grassley and Lindsey Graham also states that there was a second Steele memo based on information that Steele had received from the State Department and which had been passed along by "a friend of the Clintons." Victoria Nuland, a Clinton protégé and top State Department official who helped cover up the Benghazi attack, recently went on a media tour in which she revealed that Steele had passed along his material to State.

Shearer and Nuland are both Clinton associates. Under President Clinton, Nuland had been Strobe Talbott’s Chief of Staff. Shearer was Strobe Talbott’s brother-in-law and his connection to the Clintons.

Not only was the Steele dossier a work product of the Clinton campaign, but the State Department, which had been run by Hillary Clinton and staffed by many of her loyalists at the top, had been used to route information to Steele from the Clintons, and then route information back from Steele. Clintonworld had not only paid for the Steele dossier, but influenced its content and passed it around.

Calling it the Steele dossier is a mistake. It’s the Clinton dossier. At best, it’s the Clinton-Steele dossier.

The media’s counterattack against the Nunes memo rests on the argument that while the FISA applications didn’t mention that Steele was working for the Clinton campaign, they admitted that the dossier had a political origin. Media apologists and Never Trumpers have acted as if an admission of political origin to the FISA court is some sort of rebuttal of the Nunes memo. It obviously isn’t.

There’s a world of difference between admitting that the dossier came from a “political” source or that it came from the campaign of his greatest political opponent who was obsessed with destroying him.

The media apologists and Never Trumpers have churned out echo chamber articles claiming that courts routinely evaluate evidence from biased and tainted sources. If so, then why not tell the court?

If admitting the truth wouldn’t have made a different, then why not admit the truth?

Defenders of the investigation frequently invoke national security. But there was no intelligence need to protect the Clinton campaign. Keeping Steele anonymous might have protected a source. But keeping the Clinton campaign anonymous wasn’t a defense against the Russians, but against the Republicans.

There were only two reasons to withhold the information about the origins of the Clinton-Steele dossier.

1. Fear that the court would have viewed the Clinton origins of the dossier as disqualifying.

2. Concern about exposing the Clinton campaign’s funding of the dossier.

There’s no question that the origins of the Clinton-Steele dossier were being concealed. If they were being concealed to fool the court, then the whole process was tainted. But such things have been known to happen. The truly damning possibility here is that it wasn’t the court they were concealing it from.

Either the DOJ and FBI deliberately misled the court. Or they were colluding with the Clinton campaign.

The Nunes and Grassley/Graham memos both make it clear that Steele was playing a double game, acting as an FBI source while spreading the Clinton dossier through the media. And the FBI chose to ignore these abuses until it could no longer do so. The double game was criminal and political.

Steele was spreading the Clinton dossier through the media to taint Trump politically. But he was also working with the FBI to go after Trump with a criminal investigation. The information was withheld by the DOJ so as not to expose the fact that his paymasters were actually in the Clinton campaign.

Were the DOJ and the FBI covering up the origins of the Clinton-Steele dossier to protect the criminal investigation or the political campaign? The refusal to crack down on Steele’s media leaks (not to mention the plethora of leaks coming from within the FBI and DOJ) suggest that it was the latter or both.

Admitting a political origin on the FISA application suggests they were less worried about the court than about the public exposure of their actions. And that’s the situation that they find themselves in now.

The Clinton campaign had taken great care to conceal its ownership of the Clinton-Steele dossier. Having a law fire hire a smear firm which then hired a British former intel agent in another country indicates that the campaign was spending a lot of time and money trying to cover its tracks. It wouldn’t have needed to work so hard just to protect the distribution of opposition research to the media.

There was never any shortage of reporters eager to cooperate with Clinton officials. Would the same insider media that allowed the DNC to review articles and ask for changes have really refused to keep the origins of the Clinton-Steele dossier a secret? Even if the reporters who were briefed by Steele didn’t know that he was working for the Clinton campaign, they could have guessed it from their contacts.

Concealing the origins of the Clinton-Steele dossier wasn’t necessary for opposition research. And that means that the dossier had always been intended to serve as the basis for a criminal investigation. Even before he wrote a single word, Christopher Steele had been hired to generate a criminal investigation.

The eavesdropping and the Mueller investigation aren’t unintended outcomes, as the apologists want us to believe, that a zealous Steele triggered by passing the information to the government.

It had always been the intended outcome before Christopher Steele even officially came on board.

But because the campaign was underway, the dossier was a double game. Spreading it through the media acted as classic opposition research while routing it through the DOJ generated an investigation. And the Clinton campaign used Steele to do both. His Fusion GPS handlers ferried him from briefing reporters to briefing the FBI. And the FBI was obligated to keep his secret the way that the media did.

Short of an email hack, there’s no way to get at what a reporter knows. The Los Angeles Times still has Obama’s Khalidi tape locked up. The recent release of a photo of Obama posing with Farrakhan which had been kept locked up for over a decade, and the media’s subsequent refusal to report on it, shows just how impermeable the media’s black wall of silence is. But that’s not true of government agencies.

Government agencies have to respond to orders from the President, queries from members of Congress and even requests from the public. The investigation of the Clinton-Steele dossier was met with stonewalling at every step of the way, but it is yielding results that would be impossible in the media.

The origin of the dossier was omitted to conceal it from conservative activists and politicians.

Would telling the truth about the origins of the Clinton-Steele dossier to the FISA court have been disastrous? Let’s take the word of the media apologists and Never Trumpers who insist that the court would have shrugged. And considering the inclusion of a Yahoo News article (also allegedly generated by Steele), that’s entirely possible. The court was stacked with Obama appointees. The acts of judicial activism that defied the law to undermine Trump have gutted the credibility of the Federal judiciary.

But if the DOJ and FBI weren’t hiding the truth from the judge, they were hiding it from everyone else. They were protecting the dual media smear campaign run by Fusion GPS which was parading Steele in front of selected insider reporters. And they were protecting the public perception of the investigation. If everything had gone as planned, bias might have been suspected, but never proven.

The real question about the concealment of the origins of the Clinton-Steele dossier isn’t whether disclosing it on the FISA application would changed the outcome. That’s a serious legal question that may have a major impact on those who failed to disclose it and on the investigation even if the court response would have been the same. But the real question is, what was the motive for concealing it?

Why did the leadership in the DOJ and the FBI cover up the role of the Clinton campaign? They weren’t protecting intelligence or sources. They covered it up to protect their political allies.

The omission of the origins of the Clinton-Steele dossier is an admission of guilt. It shows that these were not the routine abuses that can occur in an investigation, but that the investigation was politically motivated. A cover-up reveals not only a crime, but the motive for which the crime was committed.

The missing information is evidence of the collusion between the DOJ and the Clintons.

14 comments:

Anonymous said...

What is the motive? High ranking officials at govt. agencies, execs. in the media and entertainment complex supporting misinformation. Propaganda is intentionally disseminated to disable American strength. With such universality of collusion can it be a coincidental collision of varied interests at work, all with unique interests that follow one direction. No matter the topic, the same characters unite in their criticism of logical conclusions. Is there one unique motivation that unites them?

Roy Lofquist said...

The thought plickens. Rudolph Contreras, the FISA judge who was removed (recused by his superiors) from the Flynn case was a Holder protege.

https://norton.house.gov/media-center/press-releases/obama-nominates-rudolph-contreras-norton-s-recommendation-for-us

Anonymous said...

33,000 emails can't be wrong. I mean, right.

Chayim Leib said...

I guess you kind of forgot to mention the entire document was a lie to begin with.

Rich Kozlovich said...

Where treason is involved - it's in for a dime in for a dolalr1

jim hays said...

How can we ignore this ? The Clinton's and their minions have skirted criminal indictments for 25+ years. The American system of laws and jurisprudence are on trial . Politics should be set aside unless one side or the other has a platform of lawlessness.

The Beer Whisperer said...

Perfectly consistent with "First we fuck Flynn, then we fuck Trump".

Who said that? Oh, yeah, the head of the FBI.

Ignatius Acton Chesterton OCD said...

“Is there one unique motivation that unites them?‘

Yes, a communist worldview — class consciousness, revolution, equality.

They learned it all in college. They believe in it. They just don’t believe it applies to them. They are better than us, more just than us, more moral than us.

Ignatius Acton Chesterton OCD said...

All motivations tie to belief systems.

Today’s Democrat Party is led by increasingly radical Progressives, convinced of their own moral magnificence.

19th-century Progressivism was a critique (operationalized under Wilson) of the U.S. Constitution’s inadequacies.

Today’s Progressives are naked Marxists, but with a neuveaux riche attitude (read: entitlement). They are the elite, as conferred by their SAT scores and elite college degrees. They are special — the rules do not apply to them. They believe themselves absolved of the human condition, because their college professors told them “the truth.” They haven’t learned anything since.

Just like their Soviet forbearers, whom they so admired... all the way back to FDR.

Always remember: We think they are wrong, while they think we are BAD PEOPLE. It is an important distinction.

Anonymous said...

I don’t see how any of this really bites the Clinton machine. Could it have been more evident that they torpedoed Sanders? No. And, given the nature of his supporters, you’d expect protests (to put it mildly). But, it (Clinton machine) skates - as always.

I think this is a case of them fading away over the next decade, or two.

Anonymous said...

Dossiers are deep state´s tools to keep POTUSes on a leash (we know what you did last summer…) in the Clinton case or by keeping the guy entangled defending himself in Pres. Trump case. Self apointed illuminati seem to run the show. Thamks to Pres. Trump deep state is in deep sh*t, pardon my French.

Empress Trudy said...

It's like the nature of the internet itself. Or more pragmatically, the failure of Nate Silver's 528 org. It's called circular reasoning and autoregression. The "Dossier" refers to 'facts' that were given to various agencies by the dossier. And then the agencies use their own self references as 'proof. Similarly, the entire Clinton election house of cards was based on 'polling' of thousands of people who all ultimately were referring to each other and who all referenced maybe one or two sources that were repeated endlessly, all pointing inward as self-proof of itself.

Rob Thomas said...

The "pantsuit pig" needs to be in prison!

gary fouse said...

Too bad Mueller never read, "Clinton Cash" by Peter Schweitzer. He would have realized he applied for the wrong job.

Post a Comment