Monday, November 2, 2020

Tying Up Loose Russia Hoax Ends?

Lately, the last week or so, it has almost seemed as if the Russia Hoax could disappear from public view, what with all the election related news and--especially--the mind boggling revelations of the Biden Inc. scandal. Nevertheless, I remain confident that the Russia Hoax will come back to take center stage. In fact, some of the latest revelations suggest that Durham may be wrapping the case up, tying up some loose ends in preparation for indictments.

For example, we heard for months about Durham's focus on the Intelligence Community Assessment (ICA), the "assessment" that came out in early January, 2017, that set the stage for the continuation of the Russia Hoax and the justification for the Mueller Witchhunt. We've heard repeatedly that veteran CIA analysts believed that there was good reason to question the "assessment" that Putin was backing Trump over Hillary Clinton. And yet, we were told, CIA Director John Brennan ignored his own analysts to and combined with disgraced former FBI Director James Comey to frame a narrative that dominated much of President Trump's first term.

In an article yesterday that was co-authored by John Solomon and Lee Smith--two investigative journalists who have been on this case from the beginning--we learn interesting new information that sheds light on the origins of the entire Russia Hoax narrative. It also explains the reservations that the CIA analysts expressed. Perhaps most importantly, the new documentation shows that Mueller hid this information from public view, by excluding important documents in his possession from his enormous final dossier. Not to put too fine a point on it, it's evidence that Mueller perpetrated a fraud by hiding this evidence:

Mueller gathered evidence suggesting DNC, Clinton camp manufactured Russia collusion story

Memos show Clinton-DNC effort to tie Trump to Russia began as early as May 2016 in Ukraine, but Mueller didn't include in final report.

Special Counsel Robert Mueller's office gathered evidence suggesting that Hillary Clinton's campaign and the Democratic National Committee launched a political "smear job" in spring 2016 tying Donald Trump to Russia collusion through the lobbying work of his campaign chairman Paul Manafort in Ukraine, according to memos that were excluded from the prosecutor's final report.

The evidence, reviewed by Just the News, includes information obtained by State Department officials from a trusted Ukrainian source, a private investigator's report, and an email exchange suggesting Tony Podesta — a Manafort business associate and brother of Clinton campaign chairman John Podesta — tried at one point to slow down the opposition research project.

The evidence — which is additional to records showing the law firm for the Clinton campaign and the DNC funded the infamous "Steele dossier" given to the FBI — was never mentioned in last year's vast, two-volume Mueller Report, which concluded that no Americans colluded with Russia to influence the 2016 election.

The newly surfaced evidence bolsters separate intelligence reporting that Director of National Intelligence John Ratcliffe made public recently showing the Obama CIA also believed Clinton's campaign had launched a political dirty trick to "vilify" Trump on Russia in an effort to distract from her own controversies.

Recall that Paul Manafort joined the Trump campaign in March, 2016. Prior to that, Manafort had spent years as a political consultant for Ukrainian politicians, especially Viktor Yanukovych. In his Ukrainian work Manafort was associated with Rick Gates (who later pled guilty and cooperated against Manafort) as well as Tony Podesta--a high powered Dem lobbyist and brother of ueber-Clintonista John Podesta.

According to the source who provided this information to Solomon and Smith, Rick Gates became aware, as early as May, 2016, that the Clinton campaign was planning a "smear" of Trump using Manafort's Ukrainian ties. The smear would link Trump through Manafort to Vladimir Putin, and this smear would launched by the Clinton campaign's "ethnic outreach" group. What Gates learned was that the head of ethnic outreach was a female of Ukrainian origin. In other words, it was Alexandra Chalupa, a key player in both the Russia Hoax and also in the fake impeachment.

Gates, having learned of the planned smear, immediately reached out to Tony Podesta to try to stop it. That led to this exchange:

From: Rick Gates <>

Date: May 23, 2016 at 23:34:59 EDT

To: Tony Podesta <>

Subject: Re: DNC and Paul Manafort

Thank you. I will ring you in the morning. Think you might be in Europe. Or you just are no sleeping.

On May 23, 2016, at 2:39 AM, Tony Podesta <> wrote:

Think I slowed this down

Sent from my iPhone

On May 17, 2016, at 9:09 PM, Rick Gates <> wrote:

You will love this one…the American Polish Advisory Council.

On May 17, 2016, at 3:06 PM, Tony Podesta <> wrote:

What's APAC

Sent from my iPhone

On May 17, 2016, at 12:27 PM, Rick Gates <> wrote:


Thanks for your help. See the information below. I am not sure who the person in charge of “ethnic outreach” for the DNC is but seems like it that is the point person. Let me know what you can do.

Last Friday APAC had a meeting at DNC organized by their ethnic outreach office, presenting Democratic Party strategies for presidential elections. One of the subjects was a smear campaign against Paul Manafort, which will be launched in a couple of days. The head of the ethnic outreach is of Ukrainian descent and has connections in Ukraine. She was able to produce documents linking Manafort to Moscow during his time as adviser to Victor Yanukowych, ousted former Ukrainian president. They will try to link Donald Trump to Putin through Manafort's engagement and money trail of over billion dollars. This was a formal presentation on the part of DNC - I am trying to obtain an audio tape from the meeting.

I just wanted to share this with you to make you aware before they start.

Podesta may have thought he slowed the smear down, but interestingly it seems that the concept was picked up by Glenn Simpson's oppo research shop for the Clinton campaign at Fusion GPS. It was incorporated into Chris Steele's famous "dossier" reports. Thus, we read in Steele's report 2016/95 what amounts to the Russia Hoax in a conceptual nutshell, as later propagated by the ICA:

- Suggestion from source close to TRUMP and MANAFORT that Republican

campaign team happy to have Russia as media bogeyman to mask more

extensive corrupt business ties to China and other emerging countries.

1. Speaking in confidence to a compatriot in late July 2016, Source B, an

ethnic Russian close associate of Republican US presidential candidate

Donald TRUMP, admitted that there was a well-developed conspiracy of

co-operation between them and the Russian leadership. This was

managed on the TRUMP side by the Republican candidate's campaign

manager, Paul MANAFORT, who was using foreign policy advisor, Carter

PAGE, and others as intermediaries. The two sides had a mutual interest

in defeating Democratic presidential candidate Hillary CLINTON, whom

President PUTIN apparently both hated and feared.

At later points in the Steele dossier we find entries in which Vladimir Putin is said to confide what should be closely held secrets about Putin's views of the US election to Manafort's former client, Yanukovych, who was a political exile in Russia by that time.

The point is that Team Mueller had all this documentation, plus more--as Solomon and Smith set out. The implication is quite clear. The Russia Hoax originated as a "smear" operation of the Clinton campaign--one that has been thoroughly debunked and which Mueller admitted in his final dossier had been debunked. And yet this documentation--with it's direct connection to the Clinton campaign--never made it into the Mueller dossier.

Further, the CIA, in September, 2016--at a time when the FBI was in full fake FISA application mode against Carter Page--sent a referral to Peter Strzok in which the CIA noted they had come across information that Hillary Clinton had approved

a plan concerning US presidential candidate Donald Trump and Russian hackers hampering US elections as a means of distracting the public from her use of a private email server.


Which sounds very much like the CIA warning the FBI that Hillary was ginning up a hoax ("a means of distracting") pertaining to an investigative matter that the CIA--understandably but mistakenly--thought the FBI was taking seriously. That warning made no impression on the FBI.

Again, my guess is that this information--which appears to target both Team Mueller as well as John Brennan--was probably made available to Solomon and Smith because these aspects of Durham's investigation are complete. Those aspects being the origins of the Russia Hoax in the Clinton campaign (Chalupa's "smear", dating to spring of 2016), and it's continuation by the FBI and John Brennan into the Team Mueller operation--and possibly the fake impeachment. This should mean that Durham is ready to move shortly after the election.


  1. Key observation: the plan to go after Trump, via Manafort, with a "Russia Collusion" hoax was already in motion, as documented in the emails, BEFORE the DNC emails were even exfiltrated, by at least a week if not two.

    IOW, the DNC/Hillary scheme to Frame the trump campaign for Russia Collusion was not reactive to DNC emails being exfiltrated by "Russian" intel assets, because it was already being set up and prepared for launch before the emails were exfiltrated.

  2. I don't get it. How could the CIA have thought the FBI was conducting an honest investigation, especially as late as September 2016? Didn't Brennan and Strzok work together on the frame-up plan? Another thing that has always confused me is that Ciaramella, on January 19, 2016, had the Ukrainian investigators reopen an investigation to target Manafort (and the Party of Regions). That was over two months before Manafort went to work for Trump. Why is Gates saying in May that he has learned the Clinton campaign will seek to frame Trump via Manafort? Hadn't Chalupa and Ciaramella long before gone down that road?

    1. The "CIA" is not a living, thinking entity. Brennan, from all that we've heard about how the ICA was written, did not bring his analysts into the plot--he simply overruled them. So, in that situation the CIA analysts--who disagreed quite strongly with Strzok and Priestap re the ICA--apparently simply assumed that the Strzok was sincere.

      According to the source, Gates' communication to Podesta came after hearing about a DNC meeting re Manafort. The DNC meeting re Manafort is different than Ciaramella asking the Ukrainians to go after Manafort.

    2. Gates attended an event in mid-May 2016 in which the Manafort smear was presented -- that's what precipitated his email to Tony Podesta.

    3. "The 'CIA' is not a living, thinking entity."

      I've long pointed out to those who say "the government lies" that "the government" is essentially an intangible and that it's individuals employed by the government who lie.

      Of course I understand what they mean, but the point is that I'm more concerned with the people doing the lying and the others who fail to take prescribed corrective action against them.

      There can be no trust in government where there is no accountability.


  3. I want Elmer Fudd to play Mueller in the movie.

    1. I second that...

      Truth would still be stranger than fiction though!!!

    2. I would cast Wylie Coyote as Adam p.o. Schiff.

  4. "Putin feared Hillary"? Really? Putin has so much extortion material he would have been able to use against Hillary. The Uranium One deal being one of the most obvious.

  5. The tell in the Steele dossier should have been that bit about Putin fearing Clinton.

    1. Isn't that the truth! How more absurd could it be?

    2. Right. Chances are Putin actually owns the Clintons. How about the real story behind the $500,000 speaking fee Russian investment bank Renaissance Capital paid Bill in 2010? There are numerous other skeevy situations the Clintons would rather not talk about...

    3. Then there is that small matter of the Russians giving the Clinton foundation $145 million related to the Uranium One deal.

  6. I am entirely pessimistic about any prosecutions for this caper. Durham’s past is one of high profile investigations with low level consequences.

    BTW the Mueller team’s made an enormous contribution to the 2018 election cycle. No indictments, but the leaky ship delayed from port gave the whole town a feeling that the mariners were lost at sea. The House losses were a consequence. The defense of the Senate was a remarkable achievement, one that Trump gets too little credit for. But the Mueller team long had known the all the things the public cared about, and it’s failing to inform us on their conclusion and evidence amounted to an in-kind contribution to the Pelosi group.

  7. Laptop from Hell

  8. I am still at a level of no faith on anything of significance from the DoJ on spygate.

    It's great that there is more info coming out but I would also have to say it's not particularly new. Just fragments of already gleamed information from a different source and time on the same subjects.

    Halloween Massacre across several agencies still needed. A few hundred arrests still not made.

    Sydney Powell said it a few weeks ago in her interview with low Dobbs and Tom Fitton. You would expect with the numbers of players involved and all of the different avenues of investigation to have produced many by now. Because in the end you have to start somewhere!

  9. Eric Ciaramella again - what a small world!
    > Ciaramella asking the Ukrainians to go after Manafort.

    And I think he is still working for the CIA, after his whistleblower activity that laid the seed for impeachment.

    Podestra’s lobbying firm got done Ukrainian money for lobbying, which explains why Gates asked for his help. Amazing after Manafort’s conviction, nothing happened to Podestras brother.

  10. Today Taibbi rips both Biden & DJT, writing of the latter:

    "away from cameras he was a fake despot, who proved repeatedly that he didn’t know the first thing, about how to exercise presidential power, even in his own defense.
    Trump entered the White House buried in scandals that had been foisted upon him by officials in his own government, who were openly betraying him, illegally leaking intelligence about his administration to the press on a weekly if not daily basis.
    Not to say it would have been a good idea, but he could have hauled every last one of these leakers off to jail, legally, and in a few cases could even have done what Barack Obama did, and used secrecy laws to go after press antagonists as well."

    I suspect that it was more complex than Taibbi implies, but I wonder if an decent AG could've tried some of what Taibbi talks about here?
    (See "The Worst Choice Ever".)

    1. It's always more complicated. President's aren't despots, and to call him a 'fake' one doesn't lead to much understanding of the obstacles he faced. No president ever entered office facing such united and powerful opposition. Firing or 'jailing' 'every last one' is a lot easier said than done. Has Taibbi never heard of civil service? Has he ever wondered why Vindman wasn't fired or jailed?

    2. I hear you.
      However, Taibbi also adds that
      "while Comey pulled a J. Edgar Hoover to his face, promising to keep “close” a damaging report about a pee tape, in a supposedly top secret meeting whose details would be on CNN within about ten minutes.
      Trump lacked the sense to *fire* Comey in that moment...."
      That does look like an opportunity missed.

    3. That would have been tough to pull off. Didn't that occur on January 5 or 6 or so, a couple weeks before Trump was even president?

    4. Of course, I'm sure that Taibbi means, dumping Comey right after 20 Jan.

    5. Even so, a president can't just throw his weight around. He needs support and, at that point, he wasn't getting any. I've criticized some of his personnel decisions and so forth, he was in a tough and unprecedented position.

    6. "he was a fake despot"

      He didn't go into it to be a "despot" and, I think, was rather surprised that 1) he was expected to be one and 2) that he actually needed to be one to force the DS into some semblance of service to the American people.
      Tom S.

  11. I've been fascinated by Taibbi since the time of the Great Recession when he dubbed Goldman Sachs 'The Giant Vampire Squid', and rightly so I thought.

    But Taibbi has carved out a rough niche for himself. Publishing for most of his career in the Hard Left Rolling Stone magazine, he's got a tough audience not inclined to pay for 'journalism' excusing anything conservative. He can go after the extreme excesses of the Left, especially when he does so with his trademark snark, but he doesn't have much leeway to compliment the Right.

    Compounding his dilemma is the fact that while his writing is popular he seems never to have achieved financial success and so he recently left Rolling Stone and set up his own pay-to-view subscription site. Which has got to be a tough push. my view...Taibbi is struggling to publish journalism which will attract enough of the lefty readers who have always liked him to pay the bills. I believe this means he's got to trash Trump if he's going to trash Biden, but to me, the anti-Trump side of his diatribe is unconvincing. I bet Taibbi would admit it...if he could.

  12. Vindman is one of the reasons why I go on rants about the national counterterrorism center. That's where a majority of the leaks and unmasking came from and I am amazed we have not heard much about it.

    Vindman himself could have been and should have been court marshalled.

    I state this on the basis of him advising his counter parts in Ukraine in direct conflict of his commanding officers orders.

    Him walking away from that give me a clear indication of how far off the map our military has gone as well.

  13. "Since then, however, everything has changed. Each one of the crash-barriers and backstops of the American political system has been undone. Once again, therefore, I must avow error and change my verdict: yes, the American political system too does have a breaking point—and yes, the armed forces could be left as its residual legatee."

  14. Don't know if this clip was taken out of context, but Sidney Powell did not qualify her answer in this clip:

  15. Anyone who has followed Mueller's career should not be surprised by this information.

    Kind of sad that Barr has previously thought of Mueller was a close friend. Mueller and his den of thieves need to be prosecuted, convicted and imprisoned for the rest of their lives.

    At a bare minimum, all the money the the investigators/prosecutors needs to be clawed back.

    1. Mueller and his den of thieves need to be prosecuted, convicted and imprisoned for the rest of their lives.