Perspectives; Thoughts; Comments; Opinions; Discussions

Posts tagged ‘clinton campaign’

6 Freshly Documented Instances Of Systemic Pro-Democrat FBI Corruption


BY: JOY PULLMANN | MAY 17, 2023

Read more at https://thefederalist.com/2023/05/17/6-freshly-documented-instances-of-systemic-pro-democrat-fbi-corruption/

FBI building

Author Joy Pullmann profile

JOY PULLMANN

VISIT ON TWITTER@JOYPULLMANN

MORE ARTICLES

Former FBI General Counsel Andrew Weissmann and others lied to the nation about the special counsel report released Monday that deeply documents years of systemic FBI corruption in favor of the Democratic Party. That report reveals and adds detail to multiple instances in which FBI employees used high-level intelligence and law-enforcement positions to promote misinformation that affected at least two presidential elections, always on behalf of Democrats.

Special Counsel John Durham’s report lists and compares multiple such instances to illustrate “Systemic Problems” that are “difficult to explain.” Many more have been uncovered in the past few years. This information key to Americans’ oversight of their government through free and fair elections has been blacked out on corporate media airwaves and censored online by private grantees and social media companies obeying funding conditions and threats from federal officials.

1. Weaponizing Democrat Party Misinformation Developed With Probable Foreign Spies

It just so happens that the false information the FBI used to immediately open a spy operation on Democrats’ opposition was developed by the Democrat presidential campaign, in conjunction with at least two potential or allegedly former foreign spies.

According to the Durham report, top FBI, DOJ, and CIA officials, as well as President Obama and Vice President Joe Biden, were told “within days of its receipt” that the Hillary Clinton campaign had developed a “plan to vilify Trump by tying him to Vladimir Putin so as to divert attention from her own concerns relating to her use of a private email server.”

CIA Director John Brennan briefed President Obama, Biden, FBI Director James Comey, and Attorney General Eric Holder on this intelligence on Aug. 3, 2016, a few days after Clinton’s campaign developed the plan. The CIA reportedly got this info about Clinton’s smear plan from its surveillance of Russian intelligence.

This means that, in the summer of 2016, the FBI and DOJ, and the head of the Democrat Party, knew that the Steele dossier, Alfa Bank allegations, and other claims of Donald Trump being a traitorous Russian stooge “were part of a political effort to smear a political opponent and to use the resources of the federal government’s law enforcement and intelligence agencies in support of a political objective.”

This should have gotten the FBI to question its Crossfire Hurricane operation, Durham’s report says. Instead, however, the FBI raced ahead, with FBI headquarters demanding faster pursuit of Trump under what they knew were false pretenses.

The FBI’s actions indicated a clear double standard for Republicans and Democrats, the report shows. “Unlike the FBI’s opening of a full investigation of unknown members of the Trump campaign based on raw, uncorroborated information, in this separate matter involving a purported Clinton campaign plan, the FBI never opened any type of inquiry, issued any taskings, employed any analytical personnel, or produced any analytical products in connection with the information,” notes the Durham report.

The report says if the Clinton campaign knowingly supplied this false information to the government, that’s a criminal offense. Durham claims his team was unable to establish this criminal intent, but it’s obvious it existed even if it can’t be established with emails and voice recordings.

So, again, months before the press started stampeding false claims of Russian collusion into three impeachment attempts that strangled Trump’s ability to wield the power voters had given him, the heads of U.S. intelligence agencies, the sitting president and head of the Democratic Party, and Democrats’ next president were aware it was a political disinformation operation with no basis in fact. The head of that same FBI that ran a multi-year spy operation against Trump based on this claim knew it was politically motivated disinformation before the lie even got its boots on.

This goes far beyond agency “bias.” It is the complete corruption of half of the nation’s political party system and its federal law enforcement. It is the systematic disenfranchisement of Americans who don’t agree with the national security blob — or wouldn’t, if that blob allowed them to learn true facts about its evil machinations.

It is the systematic weaponization of the U.S. national security apparatus against constitutional self-government. It is the end of government of the people, by the people, and for the people in the United States of America. That’s what Durham’s report shows. Anyone who doesn’t treat this as a five-alarm fire set by saboteurs is helping fan the flames.

2. Protecting Democrats’ POTUS Pick While Slandering Republicans’ POTUS Pick

Several times, the Durham report notes that FBI and Department of Justice officials treated the Clinton and Trump campaigns completely differently. Another notable way was in regard to potential contacts with agents from foreign governments.

When the feds learned of a foreign influence operation seeking to target Hillary Clinton, they gave her campaign what is called a “defensive briefing.” That means they warned the campaign about the potential for undue foreign influence.

When the feds learned that a foreign influence operation might be seeking to target Trump, they warned almost everyone except the Trump campaign. The FBI, DOJ, and CIA not only gave Trump’s campaign no defensive briefings on such potential threats, the report says, these agencies used the threats as an excuse to surveil Trump’s campaign and boost Clinton’s disinformation operation linking Trump to Russia in the press.

“The speed with which surveillance of a U.S. person associated with Trump’s campaign was authorized … are difficult to explain compared to the FBI’s and the [Justice] Department’s actions nearly two years earlier when confronted with corroborated allegations of attempted foreign influence involving Clinton, who at the time was still an undeclared candidate for the presidency,” says the report on pages 73 and 74.

3. Dismissing Foreign Funds Transfers for Clinton, Not for Trump

In contrast to the bureau’s full-scale rush to use its powers to smear Republicans with known falsehoods, the report shows that when the FBI knew the Democrat presidential campaign might be violating federal law, the FBI stood down. When an informant told the FBI the Clinton campaign was likely accepting illegal foreign campaign contributions, the FBI told the informant to drop it and did nothing further.

“Once again, the investigative actions taken by FBI Headquarters in the [Clinton] Foundation matters contrast with those taken in Crossfire Hurricane,” says Durham’s report. “As an initial matter, the NYFO [FBI New York Field Office] and WFO [Washington Field Office] investigations appear to have been opened as preliminary investigations due to the political sensitivity and their reliance on unvetted hearsay information (the Clinton Cash book) and CHS reporting. By contrast, the Crossfire Hurricane investigation was immediately opened as a full investigation despite the fact that it was similarly predicated on unvetted hearsay information.”

Another double standard was revealed in this contrasting FBI treatment of different political parties: “Furthermore, while the Department appears to have had legitimate concerns about the Foundation investigation occurring so close to a presidential election, it does not appear that similar concerns were expressed by the [Justice] Department or FBI regarding the Crossfire Hurricane investigation.”

4. Putting Powerful Democrats Above the Law

We already knew from the years The Federalist has spent unraveling Spygate that former FBI Counterintelligence Division Deputy Assistant Director Peter Strzok and his mistress, former FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe’s staff lawyer Lisa Page, weaponized their government positions to interfere in the U.S. presidential election. These are the two who infamously texted that they’d “stop” Trump from becoming president.

Durham’s report shows multiple instances of McCabe, Strzok, Page, and their superiors wielding federal law enforcement positions as weapons against Republicans. The Durham report contains more evidence that high-level federal intelligence officials see it as routine to put powerful Democrats above the law.

Besides the disparate treatment outlined above and many other such instances, Durham’s report includes a telling text exchange between Strzok and Page. It shows them deciding not to apply the law to Hillary Clinton because of her powerful position. It seems that the powerful are indeed above the law in the United States — provided they’re affiliated with the Democratic Party.

5. Refusing Interviews with the Special Counsel

Key FBI figures refused interviews with Durham’s team, including Comey, Strzok, the Clinton campaign’s Marc Elias, McCabe, Page, and Glenn Simpson of the opposition research firm that cooked up the Steele dossier for Clinton’s campaign.

Add that to the many instances of “former” FBI and CIA figures being employed in social media companies to assist with government censorship demands, and going on TV to fuel the Russiagate hoax and other lies to Americans about crucial public issues. It adds up to yet another indication of an intelligence state using its vast — and unconstitutional — powers on behalf of the Democrat Party.

6. Refusing to Obey Congressional Subpoenas About Records on Biden Corruption

Durham’s report indicates that the FBI repeatedly sat on evidence the Clinton campaign was accepting bribes — payments in exchange for policy preferences. The FBI is still doing that with Joe Biden. According to several high-level members of Congress, the FBI has been refusing to release to them subpoenaed, non-classified information about how it handled documentation alleging that Biden also traded political favors for campaign donations.

“We know the FBI relied on unverified claims to relentlessly target a Republican president. What did the FBI do to investigate claims involving a Democrat President?” asked Sen. Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa.

Numerous private and congressional watchdogs have documented that the Biden family has received millions of dollars from foreign individuals and companies connected to hostile governments including communist China.

“We believe the FBI possesses an unclassified internal document that includes very serious and detailed allegations implicating the current President of the United States,” Grassley said in a press release earlier this month. “What we don’t know is what, if anything, the FBI has done to verify these claims or investigate further.”

Congressional subpoenas have the force of law. Federal agencies operate at the discretion and funding of Congress, according to the Constitution. The FBI’s leadership doesn’t seem to believe, however, that constitutional checks and balances apply to them. So long as Congress doesn’t enforce its own prerogatives, the FBI’s corrupt leaders are right.

It’s been publicly known for decades that the FBI uses its surveillance, investigatory, and other law enforcement powers to manipulate American politics. Recall its surveillance of Martin Luther King Jr. and infamous FBI head J. Edgar Hoover’s spying on the Supreme Court, Congress, and presidents.

The Durham report is, in that respect, nothing new. What would be new would be punishing the FBI’s use of blackmail, smear operations, threats, censorship, illegal spying, and election rigging. If that doesn’t happen, the United States is quite simply not a free country anymore.


Joy Pullmann is executive editor of The Federalist, a happy wife, and the mother of six children. Her just-published ebook is “101 Strategies For Living Well Amid Inflation.” Her bestselling ebook is “Classic Books for Young Children.” Mrs. Pullmann identifies as native American and gender natural. Her many books include “The Education Invasion: How Common Core Fights Parents for Control of American Kids,” from Encounter Books. Joy is also a grateful graduate of the Hillsdale College honors and journalism programs.

Advertisement

New report by Durham ‘definitively shows’ Hillary Clinton funded the Russia collusion hoax


Reported by SAMUEL MANGOLD-LENETT | February 12, 2022

Read more at https://www.theblaze.com/news/new-report-by-durham-definitively-shows-hillary-clinton-funded-the-russia-collusion-hoax/

According to a report just filed by Special Counsel John Durham, lawyers for Hillary Clinton’s 2016 presidential campaign paid a technology company to “infiltrate” servers belonging to Trump Tower and the White House in order to fabricate a narrative connecting Donald Trump to Russia.

Durham’s filing focuses on potential conflicts of interest related to the representation of Michael Sussman, a former lawyer for the Clinton campaign. Sussman has been charged with making a false statement to a federal agent. He has pleaded not guilty. The indictment against Sussman alleges that he told then-FBI General Counsel James Baker, less than two months before the 2016 presidential election, that he was not working “for any client” when he requested a meeting in which he provided the FBI with “purported data and ‘white papers’ that allegedly demonstrated a covert communications channel” between the Trump Organization and the Kremlin connected Alfa Bank.

In a section of Durham’s filing titled “Factual background,” it is revealed that Sussman “had assembled and conveyed the allegations to the FBI on behalf of at least two specific clients, including a technology executive (Tech Executive 1) at a U.S.-based internet company (Internet Company 1) and the Clinton campaign.”

Durham’s filing says Sussman’s “billing records reflect” that he “repeatedly billed the Clinton campaign for his work on the Russian Bank-1 allegations.”

Sussman and Tech Executive 1 had met and communicated with a law partner who served as General Counsel on the Clinton campaign. Fox News reports that this lawyer is Marc Elias. Per Durham, in 2016, Tech Executive 1 worked with Sussman, an American investigative law firm, several cyber researchers and employees at multiple internet companies to “assemble the purported data and white papers.”

The filing states, “In connection with these efforts, Tech Executive-1 exploited his access to non-public and/or proprietary Internet data. Tech Executive-1 also enlisted the assistance of researchers at a U.S.-based university who were receiving and analyzing large amounts of Internet data in connection with a pending federal government cybersecurity research contract.”

“Tech Executive-1 tasked these researchers to mine Internet data to establish ‘an inference’ and ‘narrative’ tying then-candidate Trump to Russia,” Durham states, “In doing so, Tech Executive-1 indicated that he was seeking to please certain ‘VIPs,’ referring to individuals at Law Firm-1 and the Clinton Campaign.”

Fox News reports that at Sussman’s trial, Durham will establish that among the ill begotten data foraged by Tech Executive-1 and his associates is the domain name systems (DNS) internet traffic pertaining to “(i) a particular healthcare provider, (ii) Trump Tower, (iii) Donald Trump’s Central Park West apartment building, and (iv) the Executive Office of the President of the United States (EOP).”

The former chief investigator of the Trump-Russia probe for the House Intelligence Committee, Kash Patel, said the filing “definitively shows that the Hillary Clinton campaign directly funded and ordered its lawyers at Perkins Cole to orchestrate a criminal enterprise to fabricate a connection between President Trump and Russia.”

Nunes Says Obama State Dept. Passed Trump Dirt ‘to Very Strange Places’


Reported by Kathryn Blackhurst | Updated 07 Feb 2018 at 6:57 AM

Rep. Devin Nunes (R-Calif.) said Tuesday on Fox News’ “The Ingraham Angle” that former President Barack Obama’s State Department “was gathering information” on Donald Trump, his campaign and Russia in 2016 before “passing it to very strange places.”

Nunes — who is chairman of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence — told host Laura Ingraham the committee’s investigation of allegations of Trump-Russia collusion includes three phases.

  • The first is the panel’s probe of surveillance abuse against Trump campaign volunteers by the Department of Justice (DOJ) and the FBI.
  • The second phase is a review of “irregularities” at the State Department,
  • and the third will be interviewing “the cast of characters.”

Phase one culminated with the release of a four-page summary memo, prepared by Nunes’ staff, describing the surveillance abuses. Those abuses were enabled by a dossier prepared by former British spy Christopher Steele and paid for by the Democratic National Committee and Hillary Clinton’s 2016 presidential campaign committee.

Nunes said the second phase is now moving forward.

“I can just tell you that the State Department was gathering information and then passing it to very strange places. That should not have happened,” Nunes told Ingraham, noting he could not divulge more information at that time.

“I will just say that there were comments over the weekend from people within the State Department that said [former Secretary of State] John Kerry had been briefed on the [Trump-Russia] dossier, that they had provided the new dossier, whatever this new dossier is, and they had provided it also to the FBI,” Nunes said.

“So, by people starting to talk about it, it seems to me like some people may be trying to distance themselves from the rest of the cast of characters involved,” he added. 

Nunes’ comments came after Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) and Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) released a highly redacted copy of the criminal referral they sent to FBI Director Christopher Wray and Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein recommending the potential prosecution of Steele. Wray made public a less-redacted version of the referral late Tuesday.

“It is a vindication of what we’ve been dealing with for the last five days, where we have been scolded that the dossier really played no part at all in the [Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, or FISA] application. So clearly that’s not the case,” Nunes said of the referral.

Grassley and Graham’s referral revealed that Clinton campaign aides and former Obama appointees fed material to Steele as he compiled the dossier. The anti-Trump dossier was used by the FBI and DOJ to obtain warrants from the FISA court allowing the government to spy on Trump associates.

“Sadly, the mainstream media continues to ignore this. Even tonight I was looking. No one’s covering this,” Nunes said of Grassley and Graham’s referral, noting that “it’s pretty clear now you have the Clinton campaign, who was getting information from the Russians, dirt on Trump.”

Former U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia Joseph diGenova also told Ingraham Tuesday that the Grassley-Graham memo “establishes beyond any doubt that the FBI knowingly deceived the FISA court about the information that it was presenting to them.”

DiGenova accused the FBI and DOJ of lying to the FISA court “about the fact that it was verified information — which it was not, which the law requires.”

“And now we know that additional Clinton allies, including Sidney Blumenthal, were involved in the transmission of false information, unverified information, to the FBI through State Department officials,” diGenova said. “Somebody’s gonna have to go to prison.”

Rep. Trey Gowdy (R-S.C.) implied Tuesday on Fox News’ “The Story” that Blumenthal fed a former State Department employee information used for Steele’s unverified Trump-Russia dossier.

If Clinton lost the election, then the FBI and DOJ sought “to frame Donald Trump and his associates with a false crime,” diGenova claimed.

“There is now no doubt whatsoever that the lawyers at the FBI and the lawyers at the Justice Department deceived, deceived FISA court knowingly,” diGenova said. “They had every reason in the world to believe that the information being provided was not only biased but completely unreliable. They didn’t care.

The FBI and DOJ “wanted the wiretaps, the intercepts and the electronic surveillance” because it was part of their “plan” to “exonerate” Clinton during the course of the investigation into her use of a private email server while serving as secretary of state, diGenova said. If Clinton lost the election, then the FBI and DOJ sought “to frame Donald Trump and his associates with a false crime,” diGenova claimed.

“And they almost succeeded,” diGenova said. “And if she had won, they would have succeeded.”

PoliZette writer Kathryn Blackhurst can be reached at kathryn.blackhurst@lifezette.com. Follow her on Twitter.

The Big Nothing Burger


Reported by Walker Wildmon | Assistant to the President | Wednesday, June 14, 2017 @ 1:32 PM

The Big Nothing Burger

The recently released book Shattered: Inside Hillary Clinton’s Doomed Campaign by Jonathan Allen and Amie Parnes reveals that Hillary Clinton’s two trusted advisers, John Podesta and Robby Mook, conspired the day after the election to blame Russia for their campaign’s failure. The authors write:

That strategy had been set within twenty-four hours of her concession speech. Mook and Podesta assembled her communications team at the Brooklyn headquarters to engineer the case that the election wasn’t entirely on the up-and-up. For a couple of hours, with Shake Shack containers littering the room, they went over the script they would pitch to the press and the public. Already, Russian hacking was the centerpiece of the argument.

It appears that rather than looking internally at why their campaign/candidate lost, they decided to collude with the media to blame Russia.

Since then, the media and Democrats have accused President Trump’s campaign of colluding with the Russian government to sabotage America’s election system ultimately affecting the outcome of the election. Let’s look at this one piece at a time.

When was the Russian hacking accusation first launched? In June of 2016 the Washington Postreported that Russian governmental hackers gained access to DNC data. The next day a private cyber security firm whom the DNC hired to investigate this matter released a blog that confirmed the Washington Post story. Nearly a month later the FBI confirmed that it had opened an investigation into the matter. The most important thing to note here is that the DNC used a private firm to investigate the alleged hacking and they never allowed the FBI access to their servers. FBI director James Comey admitted in an open Congressional hearing that his agency has never accessed the DNC server.  Instead, the FBI relied solely on the private firm for evidence.

All the Russian hacking accusations are based on one blog post released by a private firm in California. To my knowledge, the FBI and other agencies have built the bulk of their investigation around this one blog post.

Assuming that this private firm’s assessment is accurate and it was the Russians who hacked the DNC, how did President Trump and his campaign get in the mix? On December 9, 2016 the Washington Postpublished a story claiming that the CIA had concluded that Russia hacked the DNC to help Mr. Trump win the election. Do you notice who is perpetuating the narrative? The Washington Post.

Once again, the FBI has not independently confirmed who hacked the DNC yet the intelligence community is able to conclude the motive of the alleged hackers? Where is the CIA getting its information?

Let’s err on the side of respect for the FBI and CIA and grant legitimacy to their claim that Russia hacked the DNC. Why are these agencies bringing up President Trump’s name in their reports? Clearly, President Trump and his associates were pulled into this investigation in an attempt to discredit their reputation and ultimately undermine President Trump’s election victory. They want you to believe that the Trump campaign colluded with the Russian government to win the election.

Proponents of the alleged Russia collusion story will say that former campaign advisers such as Paul Manafort, Michael Flynn and Carter Page have connections to the Russian government. It is true that each of these gentlemen gave speeches in Russia, had business dealings in Russia and at times dealt with Russian officials for various reasons. These gentlemen also had dealing with other countries. This is typical for advisers and private businessmen who work for various governments to represent their interests in the U.S. and other countries.

According to a story at investors.com:

There may be no Clinton Foundation office in Moscow or St. Petersburg, but it is not for lack of trying. Bill Clinton received half a million dollars in 2010 for a speech he gave in Moscow, paid by a Russian firm, Renaissance Capital, that has ties to Russian intelligence. The Clinton Foundation took money from Russian officials and oligarchs, including Victor Kekselberg, a Putin confidant. The Foundation also received millions of dollars from Uranium One, which was sold to the Russian government in 2010, giving Russia control of 20% of the uranium deposits in the U.S. —  the sale required approval from Hillary Clinton’s State Department. What’s more, at least some of these donations weren’t disclosed. ‘Ian Telfer, the head of the Russian government’s uranium company, Uranium One, made four foreign donations totaling $2.35 million to the Clinton Foundation. Those contributions were not publicly disclosed by the Clintons; despite an agreement Mrs. Clinton had struck with the Obama White House to publicly identify all such donors…’

The article goes on to say,

In March — that is, long after the election was over — it was revealed that Mrs. Clinton’s campaign chairman had failed to disclose the receipt of 75,000 shares of stock from a Kremlin-financed company — Joule Unlimited — for which he served as director from 2010 to 2014, when he joined the Obama White House in 2014. Podesta apparently had a large chunk of the shares transferred to “Leonidio Holdings, a brand-new entity he incorporated only on Dec. 20, 2013, about 10 days before he entered the White House…

Lastly, it says,

Mr. Podesta’s brother, who has close personal and business relations with Mrs. Clinton, was ‘key lobbyist on behalf of Sberbank, according to Senate lobbying disclosure forms. His firm received more than $24 million in fees in 2016, much of it coming from foreign governments, according to the nonpartisan Center for Responsive Politics’…The bank was ‘seeking to end one of the Obama administration’s economic sanctions against that country.’ The report goes on to note that ‘Podesta’s efforts were a key part of under-the-radar lobbying during the 2016 U.S. presidential campaign led mainly by veteran Democratic strategists to remove sanctions against Sberbank and VTB Capital, Russia’s second largest bank.’ Mr. Obama imposed the sanctions following the Russian seizure of the Crimean region of Ukraine in 2014…In March, Mr. Putin’s spokesman said that Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak met with members of Mrs. Clinton’s campaign several times while she was running for president in 2016. Further, the campaign never disclosed the number or nature of these secret meetings.

It appears as though the Clinton campaign colluded with the Russian government rather than the Trump campaign.

Is it accurate to say the Russians hacked the DNC in July of 2015? Yes, if you trust a blog post from a private cyber security firm in California. Is it accurate to say that President Trump’s campaign colluded with the Russian government to win the election? No, because evidence of such does not exist. 

Tag Cloud

%d bloggers like this: