Monday, October 30, 2017

CLINTONIAN COLLUSION WITH RUSSIA [UPDATED]

CLINTONIAN COLLUSION WITH RUSSIA [UPDATED]

We now know that the Clinton campaign paid Christopher Steele the funds he used to develop the infamous dossier on Donald Trump. We also know that, in compiling the dossier, Steele relied on Russian sources, including sources with Kremlin ties. For example, as Scott points out, Steele’s “Source B” is “a former high level Russian intelligence officer still active in the Kremlin’s inner circles.”
When Team Clinton enlisted Christopher Steele it knew he would rely on Russian sources. Indeed, it must have counted on him to do so.
Steele has an extensive background working for British intelligence on Russian matters, but he had retired from the government and wasn’t operating out of Russia. There was no way he could obtain valuable Russia-related “opposition research” on Trump without relying on Russian sources.
Moreover, it was always likely that Steele’s Russian sources of negative information on Trump would have ties with the Kremlin. It’s implausible to suppose that in a state like Russia, “freelance” Russian operatives would be able, independent of the government, to provide Steele with valauble information about Trump.
Thus, I agree with Scott’s conclusion that “the Trump Dossier represents Clintonian collusion with the Russian friends of former MI6 operative Christopher Steele, themselves friends of Vladimir Putin.” The inference that Team Clinton knew it would be getting the goods on Trump from Kremlin-connected Russians seems unavoidable.
UPDATE: It occurs to me that the FBI, when it saw the Trump dossier and the sources of the information contained therein, should have suspected, if not concluded: (1) that Team Clinton, funders of the research, was colluding with Kremlin-connected Russians and (2) that the Russian government may not have wanted Trump to win the election.

Sunday, October 29, 2017

Here Are The 10 Most Important Reported Claims About The Steele Dossier On Russia

There's a lot of misinformation swirling about that shoddy dossier on Trump and Russia compiled by Christopher Steele. Here's what's actually been reported on the matter.
Mollie Hemingway
Last night the Washington Post reported that the infamous “Russia dossier” was partly funded by the Clinton campaign and the Democratic National Committee. The dossier’s inflammatory and unsubstantiated claims about Donald Trump provided the framework for mainstream media treatment of the president for much of the last year and fueled multiple investigations. Here are 10 things to keep in mind about the dossier.

1) Russian officials were sources of key claims in dossier

We’re in the midst of media frenzy over Russian disinformation campaigns, particularly as they apply to the 2016 election. It is worth noting that the sources of the “Russia-Trump dossier” were senior Russian officials:
Source A—to use the careful nomenclature of his dossier—was ‘a senior Russian Foreign Ministry figure.’ Source B was ‘a former top level intelligence officer still active in the Kremlin.’

2) No, the Russian dossier was not initially funded by Republicans

When the news broke that the Clinton campaign and the DNC were admitting partial responsibility for the Russia dossier, journalists acted like they’d presented it as a Clinton campaign operation all along. They also claimed it was initially funded by a Republican.
Incorrect. And Tapper took the tweet down when the error was pointed out. There is no evidence that a Republican donor or Republican campaign was ever involved with the Russian dossier. Fusion GPS claimed to reporters (though they did not provide evidence) that a Republican funded separate opposition research on Trump, dealing with his business interests. But as the Washington Post itself reports, the dossier did not exist until after the Democrats hired Fusion GPS:
Marc E. Elias, a lawyer representing the Clinton campaign and the DNC, retained Fusion GPS, a Washington firm, to conduct the research.
After that, Fusion GPS hired dossier author Christopher Steele, a former British intelligence officer with ties to the FBI and the U.S. intelligence community, according to those people, who spoke on the condition of anonymity.

3) The dossier is chock full of discredited information

Journalists who are friendly with Fusion GPS and opponents of the Trump administration claim, without any evidence of any kind beyond anonymous sources’ vague say-so, that the dossier has parts that were “verified.” That could mean something as simple as the parts about Russia trying to find information about Trump, or about Trump affiliates having friendly business relations with Russians. We have no evidence to suggest that anything significant from the dossier has been verified. And we don’t know how much, if any, was actually deliberate disinformation from the Russian government sources.
We have reports that the freelance spy who put together some of the information in the dossier was paying Russians for their information and used intermediaries. Former acting CIA director and Hillary Clinton campaign surrogate Michael Morrellsaid this was discrediting:
‘Then I asked myself, why did these guys provide this information, what was their motivation? And I subsequently learned that he paid them. That the intermediaries paid the sources and the intermediaries got the money from Chris. And that kind of worries me a little bit because if you’re paying somebody, particularly former [Russian Federal Security Service] officers, they are going to tell you truth and innuendo and rumor, and they’re going to call you up and say, ‘Hey, let’s have another meeting, I have more information for you,’ because they want to get paid some more,’ Morrell said.
Far from being “verified,” the dossier is better described as demonstrably false. That includes getting basic facts about Russia wrong, making claims — such as the claim that Trump lawyer Michael Cohen met with Federation Council foreign affairs head Konstantin Kosachev in Prague — that are verifiably wrong, making cartoonishly outlandish claims about finances, and various other problems.

4) The dossier was used as a basis for wiretaps on American citizens

In March, Washington Post used anonymous sources to report the FBI obtained a secret court order last summer to spy on U.S. citizen Carter Page, an unpaid and informal adviser to the Donald Trump campaign, as part of an investigation into links between Russia and the Trump campaign. CNN used anonymous sources to report that the infamous “golden showers” dossier was used as part of the justification to win approval to monitor the Trump associate.
A Clinton campaign opposition research operation using information or disinformation from top Russian intelligence officials was used by the FBI, these sources say, to enable spying on an opposing political party’s campaign.

5) The FBI also paid for the dossier

Last week, Donald Trump tweeted:
Fusion GPS was working on behalf of Russians while working on the dossier, but they claim, without providing evidence, that they kept their other Russia work separate from their Trump-Russia dossier work. Democrats released their involvement to friendly journalists at the Washington Post last night. When Trump asked about the FBI, many political journalists feigned shock and outrage that he would make such a claim.
They should not have. Their outlets had already reported that the FBI had tried to payfor the dossier and had, in fact, reimbursed expenses for the dossier. We do not know if those expenses include the payments to the Russian officials for salacious stories on Republican nominee for president Trump.
The FBI has resisted all oversight by congressional committees looking into the FBI’s role in funding and use of the dossier. Perhaps the agency is worried it will be revealed that a FISA court judge was misled about the provenance of the dossier. Perhaps the agency is worried about light shining on its use of the Clinton campaign operation to spy on Trump affiliates.
Speaker of the House Paul Ryan is backing House Intelligence Committee efforts to learn more about FBI’s handling of the dossier.

6) Dossier publisher Fusion GPS works with shady outfits

At a July hearing, Senate Judiciary members were told Fusion GPS helped advocate the interests of corrupt Russian and Venezuelan officials while hiding its foreign work from federal authorities.
Fusion GPS has been accused of illegally working as an undisclosed foreign agent and is currently refusing to comply with federal subpoenas for information on its foreign clients.

7) Fusion GPS’ ties to media are problematic

The principals at Fusion GPS are well-connected to mainstream media reporters. They are former journalists themselves, and know how to package stories and provide information to push narratives. They are, in fact, close friends with some of the top reporters who have covered the Russia-Trump collusion story.
Fusion GPS has placed stories with friendly reporters while fighting congressional investigators’ attempts to find out the group’s sources of funding. Fusion GPS leaders have taken the Fifth and fought subpoenas for information about the group’s involvement with Russia. Their close friendships with key reporters on these stories have paid huge dividends for the firm, although these friendships and cooperative relationships have not served the public well.
Fusion GPS was responsible for the dossier. But the group’s larger narrative push to reporters is even more influential, and a difficult story to unpack due to defensiveness, embarrassment, and outright media complicity.

8) Jim Comey personally briefed Trump on the dossier, shortly before CNN reported it

As confirmed by the Washington Post, the Russia-Trump collusion narrative was a Clinton campaign political operation. The dossier itself was shopped around by Fusion GPS a year ago to The New York Times, the Washington Post, Yahoo News, The New Yorker, and CNN, according to lawyers for the ex-spy who worked on the dossier. The dossier was so unverifiable that the only reporter to bite was from Mother Jones.
What really got the ball rolling on last year’s Russia-Trump conspiracy theory, then, was not the dossier itself but the briefing of it by Obama intelligence chiefs to President-elect Trump in January. Former FBI head Jim Comey admitted under oaththat former Director of National Intelligence James Clapper asked him to personally brief President Trump about this dossier. The fact of that meeting was quickly leaked to CNN.
Given the dossier’s many problems, was the entire purpose of the meeting to produce the leak that the meeting happened? No one was biting on the dossier and it needed legitimization by opponents of Trump. If the dossier was so shoddy that it was debunked in hours after BuzzFeed posted it in all its salacious glory, why brief the president and president-elect on it, much less leak it? What was the real purpose of that meeting, and that leak to CNN?

9) Mueller investigation spurred by dossier and illegal leaks from intelligence operatives about Trump

We know from previous reporting that the dossier of Russia-supplied information or disinformation was used by the FBI to secure a warrant to spy on an American citizen advising an opposing political party’s presidential campaign. We know that this dossier was funded at least in part by the Clinton campaign, the Democratic National Committee, and the FBI. The firm that produced the report was itself funded by Russians.
We know that Comey briefed Trump on the dossier, and that this meeting was leaked almost immediately to CNN. We know that there were criminal leaks from intelligence officials regarding Trump associates having conversations with Russian counterparts.
We know that Trump was thrice told by Comey that he was not under investigation regarding Russia. And a year into the opposition-research-provoked Russia scare, we have no evidence of the Trump campaign committing treason by colluding with Russia.
Yet because of this dossier, and its selective use by intelligence agencies, we have a special prosecutor running a no-holds-barred investigation into Trump that, according to CNN, has gone into areas that have nothing to do with Russia or the 2016 election. We have two congressional investigations into alleged collusion of Trump and Russia. And we have had thousands of stories focused on supporting the Clinton campaign’s opposition research.

10) The Steele dossier was a Clinton/DNC-funded operation supported by the FBI and influenced heavily by Russian operatives in the Kremlin

The country has spent the last year with Obama intelligence officials, the media, and Democratic leaders pushing a narrative of Trump collusion with Russia to steal an election that was supposed to be won by Hillary Clinton. A meeting between Trump officials and a Russian who falsely promised dirt on Hillary Clinton is the best evidence — by far — to support this narrative.
Yet here we have the realization that the Clinton campaign, the DNC, and the FBI all worked wittingly or unwittingly with Russians to affect the results of the 2016 election. Far from just meeting with a Russian and not getting dirt on a political opponent, these groups wittingly or unwittingly paid Russian operatives for disinformation to harm Trump during the 2016 election and beyond.
Worse, these efforts perverted our justice system by forcing the attorney general to recuse himself for the crime of having served as a surrogate on the Trump campaign, spawning a massive, sprawling, limitless probe over Russia. These things are so much more damaging to the republic than a couple thousand dollars in ads on Facebook paid for by Russian trolls about a pipeline protest.
Mollie Ziegler Hemingway is a senior editor at The Federalist.

The FBI’s Political Meddling

The FBI’s Political Meddling

Mueller is the wrong sleuth when his ex-agency is so tangled up with Russia.


Former FBI Director Robert Mueller, now special counsel on the Russia investigation, following a Senate Judiciary Committee meeting on Capitol Hill, June 21.
Former FBI Director Robert Mueller, now special counsel on the Russia investigation, following a Senate Judiciary Committee meeting on Capitol Hill, June 21. PHOTO: SAUL LOEB/AGENCE FRANCE-PRESSE/GETTY IMAGES
Let’s give plausible accounts of the known facts, then explain why demands that Robert Mueller recuse himself from the Russia investigation may not be the fanciful partisan grandstanding you imagine.
Here’s a story consistent with what has been reported in the press—how reliably reported is uncertain. Democratic political opponents of Donald Trump financed a British former spook who spread money among contacts in Russia, who in turn over drinks solicited stories from their supposedly “connected” sources in Moscow. If these people were really connected in any meaningful sense, then they made sure the stories they spun were consistent with the interests of the regime, if not actually scripted by the regime.
The resulting Trump dossier then became a factor in Obama administration decisions to launch an FBI counterintelligence investigation of the Trump campaign, and after the election to trumpet suspicions of Trump collusion with Russia.
We know of a second, possibly even more consequential way the FBI was effectively a vehicle for Russian meddling in U.S. politics. Authoritative news reports say FBI chief James Comey’s intervention in the Hillary Clinton email matter was prompted by a Russian intelligence document that his colleagues suspected was a Russian plant.
OK, Mr. Mueller was a former close colleague and leader but no longer part of the FBI when these events occurred. This may or may not make him a questionable person to lead a Russia-meddling investigation in which the FBI’s own actions are necessarily a concern.
But now we come to the Rosatom disclosures last week in The Hill, a newspaper that covers Congress.
Here’s another story as plausible as we can make it based on credible reporting. After the Cold War, in its own interest, the U.S. wanted to build bridges to the Russian nuclear establishment. The Putin government, for national or commercial purposes, agreed and sought to expand its nuclear business in the U.S.
The purchase and consolidation of certain assets were facilitated by Canadian entrepreneurs who gave large sums to the Clinton Foundation, and perhaps arranged a Bill Clinton speech in Moscow for $500,000. A key transaction had to be approved by Hillary Clinton’s State Department.
Now we learn that, before and during these transactions, the FBI had uncovered a bribery and kickback scheme involving Russia’s U.S. nuclear business, and also received reports of Russian officials seeking to curry favor through donations to the Clinton Foundation.
This criminal activity was apparently not disclosed to agencies vetting the 2010 transfer of U.S. commercial nuclear assets to Russia. The FBI made no move to break up the scheme until long after the transaction closed. Only five years later, the Justice Department, in 2015, disclosed a plea deal with the Russian perpetrator so quietly that its significance was missed until The Hill reported on the FBI investigation last week.
For anyone who cares to look, the real problem here is that the FBI itself is so thoroughly implicated in the Russia meddling story.
The agency, when Mr. Mueller headed it, soft-pedaled an investigation highly embarrassing to Mrs. Clinton as well as the Obama Russia reset policy. More recently, if just one of two things is true—Russia sponsored the Trump Dossier, or Russian fake intelligence prompted Mr. Comey’s email intervention—then Russian operations, via their impact on the FBI, influenced and continue to influence our politics in a way far more consequential than any Facebook ad, the preoccupation of John McCain, who apparently cannot behold a mountain if there’s a molehill anywhere nearby.
Which means that Mr. Mueller has the means, motive and opportunity to obfuscate and distract from matters embarrassing to the FBI, while pleasing a large part of the political spectrum. He need only confine his focus to the flimsy, disingenuous but popular (with the media) accusation that the shambolic Trump campaign colluded with the Kremlin.
Mr. Mueller’s tenure may not have bridged the two investigations, but James Comey’s, Rod Rosenstein’s , Andrew Weissmann’s , and Andrew McCabe’s did. Mr. Rosenstein appointed Mr. Mueller as special counsel. Mr. Weissmann now serves on Mr. Mueller’s team. Mr. McCabe remains deputy FBI director. All were involved in the nuclear racketeering matter and the Russia meddling matter.
Let’s stop here. All this needs to be sorted out, but not in a spirit of panic and hysteria. We are a prosperous, successful country, in pretty good shape right now by historical standards, even if our officials behave in the frequently dubious, self-interested way they always have.
But still: By any normal evidentiary, probative or journalistic measure, the big story here is the FBI—its politicized handling of Russian matters, and not competently so.
To put it bluntly, whatever its hip-pocket rationales along the way, the FBI would not have so much to cover up now if it had not helped give us Mrs. Clinton as Democratic nominee and then, in all likelihood, inadvertently helped Mr. Trump to the presidency.

Having fled Cuba, campus speaker warns Democrat Party hijacked by ‘socialist, communist movement’

Having fled Cuba, campus speaker warns Democrat Party hijacked by ‘socialist, communist movement’
Rafael Dagnesses was born in Cuba in 1965, and fled the communist country as a young boy with his family after Fidel Castro executed many of his adopted grandfather’s military comrades.
Dagnesses, who has some experience recognizing communism when he sees it, told a room full of College Republicans recently that when he looks at the Democrat Party, he sees socialism and communism.
“I don’t want the Democrat Party to disappear,” said Dagnesses, a Republican who has twice run unsuccessfully for Congress in recent years.
“Balance is good,” he said, “but the Democrat party no longer exists. Rational, middle of the road Democrats have been hijacked by the leftist, socialist, communist movement.”
Dagnesses made the comments as the keynote speaker at a Bruin Republicans meeting at UCLA on Wednesday.
“I don’t quote books,” Dagnesses, a Marine veteran and former police officer, told the students. “I quote reality.”
The title of the talk was “The Failures of Socialism and Why America is Great.”
Dagnesses’s father had been part of the Castro movement, and his adopted grandfather, Huber Matos, was fourth in command of the Castro revolution. But once Castro decided to make the move to communism, he executed all of the platoon’s men except for Matos.
“Che Guevara wanted him killed, but Castro was a smart guy and knew that the military might revolt if he killed him (Matos), so he decided to keep him alive,” he said.
Dagnesses said escaping to America was the best opportunity his family had to thrive and become successful.
“Only in America can you work hard, and even have a third-world, third-grade dropout education, but if you work hard and you stay out of trouble, you will succeed,” he said. “The sky’s the limit.”
Dagnesses also weighed in on his view of the trajectory of the Democrat Party.
He said that the one good thing Bernie Sanders did during his presidential campaign was use the word “socialism.” This brought the word into the public eye and allowed for Republicans to call the Democrat Party what they have always known the party to be: a group of socialists masquerading as the “liberal” party, he said.
He added that he believes Sanders and his wife are crooks, explaining that Sanders didn’t have a real job until politics, and he has been taking taxpayer dollars for years. What’s more, Sanders’ wife is still under investigation for fraud charges, he said.
Dagnesses finished off the issue of socialism by showing the parallels between Democrat policies and socialist policies, and he recommended reading the book “Rules for Radicals” by Saul Alinsky to become more informed on why the Democrat Party became the preeminent socialist party in America.
Dagnesses also put his own party on blast, arguing that “Republicans are losing in California because they don’t go into the inner cities.”
One student asked Dagnesses: “Are you running for Congress in 2018 and, if so, how can I help?” Dagnesses replied: “If I can get enough money for my campaign, I’ll run.”