By Jon Dougherty
A couple of stories that have surfaced this week point fingers directly at Hillary Clinton and her 2016 presidential campaign as being the real instigators of the “Spygate” scandal to defeat and then depose POTUS Donald Trump, and looking back, the allegations make perfect sense.
I don’t remember the specific interview, but I’ll tell you when I knew that Hillary wasn’t going to be indicted for her criminal abuses of classified information under the provisions of the Espionage Act, and it was before then-FBI Director James Comey violated FBI/Justice Department protocol by publicly exonerating her in July of that year.
During an interview with a friendly media outlet, Hillary was asked about the possibility she may be indicted at some point for her email abuses. “Not going to happen,” she replied confidently.
A little too confidently, I thought at the time, thinking, ‘She must know something the rest of us don’t.’
Boy, did she.
After Comey exonerated her, perhaps, but certainly after we learned she was behind the infamous Steele Dossier, most of us should have realized that Spygate really did stop and end with her.
Why? First of all, Hillary Clinton is no newbie when it comes to the D.C. Swamp. She’s been swimming in those waters since she became first lady in 1992 — when, right off the bat, we learned what a creep, a liar, a manipulator, and generally awful person she was after installing cronies in the White House Travel Office (a.k.a. “Travelgate“), holding secret healthcare meetings in an attempt to bring about what become ‘Obamacare’ decades later, and after covering for her philandering hubby multiple times.
From there, of course, she became a U.S. senator and then Obama’s first secretary of state, where she proceeded to subvert the rules and existing open records regulations by setting up her private email server she would later use to commit multiple violations of the Espionage Act, then ‘obstruct justice‘ to cover it up.
Yes, we should have been focused on Hillary a lot sooner than now, that’s for sure, as H. A. Goodman pointed out in a column this week at The Federalist.
Specifically, all Spygate roads lead to Hillary and her campaign. He writes:
— …[A]lmost all the major findings used to justify investigations into Trump’s campaign are linked to Hillary Clinton or the Democratic Party.
— The heads of America’s top intelligence agencies used a dossier linked to Clinton’s funding, a tech firm outsourced by the Democratic National Committee, and hearsay from Alexander Downer as the basis to obtain Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act warrants and initiate sprawling probes.
— U.S. Attorney General William Barr hired prosecutor John Durham to investigate the origins of the Mueller probe. A key issue for Durham to resolve is why the inciting information never originated within the U.S. government. Why has the funding from Democrats, along with other blatant conflicts of interest, been ignored by Comey, Clapper, and John Brennan?
— Fusion GPS, the firm Clinton and Democrats hired to compile the Steele dossier, did not provide the FBI classified intelligence.
— Crowdstrike, the third-party tech firm the DNC hired to analyze its servers (instead of the U.S. government) didn’t provide the FBI, CIA, or NSA any classified intelligence, since the DNC is a private entity that never allowed U.S. intel agencies near its servers.
Then Goodman just spells it out, each claim sourced and documented in the original piece:
At a certain point, it can’t be mere coincidence that every major figure involved in probing Trump’s campaign is linked to Hillary Clinton in some manner. Christopher Steele was “desperate” to prevent Trump from becoming president and was paid $160,000 by Democrats before he compiled his infamous dossier.
DNC lawyers met with FBI officials before a surveillance warrant was granted, raising questions as to why the FBI would meet with a political party’s counsel, yet not inform Trump his campaign was under investigation. Fusion GPS, the firm that hired Steele, was paid by money from Hillary Clinton and the DNC, funneled through a law firm, to compile the Steele dossier.
Clinton allies gave hundreds of thousands of dollars to the political campaign of Andrew McCabe’s wife, yet the former FBI deputy director only recused himself from Clinton’s email probe one week before the election. Even before the FBI obtained a FISA warrant on Carter Page, Bruce Ohr of the DOJ informed FBI officials that the Steele dossier was connected to Hillary Clinton and filled with political bias. Ohr’s wife, Nellie, worked for Fusion GPS and now her emails are linked to controversy.
Crowdstrike, the only entity to analyze the claimed DNC email hack, was outsourced and paid by the Democratic National Committee. Australian diplomat Downer informed the FBI of a conversation with George Papadopoulos, where Downer stated the Trump campaign official was given information by a Russian operative about the DNC emails. Downer isn’t mentioned in the Mueller report, was never interviewed during the Mueller probe, and is linked to the Clinton Foundation.
Along with the Crowsdtrike assessment that Russia hacked the DNC, the FBI used the Steele dossier to obtain a FISA warrant to surveille [sp] Page—without informing FISA judges the dossier was linked to funding by Hillary Clinton. Then of course, former FBI agent Peter Strzok texted “we’ll stop” Trump and wrote about an “insurance policy” that he had spoken about with McCabe.
Yet all of these conflicts of interests linked to Clinton, or intelligence linked to Democrats, failed to produce any evidence against Trump.
If that weren’t enough evidence, The Hill‘s John Solomon noted Monday that it’s Hillary Clinton, not Donald Trump, who owes Americans a yuuuuuge explanation:
Never before — until 2016 — had the apparatus of a U.S. presidential candidate managed to sic the weight of the FBI and U.S. intelligence community on a rival nominee during an election, and by using a foreign-fed, uncorroborated political opposition research document.
But Clinton’s campaign, in concert with the Democratic Party and through their shared law firm, funded Christopher Steele’s unverified dossier which, it turns out, falsely portrayed Republican Donald Trump as a treasonous asset colluding with Russian President Vladimir Putin to hijack the U.S. election. …
On its face, it is arguably the most devious political dirty trick in American history and one of the most overt intrusions of a foreigner into a U.S. election.
It appears the Clinton machine knew that what it was doing was controversial. That’s why it did backflips to disguise the operation from Congress and the public, and in its Federal Election Commission (FEC) spending reports.
One of those ‘backflips’ was using a ‘cut-out’ — intelligence-speak for a ‘third party’ — for the Clinton campaign and DNC (which she ran) to launder payments to Fusion GPS for the purpose of funding the Steele dossier.
Need more evidence?
We reported in October that newly unearthed evidence all but proved that the Democrats, not the Trump campaign, were not only involved with Russians during the 2016 campaign, but were very much a part of creating the phony “Trump-Russia collusion” narrative.
The ‘Democrats’ in this instance were being led by Hillary at the time. Solomon reported the connection:
Congressional investigators have confirmed that a top FBI official met with Democratic Party lawyers to talk about allegations of Donald Trump-Russia collusion weeks before the 2016 election, and before the bureau secured a search warrant targeting Trump’s campaign.
Former FBI general counsel James Baker met during the 2016 season with at least one attorney from Perkins Coie, the Democratic National Committee’s private law firm.
Now, how does Obama fit into all of this? First of all, we know that he wanted Hillary to succeed him — that much isn’t hard to understand. So the question becomes what would Obama do to ensure that happened?
We already know his was one of the most scandal-ridden in the history of our country, if not the worst. So understanding that he would use an already politicized deep state to his advantage while letting operatives off the hook and free to do ‘their thing’ at the same time, is not a stretch.
We noted in a separate October 2018 report:
…[A] little-noticed and heavily redacted passage in the House Intelligence Committee report on Spygate issued earlier this year indicates the clearest evidence yet that the dossier was misused intentionally by James Comey’s FBI to justify a FISA court warrant to spy on a rival presidential campaign.
The redactions were made to hide Baker’s meeting with the FBI to pass along the dossier and ‘concerns’ about Trump campaign officials ‘colluding’ with Mother Russia.
“There is now a concrete storyline backed by irrefutable evidence: The FBI allowed itself to take political opposition research created by one party to defeat another in an election, treated it like actionable intelligence, presented it to the court as substantiated, and then used it to justify spying on an adviser for the campaign of that party’s duly chosen nominee for president in the final days of a presidential election,” Solomon noted.
As former federal prosecutor Joe diGenova noted last month, one of the biggest abuses of power — lying to the FISA court using the fake dossier to get a surveillance warrant on the Trump campaign — wasn’t new.
It has been going on at least since 2012.
“The intelligence community, which includes the FBI, is in full resistance to disclosing what they did during the presidential campaign,” he told a D.C. radio station. “But here’s the other problem they have, and they’re very fearful of.
“The FISA court has already found that there was political spying going on starting in 2012,” he continued. “Not ’15, not ’16…2012. Why was that spying going on in the Obama administration?”
He said, “the FBI and CIA desperately fear that if these disclosures become publicly known in a wide-ranging way, their powers may be cut back, FISA may be restricted, and some additional people may go to prison.”
None of this happens without Obama’s knowledge and explicit approval, meaning Obama’s final term in office was really nothing more than setting up an operation aimed at ensuring Hillary — who had to cheat to win the Democratic nomination from Bernie Sanders in the first place — became his criminal successor.
Democrats and deep staters are having dreams of indicting POTUS Trump after his presidency for things he allegedly did during his presidency. Maybe it’s time for Attorney General William Barr to test the legal theory of arresting former presidents for crimes in office.
He can start with Obama since, you know, Hillary never made it that far.
This story has been published with fewer ads for maximum reader enjoyment.
- Follow Jon Dougherty on Twitter at @JonDougherty10