The Unz Review • An Alternative Media Selection$
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 BlogviewMike Whitney Archive
Is Hillary Just the “Fall Guy” for the Intel Agencies and Their Moneybags Bosses?
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information


Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • B
Show CommentNext New CommentNext New ReplyRead More
ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Thanks, LOL, or Troll with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used three times during any eight hour period.
Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

For nearly a year, Hillary Clinton failed to admit that her campaign and the Democratic National Committee had provided funding for the notorious dossier that alleged Trump colluded with Russia to win the 2016 presidential election. Then, two weeks ago, the Washington Post published a blockbuster article that proved that Clinton had been misleading the public about her Campaign’s role in producing the report. Here’s a snippet from the article in the Post:

“The Hillary Clinton campaign and the Democratic National Committee helped fund research that resulted in a now-famous dossier containing allegations about President Trump’s connections to Russia and possible coordination between his campaign and the Kremlin, people familiar with the matter said.”

Following the article’s publication, Clinton went into hiding for more than a week during which time she huddled with her political advisors to settle on a strategy for dealing with the crisis. On Wednesday, she resurfaced on the Daily Show where she was treated with kid gloves; no hardball questions were asked and she was given plenty of time to recite her prepared remarks without challenge. Naturally, she downplayed her role in contributing to the year-long “hacking-collusion” investigation that has tied up both Houses of Congress, implicated the nation’s main law enforcement and intelligence agencies, and deepened divisions between Washington and Moscow. Here’s part of what Hillary said in the interview:

“When Trump got the nomination of the Republican Party, the people ‘doing it’ (gathering raw intelligence for the dossier) came to my campaign lawyer, and said, would you like us to continue it. He said ‘Yes’. He is an experienced lawyer and knows what the law is. He knows what opposition research is. It’s part of what happens in a campaign where you get information that may or may not be useful and you try make sure anything you put out in public arena is accurate. So this thing didn’t come out until after the election and its’ still being evaluated.”

Clinton wasn’t asked why her campaign tried to obfuscate their role in financing the dossier or whether she felt any remorse for the way the Russia hacking allegations had ballooned into 4 major investigations on Capitol Hill. She wasn’t even asked to comment on the motives of the people who continued to fund the dossier after the DNC terminated their contract in November 2016. Wasn’t she suspicious that these new financiers might have more nefarious objectives in mind, after all, who continues a smear campaign after the election is over, unless, of course, they intend to inflict even more damage on the two main targets, Trump and Russia? Wouldn’t Hillary have figured that out?

Technically speaking, Clinton was right, it was opposition research, which in political parlance means ‘digging up dirt on one’s opponent.” And, yes, it is perfectly legal. But the Trump dossier was much more than that. It was presented as the work of intelligence professionals who were unattached to any political organization. Had the public known that the dossier was financed by the Clinton campaign, they would have known that it was a “malicious and defamatory” hit-piece aimed at improving Clinton’s chances of winning the election.

And when Hillary opines that the dossier was not released before the election, it is certainly not from lack of trying. Her colleagues made every effort to shop the piece to their friends in the media before the balloting, but all of them backed away. The report was simply too lurid and far-fetched to be believed. (In October, just weeks before the election, former M16 agent, Christopher Steele, who authored the dossier, met with reporters from The New York Times, The Washington Post, and Yahoo News.)

The Democrat leaders have not won any friends in the media by concealing their support for the dossier. According to an article at The Hill:

“The New York Times senior White House correspondent Maggie Haberman and reporter Kenneth Vogel are slamming Hillary Clinton’s campaign and the Democratic National Committee (DNC), saying they lied about funding for the so-called Trump dossier….

“Folks involved in funding this lied about it, and with sanctimony, for a year,” Haberman tweeted to her more than 650,000 followers on Tuesday….

(NYT journalist Kenneth Vogel offered this comment on Twitter) “When I tried to report this story, Clinton campaign lawyer @marceelias pushed back vigorously, saying ‘You (or your sources) are wrong,’ ” Vogel tweeted, referring to Clinton campaign lawyer Marc Elias. (“New York Times reporters blast Dems over Trump dossier funding claims”, The Hill)

Clearly, Clinton did not want the American people to know the real origins of the dossier for fear that they would dismiss its findings as politically-motivated and unreliable. So they lied, and by lying, they helped to fuel the anti-Russia hysteria that’s swept across the country sabotaging any chance for rapprochement between the two nuclear-armed superpowers.

But, why? Why would Hillary persist with the “hacking-collusion” meme after she had already lost the election and had nothing to gain by smearing Trump?

That’s not a question that can be easily answered, but I suspect it has less to do with Hillary’s presidential ambitions than it does with the way her campaign found common cause with powerful members of the intelligence community who wanted to use the hacking narrative to pursue their own geopolitical strategy of isolating, punishing and demonizing Russia. “Russian meddling” became the perfect rallying cry for the CIA’s broader information operation (IO) that was designed to poison public opinion against “Russian aggression” and to reign in Trump’s plans to normalize relations with Moscow. The fact that the CIA had essentially extracted a credible narrative from sections of the notorious dossier, left Hillary with no other option except to play-along even after the votes had been counted. As a result, Clinton became the “fall guy” in a darker, deep-state propaganda campaign for which she is only partially responsible. Here’s a little background from Joe Lauria’s “must read” article “The Democratic Money Behind Russia-gate”:

“…the Steele dossier was shared with the FBI at some point in the summer of 2016 and apparently became the basis for the FBI to seek Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act warrants against members of Trump’s campaign. More alarmingly, it may have formed the basis for much of the Jan. 6 intelligence “assessment” by those “hand-picked” analysts from three U.S. intelligence agencies – the CIA, the FBI and the NSA – not all 17 agencies that Hillary Clinton continues to insist were involved….

If in fact the Steele memos were a primary basis for the Russia collusion allegations against Trump, then there may be no credible evidence at all.” (Consortium News)

So, were “the Steele memos the primary basis for the Russia collusion allegations against Trump”? This is the pivotal question that still remains largely unanswered. As Lauria notes, the FBI did in fact use the “salacious and unverified” dossier to obtain at least one FISA warrant. This is from The Hill:

“The FBI used the dossier alleging Russian ties to President Trump’s campaign associates to help convince a judge to grant a warrant to secretly monitor former campaign aide Carter Page, CNN reports.

FBI Director James Comey has cited the dossier in some of his briefings with lawmakers in recent weeks as one of the information sources used by his bureau to bolster its probe, U.S. officials briefed on the investigation told CNN.” (“FBI used Trump dossier to help get warrant to monitor ex-aide: report”, The Hill)

The article proves that the nation’s premier law enforcement agency was using parts of a discredited “raw intelligence” report that was paid for by the DNC and was clearly commissioned as a part of a smear campaign– to spy on members of the opposition party. Clearly, one could easily make the case that the FBI was abusing its extraordinary police-state powers to subvert the democratic process.

The FBI, under James Comey, also attempted to use agent Steele for future research but abandoned the idea after parts of the dossier began to surface in the media making it politically impossible to maintain the relationship. This is from a February article in the Washington Post:

“The former British spy who authored a controversial dossier on behalf of Donald Trump’s political opponents alleging ties between Trump and Russia reached an agreement with the FBI a few weeks before the election for the bureau to pay him to continue his work, according to several people familiar with the arrangement. The agreement to compensate former MI6 agent Christopher Steele came as U.S. intelligence agencies reached a consensus that the Russians had interfered in the presidential election by orchestrating hacks of Democratic Party email accounts…..

Ultimately, the FBI did not pay Steele. Communications between the bureau and the former spy were interrupted as Steele’s now-famous dossier became the subject of news stories, congressional inquiries and presidential denials, according to the people familiar with the arrangement, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to discuss the matter.” (“FBI once planned to pay former British spy who authored controversial Trump dossier”, Washington Post)

The fact that the FBI was willing to build its investigation on the sensational and unverified claims in the DNC-bought-and-paid-for dossier, suggests that the real motive was not to reveal collusion between Trump and Moscow or even to uncover evidence related to the hacking claims. The real goal was to vilify Russia and derail Trump’s efforts at détente.

It’s also worth noting , that Steele’s earliest report implausibly alleges that the “Russian authorities had been cultivating and supporting US presidential candidate Trump for at least 5 years.” (No one had any idea that Trump would run for president 5 years ago.) The report also details perverted sexual acts involving Trump and urinating prostitutes in a hotel in Moscow. (All fake, of course) The point we are trying to make, is that Steele’s first report focused on corruption, perversion and blackmail, whereas, his second installment completely changed direction to cyber-espionage operations on foreign targets.


It was because, on July 22, 2016, just days before the Democratic National Convention, WikiLeaks published 20,000 emails hacked from DNC computers revealing the corrupt inner-workings of the Democratic establishment. In response, Steele decided to craft a story that would support the Dems plan to blame the Russians for the moral cesspit they-alone had created. In other words, his report was a way of “passing the buck”.

Steele’s July report helped to prop up the threadbare “hacking” storyline that was further reinforced by the dubious cyber-forensic analysis of DNC servers performed by CrowdStrike, “a private company co-founded by a virulently anti-Putin Russian.”

The hacking theme was also aided by the deluge of unsourced, evidence-lite articles cropping up in the media, like this gem in the Washington Post:

“Russian government hackers penetrated the computer network of the Democratic National Committee and gained access to the entire database of opposition research on GOP presidential candidate Donald Trump, according to committee officials and security experts who responded to the breach.

The intruders so thoroughly compromised the DNC’s system that they also were able to read all email and chat traffic, said DNC officials and the security experts.

The intrusion into the DNC was one of several targeting American political organizations. The networks of presidential candidates Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump were also targeted by Russian spies…” (“Russian government hackers penetrated DNC, stole opposition research on Trump”, Washington Post)

What’s remarkable about the above excerpt is that it follows the same basic approach to propaganda as nearly all the other pieces on the topic. Unlike the lead-up to the Iraq War, where journalists at the New York Times made every effort to create a believable storyline that included references to aluminum tubes, Niger uranium, mobile weapons labs, etc. The media no longer tries to support their narrative with evidence or eyewitnesses. The major media now simply tells people what they want them to think and leave it at that. Even so, it doesn’t require much critical thinking to see the holes in the Russia hacking story. One merely needs to suspend judgment long enough to see that main claims all emerge from (Democratic) sources who have every reason to mislead the public. Here’s an excerpt from Joe Lauria’s article that sums it up perfectly:

“The two sources that originated the allegations claiming that Russia meddled in the 2016 election…were both paid for by the Democratic National Committee, and in one instance also by the Clinton campaign: the Steele dossier and the CrowdStrike analysis of the DNC servers.

Think about that for a minute….

In other words, possibly all of the Russia-gate allegations, which have been taken on faith by Democratic partisans and members of the anti-Trump Resistance, trace back to claims paid for or generated by Democrats.

If for a moment one could remove the sometimes justified hatred that many people feel toward Trump, it would be impossible to avoid the impression that the scandal may have been cooked up by the DNC and the Clinton camp in league with Obama’s intelligence chiefs to serve political and geopolitical aims.” (“The Democratic Money Behind Russia-gate”, Consortium News)

Russia-gate is entirely a Democratic Party invention. Both sources of information (Crowdstrike and Steele) were chosen by members of the Democratic hierarchy (through their intermediaries) to create stories that coincided with their political objectives. Due to the obvious bias of the people who funded the operations, neither the methods nor the information can be trusted. But that’s just part of the story. The bigger story relates to the role played by the nation’s premier intelligence and law enforcement agencies. And that’s where we see signs of institutional corruption on a truly colossal scale.

As we noted earlier, the Clinton smear campaign would probably have ended after the votes were counted had not the intel agencies, particularly the CIA, decided the hacking story could be used to inflict more damage on Russia. It wasn’t Clinton’s decision to gather more information for the dossier, but others whose motives have remained largely concealed. Who are they?

According to a timeline in the Daily Caller:

November: The contract between the Democrats, Fusion and Steele ends along with the presidential campaign.

Nov. 18: Arizona Sen. John McCain and a former assistant, David Kramer, are told about the existence of the dossier by an associate of Steele’s, former British diplomat Sir Andrew Wood. Kramer travels to London later that month to meet with Steele and find out more about the dossier. Steele forwards a copy of the dossier to Fusion, Kramer and McCain.

Dec. 9: McCain provides a copy of the dossier to then-FBI Director James Comey during a meeting at the latter’s office.

Dec. 13: Steele writes the final memo of the dossier. It alleges that a Russian tech executive used his companies to hack into the DNC’s email systems. The executive, Aleksej Gubarev, denied the allegations after the dossier was published by BuzzFeed on Jan. 10, 2017. He is suing both BuzzFeed and Steele.

Jan. 6: Comey and other intelligence community officials brief then-President-elect Trump on some of the allegations made in the dossier.

Jan. 10: CNN reports that the briefing of Trump took place four days earlier. Citing that reporting as justification, BuzzFeed publishes the dossier. (The Daily Mail)

John McCain? Is that who we’re talking about? Was it McCain who paid former M16 agent Christopher Steele to add another report to the dossier? Why?

Is it that hard to imagine that a Russophobic foreign policy wonk like McCain– who has expressed his vehement hatred for Vladimir Putin on the floor of the senate– would hire a mud-slinging free agent like Steele to craft a story that would further demonize Russia, discourage Trump from normalizing relations with Moscow, and reinforce the theory that the Kremlin meddled in the 2016 elections?

Does that mean that McCain may have told Steele (or his intermediaries) precisely what he wanted the final draft to say?

It certainly seems probable. And here’s something else to mull over. This is from the Business Insider:

Steele …gave the dossier to Republican Sen. John McCain. McCain then gave it to the FBI director at the time, James Comey. Comey, along with the former Director of National Intelligence James Clapper and former CIA Director John Brennan, briefed both President Barack Obama and then-President elect Trump on the dossier’s allegations in January.

Intelligence officials purposefully omitted the dossier from the public intelligence report they released in January about Russia’s election interference because they didn’t want to reveal which details they had corroborated, according to CNN.” (“Mueller reportedly interviewed the author of the Trump-Russia dossier — here’s what it alleges, and how it aligned with reality”, Business Insider)

This is a damning admission that the Intelligence Community Assessment (ICA) that was released on January 6, and was supposed to provide rock-solid proof of Russia hacking and collusion, was built (at least, in part) on the thin gruel and specious allegations found in the sketchy “Trump dossier”. Former CIA Director John Brennan has refuted this claim, but there’s significant circumstantial evidence to suggest that it is true.

On December 9, 2016, The Washington Post reported that the CIA determined that Russian hacking was conducted to boost Trump and hurt Clinton during the presidential campaign. This same theory that was propounded in the ICA report just a month later. It appears that Brennan and his “hand-picked” intelligence analysts decided to carefully comb the dossier cherry-picking the most credible allegations to weave into their dubious intelligence Assessment. So even though large sections of the dossier were scrapped, the report itself was used as the foundation for the ICA.

Brennan spearheaded the anti-Russia campaign from the get-go. As early as August 2016, Brennan was providing classified briefings to ranking members of Congress expressing his conviction that Moscow was helping Trump to win the election. The former Director offered no proof to back up his claims nor has he since then. It was also Brennan who gradually persuaded Clapper, Comey and Morrell to join his anti-Russia jihad, although all were reluctant participants at first. Were they won over by compelling secret evidence that has been been withheld from the public?

Not likely. It’s more probable that Brennan was merely able to convince them that the powerful foreign policy establishment required their cooperation on an issue that would have grave impact on Washington’s imperial plan for Syria, Ukraine, Central Asia and beyond?

Some readers might remember when Brennan testified before Congress way-back on May 23 and boldly stated:

BRENNAN: “I encountered and am aware of information and intelligence that revealed contacts and interactions between Russian officials and U.S. persons involved in the Trump campaign that I was concerned about because of known Russian efforts to suborn such individuals and it raised questions in my mind, again, whether or not the Russians were able to gain the cooperation of those individuals.”

It’s clear that Brennan had no “information or intelligence” that would lead a reasonable man to think that anyone in Trump’s entourage was colluding with Russian officials or agents. The whole story is spun from whole cloth. The disturbing implication however is that Brennan, who was an outspoken supporter of Hillary and equally harsh critic of Trump, was using the CIA’s intrusive surveillance powers to spy on a rival political party in the heat of a presidential campaign. If that is not a flagrant example of subverting democracy, then what is? Here’s a clip from the Washington Times:

“It was then-CIA Director John O. Brennan, a close confidant of Mr. Obama’s, who provided the information — what he termed the “basis” — for the FBI to start the counterintelligence investigation last summer….Mr. Brennan told the House Intelligence Committee on May 23 that the intelligence community was picking up tidbits on Trump associates making contacts with Russians…

But he said he believed the contacts were numerous enough to alert the FBI, which began its probe into Trump associates that same July, according to previous congressional testimony from then-FBI director James B. Comey.” (The Washington Times)

It all started with Brennan, he’s the ringleader in this dodgy caper. But Brennan was not operating as a free agent pursuing his own malign political agenda, but as a strong-arm facilitator for the powerful foreign policy establishment which includes leaders from Big Oil, Wall Street, and the giant weapons manufacturers. These are the corporate mandarins who pull Brennan’s chain and give Brennan his marching orders. This is how power trickles down in America.

So while the moneytrail may lead back to the DNC and Hillary’s Campaign, the roots of Russia-gate extend far beyond the politicians to the highest-ranking members of the permanent state.

MIKE WHITNEY lives in Washington state. He is a contributor to Hopeless: Barack Obama and the Politics of Illusion (AK Press). Hopeless is also available in a Kindle edition. He can be reached at [email protected].

(Republished by permission of author or representative)
• Category: Ideology • Tags: CIA, Donald Trump, Hillary Clinton, Russia 
Hide 61 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
  1. It certainly ties it all together in a convincing fashion. It appears to be almost the last word on the subject, though most people will continue, unfortunately, to dangerously follow received myth rather than act on this reality. The problem is that, once you recognize the truth of this picture, you have to determine how to react to this, and the power structure appears unassailable.

  2. El Dato says:

    Maybe Adam Curtis can make a movie about this, “HyperNormalization II: Russian Ties” or something.

    I still don’t know how outfits like WaPo work. They produce endless unitary party bullshit and then, sometimes, the kimono lifts. Or am I being played on a higher level?

    • Replies: @jacques sheete
  3. El Dato says:

    No one had any idea that Trump would run for president 5 years ago.


    So it COULD have been a (long) shot…

  4. anon • Disclaimer says:

    Not sure if this has factual basis but it certainly is plausible: Hillary shopping for more “operational research,” for whatever purpose??

  5. Not to leave out the much earlier episode of the Simpsons with a President Trump. Throughout this sordid business the one glaring consistency is the ongoing outright treachery of John McCain.

  6. It was clearly a Faustian bargain: Question is, who is the Devil here? Both sides perhaps. HRC is not really a fall guy here, but they are trying to drive the bus over her, and she just won’t die.

    • Replies: @Tsar Nicholas
  7. Without Trump in the White House nothing would prevent the continuation of the most greedy cabal ever gathered in one place since the Medicis fell from grace. The recent history of the US is totally inept, drenched in blood, and so pernicious it comes down to one man against a floodtide of sleaze and we’re not sure about him either!

  8. “The real goal was to vilify Russia and derail Trump’s efforts at détente.” — Whitney

    I believe that Whitney is correct in his conclusion, and I think that we should ask who all are behind the campaign to prevent any possible return to détente with Russia. And in that regard, we must of course ask, Cui bono?

    Of course, the first culprits to come to mine are the MIC — because they need to keep the level of paranoia high in order to assure easy justification for continuing the insanely high level of “defense” appropriations. But then there’s another group of culprits involved in keeping Russia and the USA at each other’s throats …

    What if the neocon faction in USA’s government is on the payroll of the PRC (as well as on the payroll of others, say, of Israel)? What if the neocons have been on the payroll of the PRC ever since Kissinger (godfather of the neocons) made his secret trip to Beijing in 1971? What if the so-called “reverse Nixon” atrategy has been determined by the CFR to be a non-starter mainly in order to prevent such a strategy from taking hold in the USA? What if the CFR is, like the neocons, a front — not only for the interests of Israel, but also for the PRC’s interests in the USA?

    What if the basic reason that you (or most Americans) believe in the fundamental importance and fundamental reality of the current Russia-China alliance is that America under the influence of the neocons and the CFR is still under the sway of the old “Russia-China” meme left over from the days of the anti-Communist Cold War? What if you can believe that whatever analysis the CFR promotes is actually anti-USA?

    What if Putin promoted his ‘Lisbon to Vladivostok’ idea because he hoped for Russia to be allowed into the EU and he really did not like the idea of being forced to turn in weakness to Beijing .. but out of desperation that is what happened, as the USA worked to expand NATO and did everything possible to prevent Russia-EU unification? (What if Putin actually went so far as to suggest that Russia, too, should join NATO?) What if the neocons are anti-Putin because they plan on dividing Russia into balkanized small and weak states, just as they plan to do that in the ME?

    What if everything you ever thought you knew about “Russia-China” is wrong?

  9. “the roots of Russia-gate extend far beyond the politicians to the highest-ranking members of the permanent state.” — Whitney

    As far as I know, Whitney has coined the term “permanent state” in the current context, and I think it’s brilliant!

    Ever since the term “deep state” became popular, I have thought of it (“deep state”) in the context of Fraenkel’s concept (and eponynous book) Dual State. To me it relates to how after WW I, there was a group of politicians, military leaders/thinkers, bankers/industrialists that worked to provide continuity between the old Kaiser’s Reich and the Weimar Republic. It would seem probable that there is generally, for any democratic republic (or monarchy), some such behind-the-scenes group/organization which seeks to continue in place and operational regardless of changes in the government. So that group/organization would have to include the major media, at least some of the leadership of both (or all) major parties, military leadership, and, most – or a large part – of the secret government. Much better described as the “permanent state” than as the “deep state” — which probably refers more strictly to a grouping of individuals who are all Federal employees or, if not, then employees of corporations (or universities, foundations, etc. that function as parts of the government).

    The permanent state is what would remain even after USA fell apart or into serious decline or was/is effectively under the control of, say, Israel or China. It’s permanent, regardless of whether Congress and the Executive are Ds or Rs or even Greens or Nationalists or New Reform Party.

    At least, that’s how I think seeing the term “permanent state.”

  10. Dr. Crow says:

    And yet…and yet… there is evidence that the Trump campaign was in contact with various Russians all during the campaign. And they too were looking for “dirt” -on Clinton. The question now is: to what extent was the Trump campaign conspiring with Russia to subvert our election process? If they were involved in such a conspiracy, then the Trump organization has violated Federal laws and should be held to account, each and every one who so conspired.
    Although you may not like the source of the information nor its underlying purposes, if it exposes criminal actions by anyone than it served a good cause.

  11. @The Alarmist

    @ The Alarmist

    “they are trying to drive the bus over her, and she just won’t die.”

    You know in your heart that Hammer Horror Films often got it right.

    Sometimes only a stake will do!

  12. Hillary made her reputation by smearing the reputation of a kid who’s been raped. There is no way in hell she’s been used without using right back. The woman is a barracuda.

  13. Hillary, for me, made clear who she is, long ago, as Senator of New York, on a obligatory visit to Israel.
    She made a speech in which she said that ‘everything was the fault of Arafat’.

  14. polistra says:

    The Clintons are never patsies. The Clintons know how to use violence and blackmail EFFECTIVELY. Of course the Clinton mob is part of Deepstate, just as the Bush mob is part of Deepstate. Those are permanent and obvious facts.

    The more important question is why Trump did nothing to counteract Deepstate attacks.

    Trump has a mob as well, and his mob owns hotels and casinos around the world. It’s a reaasonable assumption that most of the opposite team has stayed at a Trump facility at least once. Trump SHOULD HAVE had lots of security video available. He also has enough money to hire his own dirty tricksters and oppo researchers. But he didn’t.

  15. Given the history, the connections, the purposeful decisions, her own advocacy,

    Sec Clinton is not a victim – nor some innocent puppet, absolutely not. She was a player and an orchestrator and conductor.

    While I am deeply compassionate about the rawing experience of her in the White House, the evidence is weighted heavily in favor that she her advocacy choices and decisions on issues were her own. A for Pres Trump and the Russians, undermining the US elections — yet to evidenced.

    • Replies: @Mr Tea
  16. @El Dato

    Or am I being played on a higher level?

    Only if you believe their bullshit.

    Here’s how it works. People love a “good story.”

    That’s all there is to it.

    • Replies: @Kiza
  17. @Dr. Crow

    I don’t think looking for dirt on somebody from a Russian source constitutes “conspiring with Russia to subvert the election process.” If Trump or Clinton had looked for dirt on their opponent from a domestic source nobody in their right mind would refer to it in this ludicrously dramatic fashion.

    I would contend that conspiring to subvert the election proccess would involve matters like ballot paper destruction, rigging election software, losing electoral lists, threatening voters outside polling stations, that sort of thing. But of course, the mere mention of foreigners, even foreign capitalists, makes a lot of people lose their minds.

  18. j2 says:

    This is an excellent and thoughtful piece, thank you very much.

    One thing, though. The article reports that the DNC and the HRC campaign paid for the “Trump Dossier.” Since the HRC campaign controlled the purse strings of the DNC as reported by Donna Brazile, it would seem that the HRC campaign actually paid for the entire thing. Although, there is this stray thought that the Obama payment to Perkins Coie was actually a Fusion GPS payment for that last installment – no proof, though.

    There is no doubt that the neocons have some hand in this, imo. Doubtful there would have been much regime-change and nation-building by the U.S. w/o the neocon interference.
    Would that the neocons and now neolibs would just go away.

    Thank you again for an excellent piece, one of the reasons why Unz is a must-read site.

  19. Would that the neocons and now neolibs would just go away.


    If Americans feel that way, imagine how people in other countries must feel about US government and corporate meddling.

  20. Russiagate still scaring the daylights out of some people! The distinction between “Hillary paid for it” and “Hillary fabricated it” has already been made umpteen times. The reason, I think, why this author is trying to tie Hillary to the intelligence agencies and the millionaires is because, as Russiagate widens, it’s becoming clear that some part of the US intelligence community and part of the US financial elite were involved in the manipulation of the 2016 election. A part of the US financial elite have invested heavily (and for the most part, legally) in Russia but have thereby done business with some very dubious characters, some probably linked to the Russian Mafia. Having installed their stooge in the Kremlin, the gangsters took the logical next step and tried to install a stooge in the White House. The US elite was happy to let the Russians have a slice of the cake but by manipulating the election, the gangsters were in practice making a grab for the whole cake. The US elite wasn’t willing to accept that. Hence the current fight. The spooks have been trying (and failing!) for years to break up the EU and what both the US elite and the Russian gangsters had in mind was to carve up Europe between them (“spheres of influence”). The two projects came together in Ukraine. In other words, all of this has very little to do with politics or international relations and a great deal to do with dirty money. Trying to pin that on Hillary is a rather flat-footed attempt to divert attention away from the links between the Russian gangsters, the spooks and the Trump’s entourage.

    • Replies: @Anon
    , @Anon
  21. Joe Hide says:

    To Mike Whitney,
    Great article. Full of believable and evidence supportable information. You gave excellent analysis of the mis-information and dis-information which was stupidly and obviously falsely presented by the black hats (Elitist pychopath narcissitic murderous pychotics). Please write in similiar style in future articles

  22. Anon • Disclaimer says:
    @Dr. Crow

    You need to re-read the paper to grasp its main point:
    “…Brennan was not operating as a free agent pursuing his own malign political agenda, but as a strong-arm facilitator for the powerful foreign policy establishment which includes leaders from Big Oil, Wall Street, and the giant weapons manufacturers. These are the corporate mandarins who pull Brennan’s chain and give Brennan his marching orders. This is how power trickles down in America.”

    The statement explains, in plain English, that the US has no sovereignty (and certainly no democracy).The oligarchy of psychopaths leaves no hope for humanity’s survival.

    • Replies: @RobinG
  23. Anon • Disclaimer says:
    @Michael Kenny

    “Trying to pin that on Hillary is a rather flat-footed attempt to divert attention away from the links between the Russian gangsters, the spooks and the Trump’s entourage.”

    We understand your frustration with the events in Syria. The ziocons’ vicious hatred towards Russians for the “loss” of Syria to the Syrian citizens (instead the US/Israel/SA-sponsored ISIS) is evident.
    As for the gangsters, nobody could compete with the thug (felon) Avigdor Lieberman in the Knesset and the neo-Nazi activists in Kevan government. Don’t forget that Mr. Kolomojsky, an Israeli citizen and big-time criminal and financier of the neo-Nazi battalion Azov, is also a pillar of Jewish Community in Ukraine (and a darling of the Wall Street Journal) and that Mr. D. Alperovitch, the Russophobe who conducted the fraudulent analysis of the data with his fraudulent CrowdStrike, is from a ziocon company of Atlantic Council. The Tokyo Rose has been, of course, documented in a company of neo-Nazis.
    Mike Whitney’ paper has a hall mark of a courageous and principled person, whereas your Russophobic insinuations have been Russophobic insinuations and nothing more.
    You do protest too much.

    • Replies: @Kiza
  24. DaveE says:

    Yeah, yeah. Poor, poisecuted Hillary is just a victim. Like all the rest of the poor, poisecuted leftist sore losers. Or rather, losers, sore or otherwise.

    Hillary has a long, long career playing in the sandbox with Murder Inc, Political Division.

    • Replies: @DaveE
  25. DaveE says:

    Of course, she will take the fall for failure. Mobsters whack other mobsters quite frequently if they “fail”or are disloyal.

    And of course, glory-seekers like Hillary set themselves up for complete humiliation, at minimum, when things don’t go so well.

  26. @Dr. Crow

    And yet…and yet… there is evidence that the Trump campaign was in contact with various Russians all during the campaign.

    Oh? And what evidence would that be? The CrowdStrike report? The Steele dossier? James Comey’s say-so? Or perhaps that of some other DNC contractor or Obama administration flunkee? Do come back and enlighten us when they find some real evidence–i.e., something that might actually stand an outside chance of winning a conviction in court.

    And they too were looking for “dirt” -on Clinton.

    Well that isn’t too hard to find, is it! No need to go to the black market for that.

    The question now is: to what extent was the Trump campaign conspiring with Russia to subvert our election process? If they were involved in such a conspiracy, then the Trump organization has violated Federal laws and should be held to account, each and every one who so conspired.

    Opposition research is not a crime. Nor is talking about US politics with foreign nationals; if it were, I’d be guilty of treason on a weekly basis, since I now live in Europe.

    Although you may not like the source of the information nor its underlying purposes, if it exposes criminal actions by anyone than it served a good cause.

    This is hilarious! I can remember using almost exactly those same words with Hillbots every time one of her corrupt schemes came to light. For example, isn’t interceding with the Attorney General on your wife’s behalf to head off an investigation in to her before an election a crime known as ‘obstruction of justice’? Riddle me that, Batman.

    • Replies: @Dr. Crow
    , @Dr. Crow
  27. RobinG says:

    Precisely. Thanks for highlighting this succinct explanation. Those who point to intel agencies or career bureaucrats as Deep State are identifying the puppets, not the masters. Kudos to Whitney for getting it right.

    • Agree: jacques sheete
  28. Technomad says:

    As for why Hillary would keep this up after the election was over—she is known to be quite vindictive, more so than her husband. I’ve read that Bill wanted to settle with his accuser early on (which would have avoided the whole impeachment brouhaha) but Hillary insisted on fighting.

  29. notanon says:

    “The real goal was to vilify Russia and derail Trump’s efforts at détente.”

    I think it’s broader than that. I think the Clinton foundation has been a gigantic slush fund for decades paid into by numerous bad actors (neocons, Saudis, exiled Russian oligarchs, Soros, banking mafia, big oil, pharma etc) to be disbursed to corrupt politicians on both sides for services rendered.

    I think the anti-Trump dossier was to protect the whole swamp not just the anti-Russian part.

    I think the Clintons were always willing puppets and beneficiaries (nb Bill deregulating the banks) but yes, the swamp is currently moving towards sacrificing them in the hope of saving itself.

  30. Anon • Disclaimer says:
    @Michael Kenny

    The main issue is that our intelligence community is filled with 8 years of Obama appointees and hirees. Of course they supported Hillary. In fact, I’m sure they were far more keen on Hillary than Obama, because Obama wasn’t as interested in foreign affairs as Hillary was/is. Hillary thought in lockstep with the intelligence community and they knew it, and this is why they’re so mad that she lost to Trump and why they’re trying to undermine Trump.

    Hillary didn’t have to enlist their services and dirty tricks for her election. They would have done–and I’m sure did–it anyway without her asking. She was also well aware of this.

  31. Kiza says:

    I never considered terrorism anything but a dual use tool – foreign use and domestic use. Then declaring a war on terror was like declaring a war on your own hammer or screwdriver.

  32. Kiza says:
    @jacques sheete

    Please, where is a good story in “Russia hacked US Election”? One has to be a mindless, shit-for-brains moron to even consider such story, not that there is a lack of such in US. When this concept was launched, my first thought was that the Clinton campaign personality who announced it would be repreminded for saying something so dumb.

    If one happens to need more contradictory “facts” of the “good story”, it is Russia a backward country of whores and brutes (a gas station maskarading as a country) which hacked an election in the most advanced and the most exceptional land on the planet. This backward country did this whilst 17 intelligence agencies of the exceptional country, consuming almost as much as the whole military budget of Russia, were napping. And so on and so on.

    Russia hacked a US Election is truly a 911-grade story, but US never runs out of suckers. Therefore, “a good story” is an extremely relative expression.

    • Replies: @jacques sheete
  33. FKA Max says: • Website

    Not quite sure if the following is a good or a bad thing 😉

    In fact, of the top 100 ranked liberal arts colleges in America, none appear on our list of the nation’s 100 most militarized institutions.

    The Most Militarized Universities in America: A VICE News Investigation

    Initially, we hesitated to use the term militarized to describe these schools. The term was not meant to simply evoke robust campus police forces or ROTC drills held on a campus quad. It was also a measure of university labs funded by US intelligence agencies, administrators with strong ties to those same agencies, and, most importantly, the educational backgrounds of the approximately 1.4 million people who hold Top Secret clearance in the United States.
    Seventeen powerhouse research universities traditionally supporting the oft-cited military-industrial complex rank in the top 100, including Johns Hopkins (No. 7), Penn State (No. 15), Georgia Tech (No. 26), and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (No. 47). Ten of these schools account for $2.05 billion in national security research and development funding, which is two-thirds of the approximately $3 billion VICE News calculates the federal government gave to the top 100 schools last year. Yet rather than traditional weapons systems, what these schools mostly research — often in classified laboratories — is intelligence technologies, cyber security, and big data analytics, challenging the common view of what militarization means.

    • Replies: @Ivy
  34. geokat62 says:
    @Dr. Crow

    And yet…and yet… there is evidence that the Trump campaign was in contact with various Russians all during the campaign.

    Dr. Crow’s first comment on UR.

    Corvy, don’t tell me you’ve adopted a new pseudonym?

    defn of Corvinus

    The Latin name Corvinus derives from the Latin word corvus meaning raven, although the word today refers to the birds’ genus including ravens and crows among others.

    • Replies: @Dr. Crow
  35. Art says:

    So while the moneytrail may lead back to the DNC and Hillary’s Campaign, the roots of Russia-gate extend far beyond the politicians to the highest-ranking members of the permanent state.

    We must not leave out the intellectual criminal – Marty Baron of the Washington Post, and the whole Jew owned MSM who ignore the deep state. They will not even say “Deep State.”

    Think Peace — Art

    p.s. It is very very hard to feel sorry for Hillary Clinton.

  36. geokat62 says:

    It all started with Brennan, he’s the ringleader in this dodgy caper. But Brennan was not operating as a free agent pursuing his own malign political agenda, but as a strong-arm facilitator for the powerful foreign policy establishment which includes leaders from Big Oil, Wall Street, and the giant weapons manufacturers. These are the corporate mandarins who pull Brennan’s chain and give Brennan his marching orders. This is how power trickles down in America.

    There is one key group missing from your list of the powerful foreign policy establishment. Can anyone guess who that might be? That’s right, it’s the 800 lb gorilla in the room that almost everyone struggles to see. BIG ZION should be first and foremost on anyone’s list of the powerful foreign policy establishment.

    The neocons have been leading the chorus in demonizing Vladimir Putin. Kaganovich and his spouse, the Cookie Monster herself, Victoria Nudelman, have spearheaded the coup in Ukraine, the president of the National Endowment for Democracy (NED), Carl Gershman has threatened Putin with regime change, and last but not least ((William Browder)) got John McCain and Ben Cardin to sponsor the Magnitzky Act that sought to punish Russian officials for the death of Browder’s accountant and unofficially kickstarted Cold War 2.0. These people are all Israel-firsters and are keen to weaken Russia for sponsoring both Iran and Syria, who are sponsors of Israel’s arch enemy, Hezbollah.

    Why did the DNC choose Crowdstrike to investigate the alleged “hack” of their servers? Whitney came very close to disclosing the truth when he pointed out that Crowdstrike was a “private company co-founded by a virulently anti-Putin Russian.” Well, he should have put “Russian” in echo brackets, as the surname of the co-founder of Crowdstrike is one Dmitri Alperovitch. When I looked up this surname, the country with the most Alperovitches in the world is Israel. Just a coincidence?

    • Replies: @Anon
  37. Progs attack Trump for favoring nationalism over globalism.

    But then, they say Trump is traitor for wanting Peace-with-Russia(that supposedly messed with US elections).

    If Progs are anti-nationalist & pro-globalist, what does it matter if a foreign power messed with US elections? After all, Progs want foreign masses as new voters.

    If indeed, the notion of ‘national’ is passe and atavistic, so-called national elections should now be global elections.

    Progs say ANYONE should just barge into the US and ‘dream’ of staying and then voting for Democrats.
    Okay, if that’s the logic, what is wrong with any nation interfering with US elections?

  38. @Kiza

    Please, where is a good story in “Russia hacked US Election”? One has to be a mindless, shit-for-brains moron to even consider such story, not that there is a lack of such in US.

    I agree totally.

    As you already know, it can be a complete load of BS, but if it sounds thrilling to the masses, it’ll get printed. Tomorrow the exact opposite can get printed, and they’ll believe that as well.

    I put “good story” in quotation marks or a reasn.

  39. “Bob Woodward and Brian Duffy of The Washington Post published a story stating that a United States Department of Justice investigation into the fund-raising activities had uncovered evidence that agents of China sought to direct contributions from foreign sources to the Democratic Nationa Committee (DNC) before the 1996 presidential campaign. The journalists wrote that intelligence information had shown the Chinese embassy in Washington, D.C. was used for coordinating contributions to the DNC in violation of United States law forbidding non-American citizens or non-permanent residents from giving monetary donations to United States politicians and political parties. A Republican investigator of the controversy stated the Chinese plan targeted both presidential and congressional United States elections, while Democratic Senators said the evidence showed the Chinese targeted only congressional elections.” — wikipedia

    Here we see clear evidence of PRC “interference” in USA’s congressional elections. Has that ever stopped or has it been ongoing for the past 20, 30 or 40 years?

    What happens when attention if focused on Russia’s “interference” in USA’s elections? Cui bono? Attention is diverted from China!

    Is that result (focus shifted from PRC’s lobbying and influence on USA’s politic) just some accidental/incidental result of Russiagate …. or is that actually a major intended result by the neocon faction, in order to please one of their major foreign patrons, namely the PRC? It’s well and good that we open our eyes to the infiltration and influence by pro-Israeli neocons, but that should not prevent us from seeing infiltration and influence by those same neocons and other ‘Deep State’ factions in accordance with protecting the interests and the image of the People’s Republic of China!

    USA’s policies — ever since Kissinger took over under Nixon/Ford — have accrued to the benefit not only of Israel but also of the People’s Republic of China. Neocon-inspired and designed policies have not accrued to the benefit of either Russia or the American people — nor have they advanced the prospects for world peace.

    If there is a question as to what connection suborning of Congress by the Israel lobby has with suborning of Congress by the China lobby — it’s just that the two foreign interests work through the same traitorous faction within USA’s government. It’s possible to walk and chew gum at the same time.

    • Replies: @Mr Tea
  40. Alfred says:

    This book by Thiery Meyssan explains clearly (in French) what the strategy of the US Deep State has been for the past 30 years. These “failed” invasions and occupations are nothing of the sort – the intention was to destroy these countries. The good news is that this strategy is failing and we can watch it doing so right now.

    “Russian’s leading TV channel has just dedicated an entire report on Thierry Meyssan’s latest book. This report was part of the main news broadcast. While Europe and the United States customarily presents this French author as an unfortunate half wit, the rest of the world does not follow suite. Quite to the contrary, they consider him to be one of the leading thinkers in the field of international politics. This contrast should attract the attention of everyone who finds the Western Press lacking. Thankfully, within the global village news only circulates in one direction; never from the rest of the world to the West.”

    The Clintons are marionettes – there to carry out the bidding of the Deep State. Trump is on the side of humanity – despite appearances to the contrary.

    • Replies: @RobinG
    , @Seamus Padraig
  41. Anon • Disclaimer says:

    Alperovitch is indeed Jewish. Guess his parents are the progeny of those Jewish sadist-revolutionaries who were busy destroying Russian nation after the victorious Bolshevik revolution that had triumphed into a government that was 80% Jewish. Their hate for Russia is visceral and unlimited.
    Now it is time for the US to feel the burn. The CrowdStrike involvement into Clinton’s saga is a case of anti-American activities; the Russophobic Alperovitch must be investigated for his fraudulent concoctions.
    More about the fraudster:

    • Replies: @Seamus Padraig
  42. RobinG says:

    Thanks for this Alfred. For years I’ve belonged to the school of thought that the chaos and destruction is, in fact, the objective. And all the time it’s been here in black and white (and pixels). This goes on the Essential Knowledge List, along with Clean Break, Oded Yinon, etc. The Pentagon’s New Map: War and Peace in the Twenty-First Century

    This Wiki summary is a fine first stop, with links and references –

  43. @Alfred

    Meyssan and his Voltairenet are bad-ass. I have been following him for years now. Interestingly enough for a leftist, he still swears by Trump.

  44. @Anon

    Not only is he Jewish, but according to the ZeroHedge article you linked to, he’s actually from Ukraine rather than Russia, which also helps to explain his overpowering anti-Russian bias. The Ukrainian government and its fan club was rooting for a Clinton victory last year (for obvious reasons).

    • Replies: @geokat62
  45. geokat62 says:
    @Seamus Padraig

    Not only is he Jewish, but according to the ZeroHedge article you linked to, he’s actually from Ukraine rather than Russia…

    If you were referring to Alperovitch, I don’t think the article mentions anything about his nationality.

    • Replies: @Seamus Padraig
  46. Insightful.
    Used to think Brennan, Clapper,
    and Comey needed to be tried for treason.
    Still do but you have point that they are probably just tools.
    Their public impunity screams how safe they feel.

    Though all of Washington would like to discredit Trump for their own reasons, too.
    What is amazing is that all the antiTrumpers despise him even though he is at least vaguely on their side.
    That is why he was elected, not because of any Russian interference.
    Maybe I am naive, but I think DJT is a naive, mild
    reformer, true patriot.
    What a thankless fucking job!

  47. notanon says:

    Maybe I am naive, but I think DJT is a naive, mild reformer, true patriot.

    I think that’s entirely true but he’s also a psychopath and media/DNC/ GOPe threatened his family so ironically he’s now gonna have to destroy them all.

  48. Mr Tea says:

    “The Sword and the Shield” by Oxford Prof. Christopher Andrew explores the evidence of KGB spying and domestic political intervention provided by the archives kept by Moscow-based KGB agent Vasily Mitrokihn. These included false letterhead forgeries to create links between the John Birch Society and Nazi/Klan types and a faked letter to make it appear that J.Edgar Hoover had provided financial aid to the JBS. Now why would the KGB target the Birchers?

    The evidence regarding Soviet penetration of the highest circles of the federal government going back to the Roosevelt admin before WW2 was reviewed extensively on C-Span programs in the 1990s. Books by former US agent Herb Rommerstein, the above mentioned Andrew book, others like “The Haunted Wood” and “Spies” (published by Yale U press) and finally the excellent “In Denial” by Haynes and Klehr looked at the “roaring silence” from the US academic establishment after the revelations of the “Venona” project had become public were discussed. “Blacklisted by History” about Joe McCarthy erased the myth of his “wild accusations” in fact every time he used a number it was based on existent investigative files. Even liberal-leaning author Timothy Weiner acknowledges the Soviet penetration in his histories of the FBI and CIA.

    The Venona and Mitrokihn materials have been a matter of public knowledge for 20 years. Yet the effective mind control system of “higher education” and most importantly the media corporations produces even a voting electorate in which only a tiny minority is aware of these facts, capable of being swayed by claims of some unprecedented interference by Russia. The Soviets were doing it all along.

  49. Mr Tea says:
    @Grandpa Charlie

    There were a lot of us recoiling in horror as the Clin-tongs got away with their parade over the law, in this case against foreign interference. Look into the roots of PRC agents like Charlie Trie and the way they were cultivating Clinton while he was still back in Arkansas.

    Note how Globalist mouthpiece Thomas Friedman went around saying “if only we could be China for a day”. It’s no coincidence how many rich liberals get even richer (Apple) off the China “trade” even as their actions strengthen the regime (Loral, Cisco). That’s why I call them Corporate Quislings. A very smart analyst Charles R. Smith at has been monitoring the defense-related technologies aspect of this since the site author was on Art Bell’s show in the 1990s. He’s another one on the list of “too truthful” to be allowed on the Controlled News Media (other notables include Russian expert Anne Williamson and investment analyst Catherine Austin Fitts at The Dunwalke files here are possibly the most insightful things ever written about the Powers That Be in the financial markets

    Smith on N. Korea

    • Replies: @Grandpa Charlie
  50. @El Dato

    Trump had been looking to get into politics for some time but was unneeded by the party bosses who had plenty of hacks already to call on.

  51. Ivy says:
    @FKA Max

    DeVry left behind its Institutish ways, fledged as a University, and assumes its rightful place in the Legion of Honor. Next, they’ll be gunning for Strayer University and then Cochise College on that march to the top. Is any financial aid involved, or just DoD grants?

  52. Dr. Crow says:
    @Seamus Padraig

    Actually, now many of the campaign’s people have admitted to having met with Russians during the campaign: Flynn, Don Jr., Sessions, Manafort, et. al. Need I go on? Meeting with them isn’t a crime but what they discussed might well be: “Conspiring to de-fraud the US election”. This is what they would be charged with, at the very least. It is a Federal crime. And no, oppo research isn’t a crime but conspiring with a foreign entity to influence a US election is.

    This is the basis for the Mueller investigation which started, as you may remember, with intercepts by US intelligence agencies of campaign members’ phone calls and other electronic sources.

    You may not like the Clintons, that’s fairly obvious by your post and you don’t have to live with the results of this election as you live in Europe now, far from the madding crowd here in the US. But I myself look forward to the results of Mr. Mueller’s investigation into the rather dicey Trump folks’ contacts with Russians all through their campaign.

    • Replies: @notanon
  53. Dr. Crow says:
    @Seamus Padraig

    As for your “obstruction of justice” comment, I assume you’re referring to a meeting between Bill Clinton and Attorney General Lynch during the campaign. However, you don’t know what happened at that meeting any more than I do. It would take another investigation into it to know the details. At any event, that investigation didn’t happen and there is nothing to show that anything untoward was said or done as a result of it. That’s the fact of the matter. Or do you wish to assert that the FBI is in cahoots with the Clintons too? Like Jim Comey has a big crush on Hillary or something equally as plausible?

    But riddle me this, Riddler: Why has every one of Trump’s campaign people, when asked of meetings with Russians, initially denied that any took place? Not some of the people, or even most of the people involved, but 100% of the people involved? Including the present Attorney General Mr. Sessions, who has “mis-rembered” those meeting 3 times before the US Congress.
    Riddle me that, Riddler.

  54. Dr. Crow says:

    No, sorry old sod, but I’m not at all who you think I might be or who once was someone else.

    • Replies: @geokat62
  55. geokat62 says:
    @Dr. Crow

    No, sorry old sod…

    Of course not, Corvy.

  56. notanon says:
    @Dr. Crow

    This is the basis for the Mueller investigation which started, as you may remember, with intercepts by US intelligence agencies of campaign members’ phone calls and other electronic sources.

    not true – it started with the democrats/media inventing allegations of Russian hacking that could then be used to get state security to bug a presidential candidate for oppo research and which found nothing –
    hence Mueller being forced to extend his investigation into Trump’s past business dealings going back decades in a desperate search for any kind of dirt.

    The media ran many stories claiming they had multiple solid anonymous sources with solid evidence of Russian collusion and yet Mueller found nothing ergo it was all a pack of media lies.

    The actual story here is watergate2.

    • Replies: @dr. crow
  57. @Mr Tea

    Mr. Tea,

    Thank you for your informative comment. Excellent references and links. Thank you again.

  58. dr. crow says:

    You’re daft! The government obtained a FISA warrent on Manafort and had him wiretapped. This alone was sufficient to spark the Mueller investigation but there were other actions by other players that intelligence services, both US and foreign, became aware of. Your explanation of how the Mueller investigation came about makes no sense whatsoever. None. Nada. Zip. Bupkis. Nyet.
    And I’ll point out that the Mueller investigation isn’t over yet so we don’t know the extent of what it has found, thus it can’t be described as “a pack of lies”.
    Really, where do you get your information? You really need to find more sane, reliable sources!

Current Commenter

Leave a Reply -

 Remember My InformationWhy?
 Email Replies to my Comment
Submitted comments have been licensed to The Unz Review and may be republished elsewhere at the sole discretion of the latter
Commenting Disabled While in Translation Mode
Subscribe to This Comment Thread via RSS Subscribe to All Mike Whitney Comments via RSS