The Democrats’ “Insurance Policy”

No, this isn’t the real Steele Dossier. But then, there’s not much real about the Steele Dossier…

I wonder how many Ethics Alarms readers know about this, thanks to the responsible reporting on the news media?

Jonathan Turley, who is only called a conservative because he refuses to bow to the extreme Left like most of his law prof colleagues, provided an interesting a crucial update to the Steele Dossier scandal. You should read the whole thing, but he reveals,

  • British spy Christopher Steele was recently called for a deposition in London in a defamation action filed by three Russian bankers for allegedly false claims in the dossier. He siad that the Clinton campaign paid him and research firm Fusion GPS to compile his controversial dossier on Donald Trump as “insurance” against his being elected.
  • Though the Clinton campaign denied any involvement in the creation of the dossier that was later used to secure a secret surveillance warrant against Trump associates during the Obama administration,   the  campaign hid the payments to Fusion as a “legal fees” among the $5.6 million paid to the U.S. law firm of Perkins Coie. Times reporter  Maggie Haberman  wrote: “Folks involved in funding this lied about it, and with sanctimony, for a year.”
  • When Clinton campaign chairman John Podesta was questioned by Congress on the matter, he denied any contractual agreement with Fusion GPS. Sitting beside him was Elias, who helped devise contract. Later, confronted with the evidence, Clinton and her campaign finally admitted that the dossier was a campaign-funded document that was pushed by Steele and others to the media.
  • In one of his answers to an interrogatory, under oath,Steele said: “Fusion’s immediate client was law firm Perkins Coie. It engaged Fusion to obtain information necessary for Perkins Coie LLP to provide legal advice on the potential impact of Russian involvement on the legal validity of the outcome of the 2016 U.S. Presidential election. Based on that advice, parties such as the Democratic National Committee and HFACC Inc. (also known as ‘Hillary for America’) could consider steps they would be legally entitled to take to challenge the validity of the outcome of that election.”
  • “The dossier ultimately found its way from a Fusion GPS employee, Nellie Ohr, to her husband, Justice Department official Bruce Ohr. From there, it became the basis of Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) warrants targeting figures like Trump campaign adviser Carter Page, signed off by the Obama administration with the involvement of later-fired FBI director James Comey and his deputy, Andrew McCabe. (Ohr was later demoted over his involvement.) Page was never charged with a crime while key players like Fusion GPS co-founder Glenn Simpson invoked the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination to refuse to answer further questions from Congress.”
  • “The FBI knew the dossier was part of a Clinton campaign operation but told the secret FISA court that it was only speculating about a possible political motive for the material.
  • “In the 412-page application, the FBI buries the issue in a footnote, stating that Steele was hired by Fusion GPS to conduct research on Trump and that “The identified U.S. person never advised [Steele] as to the motivation behind the research into [Trump] ties to Russia. The FBI speculates that the identified U.S. Person was likely looking for information that could be used to discredit Candidate #1’s campaign.”
  • “We now know that Steele and Fusion GPS aggressively shopped the dossier with any reporter who would listen, while also pitching it to Ohr and the FBI. Notably, the dossier story was broken by investigative journalist Michael Isikoff who recently admitted, “When you actually get into the details of the Steele dossier, the specific allegations, we have not seen the evidence to support them, and, in fact, there’s good grounds to think that some of the more sensational allegations will never be proven and are likely false.”

Concludes Turley:

Ultimately, the dossier was used for precisely the purpose described by Steele: It led to the special counsel investigation, which quickly diverted to other criminal allegations unrelated to the dossier’s most sensational claims, like hacking or coordination with WikiLeaks and Russian trolling operations. Indeed, Democratic leaders’ new claims of a “massive fraud” in the election is the alleged violation of campaign finance laws to pay hush money to a porn star and former Playboy bunny….Some of us have long criticized the secret court as operating below the constitutional standard set out in the Fourth Amendment for searches and seizures. In this case, using that secret court, a dossier funded by the Democratic presidential candidate was given to the outgoing Democratic administration to investigate advisers to the Republican challenger and his business dealings. That alone should be deeply troubling, even without the unproven allegations.

I have written about this over the last year, because the facts were out there for anyone with the integrity to examine them.  Now that the results are in, the conclusion should be unavoidable that the Obama administration and the Clinton campaign violated law and breached ethics standards to spy on the Trump campaign, and to create a foundation for removing him as President should the worst occur and Hillary somehow miss her planned coronation. It does not take a genius or a conspiracy theorist to see the connection between what Turley describes and the texts between the FBI lovebirds on the Mueller team about contingency plans should Trump win. No, that connection has not been proven.  It is, however, suspicious.

It is also fascinating to me that an alleged and unproven “collusion” with Russia on the part of the Trump campaign is somehow considered more heinous than proven collusion between the Obama Justice Department and the Clinton campaign to undermine the campaign and, if necessary, the Presidency of the opposing party’s candidate.

13 Comments

Filed under Ethics Alarms Award Nominee, Ethics Train Wrecks, Government & Politics, Journalism & Media, Law & Law Enforcement

13 responses to “The Democrats’ “Insurance Policy”

  1. dragin_dragon

    Some more than interesting, Z. I continue to wonder why, as obviously corrupt as Obama and Clinton were, no indictments are forthcoming?

  2. PennAgain

    Second thought: This collusion of one campaign to undermine another with deliberately manufactured false allegations, utilizing the secret cooperation of the Justice Department and the FBI under the then current administration to covertly obtain material (on extraneous matters) to be used as false evidence against the opposing candidate — do I have this right? — seems to me to be on a level with the Watergate scandal, if not far worse because of the allegations of foreign conspiracy to affect American elections.

    If Steele is/was the “Deep Throat,” all that is needed are a Woodward and a Bernstein. Unfortunately . . . .

    • Inquiring Mind

      Unfortunately, many of the potential Woodwards and Bernsteins are perfectly okay with THIS abuse of government power.

      Just as they were okay with the IRS scandal, the John Doe investigations in Wisconsin, the misuse of financial regulations to target the National Rifle Association by Andrew Cuomo, the investigation of the National Enquirer’s editorial decisions vis-a-vis alleged Trump mistresses, and the threats made by a number of Democratic Attorneys General to investigate those who opposed the preferred environmental policies of the Left.

      I wonder how the same people who cheer the Mueller probe would have reacted had the George W. Bush administration launched a special prosecutor into the Gitmo Bar, while the Washington Post and New York Times were being investigated for their editorial decisions vis-a-vis enhanced interrogation and/or other counter-terrorist programs.

      Any guesses?

  3. Michael R.

    I think one of them more outrageous things here is that some of the information included in this dossier were hoaxes from 4chan (just think of the most outrageous and depraved parts of the dossier).

  4. adimagejim

    When does this end with the correct people under investigation and defending themselves in court? Somebody needs to open grand juries into Comey, Ohr, Clinton, Podesta, Strock, Page, McCabe, Lynch, Holder, et.al., now.

    If none are forthcoming, we have lost our country.

  5. Arthur in Maine

    I read Turley’s piece the other day. In reading this, the most depressing thing was clicking on the link to Maggie Haberman’s tweet. If anyone wants to see Jack’s Rationalization List in action, read the responses. Most of them are there, in one form or another.

  6. Other Bill

    You lie, Jack!

    (Just standing in for Chris and the others in absentia.)

    • Just like so called ‘moderate muslims,’ those commenters are perfectly fine with the excesses as long as it works for progressive goals. This is a lack of integrity, for which some are too ashamed to admit to in writing.

      Add to that the late tendency to eat their own, and free speech has been chilled quite well on the left.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.