61 Hacks Who Peddled Russian Collusion And Should Never Be Trusted Again
BY: MARGOT CLEVELAND
MARCH 27, 2019
13 MIN READ
SHARE
- Share Article on Facebook
- Share Article on Twitter
- Share Article on Truth Social
- Copy Article Link
- Share Article via Email
Since 2016, some big names—both inside the government and out—have peddled the Trump-Russia collusion conspiracy with such vigor you’d think they invested their life savings in Reynolds Metal Company. Now that Special Counsel Robert Mueller has closed the door on such hysteria, let’s take a look back at the Most Mistaken Men and Women in America (and the world).
Christopher Steele: Is there anywhere else to begin, really? The former British spy destroyed any semblance of seriousness when he included reports of the pee-prostitutes in his dossier. But the rest of the report was equal parts claptrap.
There was no secret meeting between Kremlin courtiers and former Trump campaign advisor Carter Page. No trip to Prague by Michael Cohen. No quid pro quo election assistance for the lifting of sanctions. No there there. Yet his so-called report was a key basis for this entire Russian hoax saga.
Of course, all those taken in by Steele—or assisting him in trumping up years of investigations of a U.S. president based on smoke and mirrors—make the list too: Glenn Simpson, DOJ lawyer Bruce Ohr, the former FBI duo of Peter Strzok and Lisa Page, fired FBI heads James Comey and Andrew McCabe, dossier courier David Kramer, and former senator Harry Reid, among others.
Then there’s Jane Mayer, whose ode to Steele at The New Yorker sought to prop up the un-propable. Former National Security Agency lawyer Susan Hennessey, a CNN contributor, also gave credence to the dossier constantly, in one instance claiming “the intelligence community and law enforcement seem to be taking these claims seriously.”
And they follow this shit show up w/ commentary from Susan Hennessey, who is shaping up to be one of the wrongest people in the last two years. pic.twitter.com/rereyzsJG3
— Chuck Ross (@ChuckRossDC) March 22, 2019
Yes, U.S. intelligence leaders were taking those claims seriously. Too seriously. Case-in-point: Former CIA director John Brennan. At least Steele was getting paid for his—to borrow a word from Brennan—hogwash. Brennan sold collusion from both inside the White House and out.
I confess I’ve tuned a lot of this out but jeez watch this John Brennan MSNBC clip from two weeks ago and compare to the news tonight. pic.twitter.com/gMWhs6hA9R
— Jimmy (@JimmyPrinceton) March 23, 2019
So did Obama national security director James Clapper, who played a key role in both creating the Russian collusion hoax and perpetuating it over the next two years as a CNN contributor. According to a declassified congressional report, “Clapper leaked details of a dossier briefing given to then-President-elect Donald Trump to CNN’s Jake Tapper, lied to Congress about the leak, and was rewarded with a CNN contract a few months later.”
As The Federalist’s Mollie Hemingway reported, Clapper’s leak seems to have been done in coordination with Comey as a setup to give the false dossier legitimacy. Regardless, Washington Post factcheckers went to bat for Clapper, purporting to prove that he wasn’t really lying when he lied to Congress. The outcome is not only the end of credibility for Clapper but also for the Washington Post.
James Clapper spent his whole career lying to the public. CNN then hired him to shape & analyze the news. After hiring numerous trained liars & disinformation agents like this, CNN expresses bewilderment & anger that people don’t trust them & believe they’re a propaganda outlet: https://t.co/MmBYlKPx0X
— Glenn Greenwald (@ggreenwald) March 26, 2019
Was joking about this just today. yes, the WP and NYT won *PULITZERS* for their supposed stellar reporting on Trump’s treasonous activity with Russia. It’s too perfect. PULITZERS. I thought media’s reputation couldn’t go lower than where it was November 2016. Boy was I wrong. https://t.co/LiWCv03Ouq
— Mollie (@MZHemingway) March 24, 2019
Former NSA analyst and counterintelligence officer John Schindler, a New York Observer columnist and sometimes CNN guest, also beclowned himself, claiming NSA Director Mike Rogers told his staff “there is no question that we [meaning NSA] have evidence of election involvement and questionable contacts with the Russians.”
Schindler then noted that “although Rogers did not cite the specific intelligence he was referring to, agency officials with direct knowledge” have “reports from 2016 based on intercepts of communications between known Russian intelligence officials and key members of Trump’s campaign, in which they discussed methods of damaging Hillary Clinton.”
Schindler also posited that when Rogers reportedly told Trump “I know you won’t like it, but I have to tell what I have seen,” it was “a probable reference to specific intelligence establishing collusion between the Kremlin and Team Trump.” That aged well.
— John Schindler, #SuperSpook (@CrazyCommittee) March 24, 2019
Former CIA acting director John McLaughlin also pushed the Trump-Russia “relationship” narrative, telling MSNBC’s Andrew Mitchell that “the president is an intelligence recruiter’s dream.” To top it all off, after Mueller issued his report, “Russian security expert” Malcom Nance, a NBC and MSNBC contributor, immediately pivoted to even crazier conspiracy theories about Mueller perpetrating a coverup and more.
MSNBC’s top-line takeaway is that Mueller’s probe “does not exonerate Trump” and their go-to experts are former CIA chief John McLaughlin and “intelligence” fraudster Malcolm Nance. Shameless and despicable pic.twitter.com/pGChlN5YQV
— Michael Tracey (@mtracey) March 24, 2019
Mark me down as someone who can no longer believe ANYTHING from the Trump “Justice” Department. This is narrative control to make Barr’s decision to absolve Trump look reasoned. #SupoenaBarr https://t.co/FQSKcgGEVf
— Malcolm Nance (@MalcolmNance) March 25, 2019
TRUMP TOWER MOSCOW SIGNED LETTER OF INTENT: Unless Mueller can explain how THIS is not “tacit or express agreement” with Moscow which amazingly does not imply a quid pro quo in a conspiracy he repeatedly lied about I won’t believe it. #ReleaseTheFullReport pic.twitter.com/piGkuHFL8J
— Malcolm Nance (@MalcolmNance) March 24, 2019
Over the two years of the Russia hoax, The New York Times added several more conspiratorial types to the ranks, including columnist Michelle Goldberg. Goldberg actually wondered aloud about the president whether “Putin is his handler, his hero or his co-conspirator,” adding that it’s “obviously where his loyalty lies as opposed to lying with the American people.”
The New York Times go-to-man, Paul Krugman, and front woman Maggie Haberman, also round out the newspaper of record’s decent to dithering dingbattery.
The Full House at MSNBC also got in on the action, with Rachel Maddow, Joy Reid, and David Corn frequently whipping the collusion conspiracy.
Don’t forget the key component of the Trump-Russia scandal: Trump aided and abetted the Kremlin’s attack on the 2016 election. Here’s how Cohen’s testimony relates to that. https://t.co/NcOZsXCFR0
— David Corn (@DavidCornDC) February 27, 2019
Don’t forget MSNBC’s Chris Hayes, who gave air time to Jonathan Chait to push the possibility that “Donald Trump has been a Russian intelligence asset since 1987,” even while admitting “it sounds nuts.” Blogger Nick Monroe highlighted more of Hayes’ hilarity on Twitter.
While he’s at it, Monroe takes down Joe Scarborough, CNN’s Oliver Darcy, and Chris Matthews.
Yet Matthews, host of MSNBC’s “Hardball,” wasn’t content with merely tossing about his own conspiracy theories—he invited guests on to rally the impeach Trump team, such as Rep. Eric Swalwell (D-CA). Swalwell asserted on Matthews’ show that President Donald Trump was an agent of the Russian government.
MSNBC, CNN, NBC, CBS All Covered in Shame
Doing double duty for NBC and MSNBC, so-called reporter Ken Dilanian kept the collusion conspiracy going, even if it meant reporting fake news, such as the bombshell “that Russian-linked operatives had approached the Trump team in 2016 with access to a looming email dump.” False. Here’s CNN’s Manu Raju, formerly of Politico, “clarifying” this completely false story.
But, hey, Dilanian wasn’t the only one to make the EXACT. SAME. MISTAKE. So did CNN and CBS News, reporting respectively, “Email shows efforts to give Trump campaign WikiLeaks documents” and “House Intel investigates Trump Jr. email involving documents hacked during campaign.”
CNN was also a frequent contributor to the worst reporting column. For instance, in a quadruple-byline piece, Gloria Borger, Eric Lichtblau, Jake Tapper, and Brian Rokus reported that Comey would testify before the Senate that he did not tell Trump that he wasn’t a target of the pending Russia investigation. CNN was dead wrong and in his testimony, Comey confirmed just what Trump had claimed—that the former FBI director had assured the president that he was not a target of the investigation.
While they thought a simple correction sufficed in that case, CNN axed three individuals responsible for another fake Russia story, including reporter Thomas Frank. The fallout came after Frank reported an exclusive that the Senate Intelligence Committee “was investigating a Russian investment fund— the Direct Investment Fund (RDIF) — whose chief executive met with a member of President Donald Trump’s transition team four days before Trump’s inauguration.”
After Breitbart News outed CNN’s “Very Fake News,” the airport staple retracted the story and fired the team responsible for publishing it. That didn’t stop its many contributors and employees from repeated and unpunished fake news transgressions regarding the Russia conspiracy, including some of the following.
CNN and MSNBC gave Avenatti a megaphone to go after their mutual target (Trump), and he was going to use that platform to extort major corporations.
— Chuck Ross (@ChuckRossDC) March 25, 2019
CNN has an entire specials section on their website called “CNN Investigates” https://t.co/WWsoTa0f9Y https://t.co/346KC0BJPK
— Stephen L. Miller (@redsteeze) March 26, 2019
PHOTOS:
CNN host Don Lemon & CNN Political Analyst April Ryan drinking, partying & *dancing* with Avenatti
CNN interviewed Avenatti a hundreds of times last year
Avenatti is being charged with multiple federal crimes today
Remember this when CNN claims to be “objective” news pic.twitter.com/YsChNSTTAg
— Benny (@bennyjohnson) March 25, 2019
Conspiracy Peddlers Also Found at Fox, CBS
Trump darling Fox News also has its own share of conspiracy theorists. Juan Williams pushed Roger Stone and Donald Trump Jr. as the evidence of collusion, and in a textbook example of projection, told his fellow panelists on “The Five” that they were blinded to the truth because they were “in the bunker” for Trump.
Fox anchor Shepard Smith claimed Mike Flynn’s guilty plea was proof the Russia investigation wasn’t a hoax, going so far as to pretend he was fact-checking the president.
The Washington Post’s pretend conservative Jennifer Rubin carried the cable crusade to the mainstream, writing: “Oddly, it was on Wednesday morning that we learned Sen. Richard Burr (R-N.C.), the chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, believed there’d been no direct evidence of collusion. That assertion is hard to square with the court’s finding later on Wednesday and publicly available evidence.” And Twitter:
The Washington Post also boasts the imaginative Asha Rangappa, who just a few months ago was pushing for an indictment against Trump—a far cry from Mueller’s complete exoneration of Trump and his team from any claims of collusion. Here’s a look at Rangappa’s story archive, replete with hoax angles.
Ana Navarro, a co-host of CBS’s “The View,” is known as an anti-Trump Russia collusion supporter. Here is one of her many statements assuming the president’s guilt of treason with Russia that has finally been proven false by the Mueller report.
Dan Rather, the perennial legacy “journalist,” joined in the collusion conspiracy with some bombshell-bragging tweets that should have given away the game for anyone old enough to remember his “fake but accurate” history. Fool me once and all that.
Not Limited to Legacy Media Either
Many new media players bought the collusion claims as well. Natasha Bertrand laid out the whole—in her mind—sordid scandal at Business Insider, pushing among other things the validity of Steele’s dossier.
The NeverTrump brigade also saw their theories explode faster than a Donald Trump tweet could enrage the Republican apostates. Former Weekly Standard editor Bill Kristol prophesized that it’s “likely Mueller will find there was collusion between Trump associates and Putin operatives that Trump knew about it; and that Trump sought to cover it up and obstruct its investigation.”
Oops. https://t.co/9sd09Yccih
— Brit Hume (@brithume) March 24, 2019
Claims of collusion weren’t enough, though, for Max Boot, another Never Trump spawn. Boot took to the Washington Post to present “18 reasons Trump could be a Russian asset.” Here’s the headline, which now is even more obviously a pile of hot air than the day it was published and all the intervening days in which Boot peddled collusion.
Rick Wilson, also of Never Trump and a former Republican strategist, regularly took to Twitter as well to relight the story of Russia collusion.
4/ Mueller is the guy standing 20 feet away with a .45 waiting for the right moment.
— Rick Wilson (@TheRickWilson) October 28, 2017
Fellow Never Trumper, ex-Republican, and straight-ticket Democrat cheerleader Tom Nichols added his thoughts in an op-ed for USA Today. After proclaiming “the Deep State story is nonsense,” Nichols noted that “as I have written many times over the past two years, it is highly unlikely that there is any innocent explanation for the remarkable frequency and depth of the Trump coterie’s interactions with Russia for some 30 years, and especially during the campaign.”
I have some advice for Nichols, a Russian expert and author of “The Death of Expertise”: let the dead bury the dead.
Also, the Pulitzers Are Toast
Speaking of the dead, Joseph Pulitzer must be spinning in his grave, knowing the journalist award bearing his name recently honored the New York Times for its national reporting on the Russia-collusion hoax.
Then there’s the craziness that came from Louise Mensch, deserving of a solo spread.
The loony leftist legislators made the mix too.
I’ll toss these onto the pile. I got more 😁 pic.twitter.com/qdSv1vT0uE
— 𝘛𝘳𝘪𝘨𝘨𝘢𝘕𝘰𝘮𝘦𝘵𝘳𝘺 (@grindingdude) March 25, 2019
Here’s a real gem from #markwarner on #meetthepress Uh huh RT #muellerreport #WalkAway #BLEXIT @DunbarJoseph #QAnon @StevenRCorey1 @Ange6H777 @Good4Education @CrystalQuartz7 @HeliaERossini1 @altum_teresa @WidowFike @Thewwel @freenaynow @kasmouse @MorganleFey26 #Vets @AFBranco pic.twitter.com/bYHK5IRe5h
— Carol Gold founder of Les Spectres Féminins. (@BlondeFemFatale) March 25, 2019
The Democratic lunatics didn’t just take to Twitter, they did the mainstream media circuit pushing their delusions of collusion. In addition to Swalwell’s appearance on “Hardball,” we saw Democratic Rep. Raja Krishnamoorthi selling a similar soundbite to NPR:
Well, I think that when he said he did not see direct evidence of collusion, I think that there’s definitely some kind of confusion on that. Because at the same time he said that, he also talked about overhearing a conversation on the speaker phone in President Trump’s office at the Trump Organization where the president and Roger Stone talked about an upcoming dump of emails attacking Hillary Clinton by WikiLeaks. And, again, that was something that was new news. And it had been previously denied – these types of conversations – by both President Trump and Mr. Stone. And so that could be some evidence of, you know, a conspiracy or collusion. And therefore, we have to continue to investigate.
But it isn’t merely wackadoodles like Waters, the supposedly straight-shooting moderately toned Rep. Adam Schiff has pushed collusion harder than House Democrats hit the Green New Deal socialism shtick. Here’s the now-chair of the House intelligence committee, pronouncing last August that there is “plenty of evidence of collusion or conspiracy in plain sight.” Of course, that doesn’t mean “there’s proof beyond a reasonable doubt of a criminal conspiracy,” Schiff conceded at the time. Actually, though, Mueller made clear there is neither.
What about every member of the media who hoisted Schiff on their shoulders while mocking Rep. Devin Nunes—the true first responder to this charade!
The Lawfare blog likewise shared in the folly. Here’s Benjamin Wittes:
And here:
Hennessey, who now serves as the executive editor of Lawfare as well as general counsel of the Lawfare Institute, adds to the anti-Trump bias pushing the Russia-collusion conspiracy, and has been for nearly two years.
Along with pretty much anyone writing for Lawfare, you can add the entire staff at McClatchy, which pushed one collusion conspiracy after another—the most infamous being the Greg Gordon and Peter Stone story that Mueller had evidence that Cohen had visited Prague. Here’s an excerpt:
McClatchy’s reporting prompted push-back from the special counsel’s office, with a spokesperson saying “that many stories about our investigation have been inaccurate. Be very cautious about any source that claims to have knowledge about our investigation and dig deep into what they claim before reporting on it.”
But a bigger buzz-kill came to those drinking the collusion cocktail when the special counsel’s office issued a statement expressly refuting a “bombshell report” by Jason Leopold and Anthony Cormier, claiming “Trump directed his attorney Michael Cohen to lie to Congress about the Moscow Tower Project.”
“BuzzFeed’s description of specific statements to the special counsel’s office, and characterization of documents and testimony obtained by this office, regarding Michael Cohen’s congressional testimony are not accurate,” special counsel spokesman Peter Carr said in response to Leopold and Cormier’s BuzzFeed article.
The Guardian also found itself a little too believing in claims of collusion, publishing an utterly false “exclusive” by Luke Harding and Dan Collyns. Relying on unnamed sources, the duo claimed that “Donald Trump’s former campaign manager Paul Manafort held secret talks with Julian Assange inside the Ecuadorian embassy in London, and visited around the time he joined Trump’s campaign.” It would have been quite the scoop—if true.
Heck, this all would have been quite a scoop if it were true. But none of it was. And that every mainstream media outlet, and dozens upon dozens of journalists, politicians, and pundits—including many I’m sure I missed—believed it was is the real scandal.
Margot Cleveland is The Federalist’s senior legal correspondent. She is also a contributor to National Review Online, the Washington Examiner, Aleteia, and Townhall.com, and has been published in the Wall Street Journal and USA Today. Cleveland is a lawyer and a graduate of the Notre Dame Law School, where she earned the Hoynes Prize—the law school’s highest honor. She later served for nearly 25 years as a permanent law clerk for a federal appellate judge on the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals. Cleveland is a former full-time university faculty member and now teaches as an adjunct from time to time. As a stay-at-home homeschooling mom of a young son with cystic fibrosis, Cleveland frequently writes on cultural issues related to parenting and special-needs children. Cleveland is on Twitter at @ProfMJCleveland. The views expressed here are those of Cleveland in her private capacity.
Obama – Clinton Had No ‘Actual Evidence’ Of Collusion By Trump When It Launched Crossfire Hurricane Investigation
BY: SHAWN FLEETWOOD MAY 15, 2023
The Obama administration possessed no real evidence that then-candidate Donald Trump colluded with Russian government officials when it launched its investigation into the Trump campaign leading up to the 2016 election, according to a new bombshell report.
On Monday, Special Counsel John Durham released the findings of his years-long investigation into the origins of the FBI’s surveillance of the Trump campaign in the months before, during, and after the 2016 presidential contest. Despite the agency’s claims that the inquiry — commonly referred to as Crossfire Hurricane — was predicated on the belief that Trump’s campaign was colluding with Russian officials leading up to the election, Durham’s report found the FBI had no evidence to warrant such an investigation.
“Indeed, based on the evidence gathered in the multiple exhaustive and costly federal investigations of these matters, including the instant investigation, neither the U.S. law enforcement nor the Intelligence Community appears to have possessed any actual evidence of collusion in their holdings at the commencement of the Crossfire Hurricane Investigation,” the report reads.
The baseless investigation into the Trump campaign started after Australian intelligence notified the FBI about “concerning comments” from George Papadopoulos, an unpaid foreign policy advisor for the Trump team, about the Russians purportedly having dirt on Hillary Clinton’s campaign. In his report, Durham details the recklessness with which leading FBI officials, such as then-Deputy Director Andrew McCabe and then-Deputy Assistant Director for Counterintelligence Peter Strzok, launched Crossfire Hurricane and further revealed that the FBI did not possess evidence of Trump-Russia collusion as late as March 2017.
The FBI launched a full investigation “without (i) any significant review of its own intelligence databases, (ii) collection and examination of any relevant intelligence from other U.S. intelligence agencies, (iii) interviews of witnesses essential to understand the raw information it had received or (iv) using any of the standard analytical tools typically employed by the FBI in evaluating raw intelligence,” the report reads. “In addition, FBI records prepared by Strzok in February and March 2017 show that at the time of the opening of Crossfire Hurricane, the FBI had no information in its holdings indicating that at any time during the campaign anyone in the Trump campaign had been in contact with any Russian intelligence officials.”
Durham furthermore notes how the FBI’s launching of Crossfire Hurricane — which was “based on raw, unanalyzed, and uncorroborated intelligence” — also reflected “a noticeable departure from how it approached prior matters involving possible attempted foreign election interference plans aimed at the Clinton campaigns.” In one instance, “FBI Headquarters and Department officials required defensive briefings to be provided to Clinton and other officials or candidates who appeared to be targets of foreign interference,” according to the report.
Meanwhile, the FBI did not notify Trump or his team when launching inquiries into campaign officials such as Papadopoulos, Carter Page, Paul Manafort, and Michael Flynn.
Durham’s report also highlights the baselessness of the Steele Dossier, which the FBI used in its application to acquire a FISA warrant to spy on the Trump campaign. In the months leading up to the 2016 election, Perkins Coie, a law firm acting on behalf of the Clinton campaign, hired Fusion GPS to conduct opposition research on Trump and his affiliates. Led by Glenn Simpson, Fusion GPS acquired the help of former British spy Christopher Steele to “investigate Trump’s ties to Russia.” On July 5, several weeks before the launch of Crossfire Hurricane, Steele provided the FBI with a series of derogatory stories concerning Trump’s alleged ties to Russia. These reports are what became known as the Steele Dossier.
“As noted, it was not until mid-September that the Crossfire Hurricane investigators received several of the Steele Reports,” the Durham report reads. “Within days of their receipt, the unvetted and unverified Steele Reports were used to support probable cause in the FBI’s FISA applications targeting Page.”
Durham ultimately concluded the FBI failed to corroborate any of its key claims regarding the Dossier, writing, “Our investigation determined that the Crossfire Hurricane investigators did not and could not corroborate any of the substantive allegations contained in the Steele reporting.”
Shawn Fleetwood is a Staff Writer for The Federalist and a graduate of the University of Mary Washington. He also serves as a state content writer for Convention of States Action and his work has been featured in numerous outlets, including RealClearPolitics, RealClearHealth, and Conservative Review. Follow him on Twitter @ShawnFleetwood
The Durham Probe Exposes Our Elites as Lawless Dictators, and their Allies as Corrupt Collaborators
By JOHN ZMIRAK Published on May 16, 2023
What would you call it when Southern white elites defied the U.S. Constitution and stripped freed black Americans of the right to vote? When they stuffed ballot boxes, imposed arbitrary conditions for voting, or outright faked the results, to keep blacks and Republicans out of office during Reconstruction — then for another 100 years after that?
I know what the perpetrators called it at the time. They termed it “Redemption,” and styled themselves the “Redeemers,” blasphemously comparing themselves to our actual Redeemer. That’s how committed they were to rejecting the will of the people — or rather, of those Americans they didn’t consider fully people, capable of governing themselves.
In The Unvanquished, the genius Southern author William Faulkner depicts the motives of the men who managed to overturn democracy and restore white rule. They saw themselves as heroes, leaders of a Resistance to unjust conquest and rule by the mindless mob. They saw the Ku Klux Klan as a noble partisan militia, mobilized to fight for what they considered social justice.
If We’re the Resistance, That Makes You the Nazis
In the wake of the French Resistance to Hitler, that term itself took on a deeper meaning. It came to convey a desperate, heroic movement against the ultimate evil, which by the very nature of its struggle must use “any means necessary” to frustrate a tyrannical, wicked, illegitimate regime.
And that’s how the anti-populists in both political parties, and our media, and federal agencies saw themselves. When Democrats and NeverTrumpers adopted the term “Resistance” for their efforts to frustrate Trump, they were telegraphing the fact that no rules applied, no means however corrupt or even violent was off the table. They would leave no rule unbroken, no string unpulled, no method untried. That was how thoroughly they rejected the voters’ will, and how much they despised the voters.
Dog Whistles for the Attack Dogs
Hillary Clinton’s use of the word “Deplorables” quickly backfired. Instead, supporters of Trump’s center-right agenda were smeared with stickier epithets. They were outright “racists,” “white nationalists,” “Christian nationalists,” or (in Biden’s current usage) “domestic extremists.” Not fellow Americans who differed with the politics of our urban, coastal elites, but barely human time-bombs ticking, waiting to explode with violence and hate.
Please Support The Stream: Equipping Christians to Think Clearly About the Political, Economic, and Moral Issues of Our Day.
We really haven’t seen this level of contempt felt by one group of Americans for another since the darkest days of segregation. That’s why I make the comparison. Remember when leftists in Washington started hounding and threatening employees of the Trump administration as they tried to eat in restaurants? They were acting like Southern whites intimidating blacks at segregated lunch counters, outraged that those whom they considered barely human were eating alongside them.
Scapegoating the Unvaccinated
Of course, things got much worse during the COVID panic, which gave (fake) public health excuses for one set of Americans to ostracize, denounce, and try to ruin the lives of another — because they wouldn’t take an experimental, abortion-derived vaccine. It was okay to wish them early deaths, and fantasize about denying them health care, or herding them into camps.
No the vaccine didn’t stop the spread of COVID, or in fact save lives as advertised. But the vaccine served its purpose: it gave our elites and those sheep who aspire to emulate them one more pretext for scorning and hating their neighbors, and stripping away their God-given rights. It was a practice session for the large-scale political persecution of Christians and conservatives. So for them it was worth it.
The Deep State Overturned the 2016 Election
As Al Perrotta explained, the Durham Report shows us just how eager our elites were to embrace massive corruption, the abuse of power, false prosecution, perjury, and all the other apparatus of tyranny to undo the voter’s choice in 2016. A president and a vice-president colluded with the FBI to pursue and publicize charges of treason they knew were false, just to frustrate the people’s will. Not in Guatemala or Cameroon. In the United States of America.
And all those Republicans and Christians of the NeverTrump movement were perfectly happy to play along. The likes of Russell Moore and David French were eager to cite and amplify the false charges, suddenly losing their capacity for asking skeptical questions or defending the rule of law. They were so desperate to join the elite campaign against the people, they didn’t ask too many questions. Instead they blathered about how Trump violated the “norms” and “decorum” proper to American politics … never mind that the FBI was violating the law.
The Lie Will Set You Free
But we should believe all these people when they assure us that the 2020 election was the most secure in history, and that the January 6 protestors — who gathered in frustration at the refusal of any court in America to examine election fraud charges on their merits — were dangerous “insurrectionists.” That they engaged in “seditious conspiracy,” and deserve long prison sentences.
We should believe that there’s nothing corrupt or anti-democratic about blue states and cities scrambling to convict Trump of some felony, to keep him off the ballot. If we doubt any of that, we could join the ranks of the scapegoats, get canceled or fired or raided by the FBI.
Move along people, nothing to see here. I said “Move along!” Unless you want to end up like Ashli Babbitt … .
John Zmirak is a senior editor at The Stream and author or co-author of ten books, including The Politically Incorrect Guide to Immigration and The Politically Incorrect Guide to Catholicism. He is co-author with Jason Jones of “God, Guns, & the Government.”
Durham Asks Court to Compel Production From Clinton Campaign, DNC
APR 7, 2022 By Zachary Stieber @ Epoch Times
Special Counsel John Durham’s team on April 6 asked a federal judge to force Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign and two other parties to hand over documents they claim are protected by attorney-client privilege.
The campaign, the Democratic National Committee (DNC), and Fusion GPS appear to be withholding documents that aren’t actually protected by the privilege, Durham’s team said in the filing, entered in the case against ex-Clinton lawyer Michael Sussmann.
Of the withheld materials, almost all “appear to lack any connection to actual or expected litigation or the provision of legal advice,” prosecutors told U.S. District Judge Christopher Cooper, an Obama appointee who is overseeing the case.
In fact, of the 1,455 documents being withheld by Fusion, only 18 emails and attachments are said to involve an attorney.
The Clinton campaign, the DNC, and Fusion did not respond to requests for comment.
The documents in question are being sought for the upcoming trial of Sussmann, who was charged with lying to the FBI for going to a bureau lawyer in 2016 and falsely stating he didn’t hand over unsubstantiated claims about then-candidate Donald Trump on behalf of a client.
The claims were compiled with funding from the campaign and the DNC by ex-British spy Christopher Steele and Fusion, an operative firm founded by former reporters.
Sussmann and his lawyers have argued the lie about not bringing the information on behalf of a client was not material to the information itself. They have been pressing the judge to dismiss the case prior to trial.
Attorney-client privilege protects many communications between a client and their lawyer. Disclosure to third parties usually undercuts privilege claims.
In the new filing, Durham’s team pointed out that Fusion founders Glenn Simpson and Peter Fritsch penned a book published in 2019, which means even if a valid privilege did once exist, it might have since been waived.
Prosecutors also noted that Fusion operatives regularly communicated with reporters about their work, resulting in several stories before the 2020 election and a spate of others after voters hit the polls.
- the Gateway Pundit
- Did They Do-it 4 $$$B ?
- The Zelenko Report: Ann Vandersteel ft. Derek Johnson
- Post Millennial
- (no title)
- MILITARY & TRUMP – STILL IN CHARGE PER LAW & ORDER
- THIS IS A MILITARY STING OPERATION
- PROOF DONALD TRUMP IS STILL PRESIDENT LEGALLY
- 9/11 truths and insights
- COVERT OP HISTORY PROVES PAST
- EVIDENCE TO AWAKEN EVERYONE
- WHO’S YOUR PRESIDENT?👱♂️🇺🇸
- 100 TRAITORS
- TODD STARNES – Conservative News
- Good Reading & Learning
- X22 Reports
- WND
- Gohmert
- Federalist
- And We Know
- Who Is Crypto Queen?
- White House Planning More COVID Mandates
- Doug Collins Podcast
- Natural News
- MARICOPA AUDIT
- Flag And Cross
- American Gulag
- Stew Peters Show
- Right to Life
- Townhall News
- First Amendment Lawsuit
- Whitehouse – Sidney Powell
- Hell Raze
- Geo-Engineering
- World News
- National Pulse
- Q.. Warned Us
- The Awakening
- In Pursuit of Truth
- JustTheNews
- Q – Coreys Digs
- SUMMIT NEWS
- Pro Trump News
- Mark Levin – The Great One
- Defender – ACLJ
- Veteran News
- DC Investigators
- Big League Politics
- Sara A Carter
- Legal Insurrection
