What Did Hillary Clinton Know?

Exclusive: With the disclosure that Hillary Clinton’s campaign helped pay for the original Russia-gate allegations against Donald Trump, a new question arises: what did Clinton know and when did she know it, reports Robert Parry.

By Robert Parry

The revelation that Hillary Clinton’s campaign and the Democratic National Committee helped pay for the notorious “Steele Dossier” of hearsay claims about Donald Trump’s relations with Russia is not surprising but is noteworthy given how long the mystery about the funding was allowed to linger.

Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.

Another mild surprise is that the Clinton campaign would have had a direct hand in the financing rather than maintaining an arm’s length relationship to the dossier by having some “friend of the campaign” make the payments and giving Clinton more deniability.

Instead, the campaign appears to have relied on its lawyer, Marc E. Elias of Perkins Coie, and a confidentiality agreement to provide some insulation between Clinton and the dossier’s startling claims which presumably helped inform Clinton’s charge in the final presidential debate that Trump was Russian President Vladimir Putin’s “puppet.” Indeed, how much Clinton personally knew about the dossier and its financing remains an intriguing question for investigators.

Ultimately, the facts about who commissioned the dossier were forced out by a congressional Republican subpoena seeking the bank records of Fusion GPS, the opposition research firm that hired former British intelligence operative Christopher Steele to compile the opposition research, known as “oppo,” against Trump.

As part of the legal wrangling over that subpoena, the Clinton/DNC law firm, Perkins Coie, wrote a letter releasing Fusion GPS from its confidentiality agreement.

After that letter, The Washington Post reported on Tuesday night that the Clinton campaign and the DNC had helped fund the Steele effort with attorney Elias retaining Fusion GPS in April 2016 and with Fusion GPS then hiring Steele.

The Post reported that “people familiar with the matter” disclosed that outline of the arrangement but still would not divulge how much the Clinton campaign and the DNC paid to Fusion GPS. One source told me that the total amount came to about $1 million.

‘Trash for Cash’

An irony about Hillary Clinton’s role in funding allegations about Trump’s connection to the Russians, including claims that he cavorted with prostitutes in a five-star Moscow hotel while Russian intelligence operatives secretly filmed him, is that the Clinton camp bristled when Bill Clinton was the subject of Republican “oppo” that surfaced salacious charges against him. The Clintons dismissed such accusations as “cash for trash.”

President Bill Clinton, First Lady Hillary Clinton and daughter Chelsea parade down Pennsylvania Avenue on Inauguration Day, Jan. 20, 1997. (White House photo)

Nevertheless, just as conspiratorial accusations about the Clintons gave rise to the Whitewater investigation and a rash of other alleged “scandals,” which bedeviled Bill Clinton’s presidency, the Steele Dossier — also known as the “Dirty Dossier” — provided a map that investigators have followed for the ongoing Russia-gate investigation into President Trump.

Much like those Clinton allegations, Steele’s accusations have had a dubious track record for accuracy, with U.S. government investigators unable to corroborate some key claims but, I’m told, believing that some are true nonetheless.

In the 1990s, even though the core allegations of wrongdoing about the Clintons and their Whitewater land deal collapsed, the drawn-out investigation eventually unearthed Bill Clinton’s sexual relationship with White House intern Monica Lewinsky and led to his impeachment in the House although he was acquitted in a Senate trial.

Some Democrats have openly hoped for the impeachment of President Trump, too, and they have hitched many of those hopes to the Russia-gate bandwagon.

There is also no doubt about the significance of the Steele Dossier in spurring the Russia-gate scandal forward.

When Rep. Adam Schiff, the ranking Democratic member of the House Intelligence Committee, offered what amounted to a prosecutor’s opening statement in March, his seamless 15-minute narrative of the Trump campaign’s alleged collaboration with Russia followed the trail blazed by Steele, who had worked for Britain’s MI-6 in Russia and tapped into ex-colleagues and unnamed sources inside Russia, including supposedly leadership figures in the Kremlin.

Steele’s Methods

Since Steele could not reenter Russia himself, he based his reports on multiple hearsay from these anonymous Russians who claim to have heard some information from their government contacts before passing it on to Steele’s associates who then gave it to Steele who compiled this mix of rumors and alleged inside dope into “raw” intelligence reports.

The luxury Ritz-Carlton Hotel in Moscow

Besides the anonymous sourcing and the sources’ financial incentives to dig up dirt, Steele’s reports had other problems, including the inability of FBI investigators to confirm key elements, such as the claim that several years ago Russian intelligence operatives secretly videotaped Trump having prostitutes urinate on him while he lay in the same bed at Moscow’s Ritz-Carlton used by President Obama and First Lady Michelle Obama.

That tantalizing tidbit was included in Steele’s opening report to his new clients, dated June 20, 2016. Apparently, it proved irresistible in whetting the appetite of Clinton insiders. Also in that first report were the basic outlines of Russia-gate.

But Steele’s June report also reflected the telephone-tag aspects of these allegations: “Speaking to a trusted compatriot in June 2016 sources A and B, a senior Russian Foreign Ministry figure and a former top level Russian intelligence officer still active inside the Kremlin respectively, the Russian authorities had been cultivating and supporting US Republican presidential candidate, Donald TRUMP for a least 5 years.

“Source B asserted that the TRUMP operation was both supported and directed by Russian President Vladimir PUTIN. Its aim was to sow discord and disunity both within the US itself, but more especially within the Transatlantic alliance which was viewed as inimical to Russia’s interests. … In terms of specifics, Source A confided that the Kremlin had been feeding TRUMP and his team valuable intelligence on his opponents, including Democratic presidential candidate Hillary CLINTON, for several years. …

“The Kremlin’s cultivation operation on TRUMP also had comprised offering him various lucrative real estate development business deals in Russia, especially in relation to the ongoing 2018 World Cup soccer tournament. However, so far, for reasons unknown, TRUMP had not taken up any of these.”

Besides the anonymous and hearsay quality of the allegations, there are obvious logical problems, especially the point that five years before the 2016 campaign, virtually no one would have thought that Trump had any chance of becoming President of the United States.

There also may have been a more mundane reason why Trump’s hotel deal fell through. A source familiar with those negotiations told me that Trump had hoped to get a half interest in the $2 billion project but that Russian-Israeli investor Mikhail Fridman, a founder of Russia’s Alfa Bank, balked because Trump was unwilling to commit a significant investment beyond the branding value of the Trump name.

Yet, one would assume that if the supposedly all-powerful Putin wanted to give a $1 billion or so payoff to his golden boy, Donald Trump, whom Putin anticipated would become President in five years, the deal would have happened, but it didn’t.

Despite the dubious quality of Steele’s second- and third-hand information, the June 2016 report appears to have impressed Team Clinton. And once the bait was taken, Steele continued to produce his conspiracy-laden reports, totaling at least 17 through Dec. 13, 2016.

Framing the Investigation

The reports not only captivated the Clinton political operatives but influenced the assessments of President Obama’s appointees in the U.S. intelligence community regarding alleged Russian “meddling” in the presidential election.

President Donald Trump being sworn in on Jan. 20, 2017. (Screen shot from Whitehouse.gov)

Still, a careful analysis of Steele’s reports would have discovered not only apparent factual inaccuracies, such as putting Trump lawyer Michael Cohen at a meeting with a Russian official in Prague (when Cohen says he’s never been to Prague), but also the sort of broad conspiracy-mongering that the mainstream U.S. news media usually loves to ridicule.

For instance, Steele’s reports pin a range of U.S. political attitudes on Russian manipulation rather than the notion that Americans can reach reasonable conclusions on their own. In one report dated Sept. 14, 2016, Steele claimed that an unnamed senior official in Putin’s Presidential Administration (or PA) explained how Putin used the alleged Russian influence operation to generate opposition to Obama’s Pacific trade deals.

Steele wrote that Putin’s intention was “pushing candidate CLINTON away from President OBAMA’s policies. The best example of this was that both candidates [Clinton and Trump] now openly opposed the draft trade agreements, TPP and TTIP, which were assessed by Moscow as detrimental to Russian interests.”

In other words, the Russians supposedly intervened in the U.S. presidential campaign to turn the leading candidates against Obama’s trade deals. But how credible is that? Are we to believe that American politicians – running the gamut from Senators Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren through former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton to President Donald Trump – have all been tricked by the Kremlin to oppose those controversial trade deals, which are also broadly unpopular with the American people who are sick and tired of trade agreements that cost them jobs?

Of course, the disclosure that the Clinton campaign and the DNC helped pay for Steele’s opposition research doesn’t necessarily discredit the information, but it does suggest a possible financial incentive for Steele and his collaborators to sex-up the reports to keep Clinton’s camp coming back for more.

Investigative reporter Robert Parry broke many of the Iran-Contra stories for The Associated Press and Newsweek in the 1980s. You can buy his latest book, America’s Stolen Narrative, either in print here or as an e-book (from Amazon and barnesandnoble.com).

146 comments for “What Did Hillary Clinton Know?

  1. Kevin Beck
    November 5, 2017 at 12:44

    This was a new way to run a political campaign: Hire a law firm to arrange for the conducting of the dirty tricks, then have that law firm protect the back-office details by invoking attorney-client privilege.

    Except that such a plan is directly foul, according to the rules of the Federal Election Commission, and thus a violation of federal law.

    Nice try, HillBillies. No one has ever accused you (Clinton Crime Cartel) of following any laws.

  2. Susan Sunflower
    October 30, 2017 at 14:19

    This story has been so deliberately confounded and confused … realize no one will see this … but …
    I just realized that “Steele” never worked on the GOP “Trump/Russian” oppo research dossier … which was also
    not focused on Trump or Russia … (the GPS oppo research was towards ALL candidates).

    FWIW, the FBI’s investigation of Manafort, afaict, goes back years … Atlantic magazine says 2014 … when there were (very) large wire transfers, some from off-shore accounts, for real estate, now apparently being considered probable money laundering (classic) — which it may have been …

    • Kevin Beck
      November 5, 2017 at 12:50

      Exactly. Everything in the Manafort indictment was for activities that occurred before Donald Trump ever announced his candidacy for President. There’s no reason to connect his possible criminal activity to President Trump or even last year’s election at all.

      But you will observe that all the press reports specify, “Former Trump campaign manager Paul Manafort.” That’s just as silly as saying John Podesta is a “former criminal co-conspirator,” because he acted as Hillary’s campaign manager, even though he had no direct connection to Hillary’s involvement in Whitewater and all the other criminal misdeeds she participated in while Arkansas First Lady.

  3. Susan Sunflower
    October 29, 2017 at 15:36

    Unclear but “if” it’s Manafort under indictment, apparently (Buzzfeed/NY Post) it’s about wire transfers (smells like money laundering) from 2012 and 2013 … back when he was working for Yanukovich prior to the putch (2014) and, of course, any contact with DJT.


    How disappointing for the Clinton Party Army if they even notice that it appears to have nothing to do with the election, involves an unrelated investigation I think was begun a looong time ago

    Manafort took charge of Trump’s campaign in May 2016 and was forced to resign just three months later, amid intense media scrutiny of his ties to the notoriously corrupt former Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych, who was supported by the Kremlin. A political operative for decades, the 68-year-old Manafort has worked for Republicans such as Presidents Ronald Reagan and George H. W. Bush, as well as for foreign leaders such as former Philippines President Ferdinand Marcos.

    He has emerged as a central figure in special counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation into possible collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia, in part because of Manafort’s many ties to prominent Russians and his work with Yanukovych. Manafort is reportedly also being investigated for money laundering by federal prosecutors in New York City, but there have been no formal charges from that probe. The FBI searched his home during a pre-dawn raid this summer, reportedly as part of Mueller’s probe. Manafort has consistently maintained his innocence.


    Manafort’s suspicious financial transactions were first flagged by Treasury officials as far back as 2012 and forwarded to the FBI’s International Corruption Unit and the Department of Justice for further investigation in 2013 and 2014, a former Treasury official who worked on the matter told BuzzFeed News. The extent of Manafort’s suspicious transactions was so vast, said this former official, that law enforcement agents drafted a series of “intelligence reports” about Manafort’s financial dealings. Two law enforcement officials who worked on the case say that they found red flags in his banking records going back as far as 2004, and that the transactions in question totaled many millions of dollars.

    If it’s manafort, watching the MSNBC trying to spin this as “vindication” or proof of collusion may be amusing (or just sickening)

  4. tina
    October 28, 2017 at 20:48

    all together now, 1, 2, 3, HRC is not the president., neither is Jimmy Carter, nor George Herbert Walker Bush, nor William Jefferson Clinton, nor George W Bush, nor Barak Obama. People, wake up, DJT is your president.

  5. Virginia
    October 28, 2017 at 16:32

    Anybody seeing this in MSM? Doesn’t look like it even though news broken by Washington Post, I believe. FOX, of course, is reporting it; but any other MSM?

    • Susan Sunflower
      October 28, 2017 at 18:07

      The gop funder story is on the frong page of the NYT with 950 comments … MSNBC, David Corn and others are saying the DNC funding story is, of course, old news, everyone knew and everyone does OPPO research so it’s a nothing burger …
      Unsurprisingly scrubbed from most “right thinking” sites like Salon after Marcotte declared it — literally — more of the ongoing vast right wing conspiracy that will never die … like the VRWC meme will never die … Clinton needs to leave the stage …

      It will likely take several cycles for a new party to gain hold … unless there’s some massive sea change and someone arrives to play savior … God help us, apparently Biden in an interview a day or so ago said he hasn’t ruled out running …. They seem determined to compound the humiliations. … His a hawk, quite possibly worse than Hillary. …

  6. Robert Emmett
    October 28, 2017 at 12:50

    This Steele bidness is disgusting, to put it mildly. Couldn’t even finish the article. Immediate reaction: endless campaigning to match endless warring. Why? Same reason. Because it’s much more profitable for all included, especially the media “of record”, to yammer on and on, accuse, misuse, confuse, abuse, refuse, than it is to actually work to govern for anything like the greatest good of the 350 million souls in this country, let alone the rest of the world, which so many are so fit-to-busting-sure the USA is destined “to lead”. You’d have to braindead, brainwashed or deliberately obtuse to believe anything that comes out of the mouths of politicians and their lawyers, or the so-called serious people in the chattering class, about this “story”. Question: at what point do ten thousand chatterers chattering begin to sound like Nero’ s fiddle?

    • Susan Sunflower
      October 28, 2017 at 14:02

      The irony/paradox is that the alleged Kremlin/Russian intent was to undermine the confidence Americans have in their institutions, the press, government, etc. Trump, by his own actions (tweets and lies) has no credibility as the purveyor of a policy … The press and polls have been wrong time and time again. (Remember how they said he could not possibly gain the nomination, much less win without disclosing his income taxes … they banged on for months, but not quite walking on water, he did both. The lies and/or omissions by so many administration member wrt to contacts “with the Russians” might have raised a groundswell … not.so.much.

      The press has become another carnival barker promising thrills and chills that, like imminent war with Korea, Iran and/or Russia, seems to keep being pre-empted by some newer jucier story — everything is “headline news” of equal weight… except when stories are mysteriously, inexplicably missing/ignored.

      Team Clinton and the Dnc have long-standing credibility problems, imho, just got torpedoed by withholding their DIRECT funding link to the dossier (and likely insisting they knew nothing) … Apparently there were actual categorical denials of these link and the funding itself was oddly financially reported as legal expenses (paid to the lawyers who hired GPS who hired Steele).

      The irrelevance of the original GOP funder/funding is now clear … and yet those “GOP roots of the investigation” have also been part of the “origin story” … Steele, Russia were not part of that GOP investigation/report, nor was Trump the sole focus … gee, we’ve been lied to about that too.

      Since this all occurred in an environment where we are told the FBI (the justice department, Obama, and everyone else) was already concerned about Russian political/media interference in the election and Trump’s (and Manfort’s) Russian ties (going back years even), the idea that this “private investigation” never pinged the FBI’s radar in an election year is again beyond belief, unless the FBI is pretending to be as incompetent as the CIA pretends to be.

      Undermine Americans’ confidence in their institutions … heck of a job Brownie, but we seemingly needed no undue foreign influence much less a disinformation campaign or conspiracy.

  7. Susan Sunflower
    October 28, 2017 at 11:43

    I’ll just post this here — on the assumption that the New York Times at least fact checks/checks archives when writing these “summing up” FAQs.

    Who else knew about Mr. Steele’s research during the campaign?

    Officials from the Clinton campaign and the D.N.C. have said they were unaware that Perkins Coie facilitated the research on their behalf, even though the law firm was using their money to pay for it. Even Mrs. Clinton only found about Mr. Steele’s research after Buzzfeed published the dossier, according to two associates who discussed the matter with her. They said that she was disappointed that the research — as well as the fact that the F.B.I. was looking into connections between Mr. Trump’s associates and Russia — was not made public before Election Day.

    But word of the memos and their contents had circulated in Washington political and media circles before the election. In British court filings, Mr. Steele’s lawyers said that he and Fusion GPS briefed journalists from a range of media outlets, including The New York Times, on his research starting in September of 2016.

    Yet the research and even the existence of the dossier were not reported by the media, with the exception of Mother Jones magazine, which published a story in the days before the election that described the dossier, its origin and significance, while omitting the salacious claims.

    Clinton says she didn’t know about the dossier until it was published on Buzzfeed in January 2017 (even though it was widely shopped around as early as September 2016 irrc by Steele, and copies circulated broadly — with or without permission of whom)

    Funny but I do not find either Clinton’s claim or the claims of her campaign of “knowing nothing” credible.

  8. Susan Sunflower
    October 27, 2017 at 22:18

    The guardian has an article identifying the GOP “angel” paying for the OPPO — Free Beacon/

    The Free Beacon has retained third-party firms to conduct research on a number of institutions and individuals since the site’s launch in 2012, Continetti said, noting that he also hired companies to assist in Clinton research last year.

    “All of the work that Fusion GPS provided to the Free Beacon was based on public sources, and none of the work product that the Free Beacon received appears in the Steele dossier,” he wrote in a post on the site published Friday night.

    So, it’s not clear (aside from the Fusion GPS imprint) when and how and why the original GOP dossier morphed into the Steele document and how Steele came on board. (Sounds like Beacon retained “ownership” of the first dossier … wonder if anyone Team Clinton saw it — including Steele.

    ‘Elsewhere, “Conservatives” believe the FBI conspired/colluded by keeping this information under wraps and want (but of course) Comey’s head and for the Clintons to be investigated for “colluding” with Russia.

    Yes, Clinton seems continuing full-speed-ahead in her quest to destroy the Democratic Party ….

    • Susan Sunflower
      October 27, 2017 at 23:35

      CNN reports first sealed indictment from the Mueller investigation have been issued and targets may be in custody as soon as Monday.

  9. October 27, 2017 at 14:26

    I don’t think we know who from Russia was really involved in the Uranium One deal with Rosatom; that is being poorly discussed. All we know is that the Canadian mining magnate, Frank Giustra, a big contributor to the Clinton Foundation, did the deal. We don’t know about Putin’s involvement at all, only that Russian nuclear industry executives were involved. This again falls under the membership of the “Church of the Blessed Assumption” (has a very large membership). People jump to conclusions over news crawls and headlines without knowing any details other than what some talking head told them, and nowadays it’s usually partisan.

    • Susan Sunflower
      October 27, 2017 at 15:00

      Isn’t the radio silence wrt the Clinton Foundation fascinating? When last seen, they were handing off all associations in anticipation of Hillary Clinton being elected … and there were credible reports that the FBI was investigating some reporting issues wrt (iirc) to mishandling of funds … not particularly “criminal” but in violation of laws governing charitable institutions (to keep them from being used for money laundering or diverted as slush funds — my memory is fuzzy). There was little chance of any indictments or it being shut-down (because it’s a charity that helps people — something to avoid discouraging among the rich, but … crickets).

      Chelsea took a (I think full-time) job elsewhere (when she had apparently planned to make her daddy’s legacy her life’s work). Bill Clinton was still out there gladhanding, the last time I wondered what he was up to.

      There were a number of people trying to sift through the website to find out how many projects the foundation was funding or joint-funding (taking credit for) and what their progress (and balance sheets) looked like. The web site was so muddled it was remarkably difficult to find even projects that were being publicly boasted about ..For all their protests wrt the foundation being essential — critical — doing all sorts of “good works” projects affecting millions during the campaign, followed by the announcement that they had all along intended to shutter it during HRC’s presidency and were in the process of doing so (back in August 2016 during the Judicial Watch FOIA dump) — the radio silence and lack of updates is conspicuous. …

  10. Susan Sunflower
    October 27, 2017 at 13:40

    Seems the offiical Democratic response here is that “everyone knew all along, nothing to see here, move along, aren’t the Trump supporters (because it’s only the Trump supporter who object) ridiculous” … continuing with the lying and smug mocking that they employed in the campaign …. I guess the Team Bush aren’t the only ones who “make their own reality” …

    Apparently “collusion” is proving difficult to demonstrate and the investigations may be winding down … Politico is asking what they will do if they can’t make a case. They can — Ken Starr style — morph into a investigation of financials and money laundering, and hope no one notices… Think it will work?

  11. October 27, 2017 at 09:16

    I’m with Danny Weil, Sam F. and others who state the larger picture: both parties are corrupted, oligarchy is firmly in charge, and the empire is failing. As Danny said, “no one knows how bad the death rattle will be”. Neither party can be defended at this point, but the infotainment goes on while the dismantling of constitutional rights continues.

  12. F. Scott Kimmich
    October 26, 2017 at 18:16

    This is no surprise and belongs to Hillary’s lack of commitment to the truth. The DNC leak that she calls a Russian hack is another
    example of her lack of credibility and the willingness of corporate and wall street elites to team up with the oligarchs in our government to scapegoat Russia for their own misdeeds..

    • Susan Sunflower
      October 26, 2017 at 19:01

      Influence, which paradoxically, now that her political future and current “power” are doubtful, somehow continues to prevail … curiouser and curiouser.

      Before Clinton lost, afacit, they could not give the dossier away for free … even though even then the MSM was “in the bag” for Clinton … it took her defeat to somehow (??) open the floodgates of people willing to pledge their allegiance to the dossier and the vast Russian meddling conspiracy … was it / is it simply careerism, once the grim reality of Trump as president took hold? Faggeddabout principles or deeply held political allegiance … prolly careerism, doubt this involves anything more than future job prospects and worries about one’s “permanent record” … is someone handing out checks (payola)? How does this work in these neoliberal days?.

      Oh yes, I cannot even measure the depths of my pessimism … I feel the need “witness” but I’m not sure the point … It is only in the quiet, solitude and safety that I can speak of these things … I choke up when I try to speak, out loud, in real life, person to person — like something out of “Invasion of the Body Snatchers” I’ve too often discovered someone I thought was safely an ally, in fact, had dutifully drunk the Koolaid and comfortable broached no alternative POV.

  13. Corey
    October 26, 2017 at 16:55

    These people are stunningly craven and corrupt. They’d risk nuclear war just to sweep their own exposed malfeasance under the rug.

  14. Susan Sunflower
    October 26, 2017 at 14:57

    If anyone needed proof that Clinton “je n’regret rien” will never learn and is utterly unrepentant this episode demonstrates once again her reliance on deception by “stonewalling” / silence as well as the arrogance to think she could get away with it … which she did for over a year. When Steele gave the dossier to the FBI (in late August, irrc), did he tell them who signed his paycheck? Apparently the “conservatives” are outraged that the FBI participated in this charade — even as Brennan said he never bothered to read it because it wasn’t worth reading and … wait for it … was never the foundation document of their inquiry in to Trump’s Russian ties which had begun the previous spring … although one (me) can wonder about CrowdStrike’s communications/cooperation with the FBI as well after the “previous springs” hacking/phishing of e-mails.

    No wonder Clinton was outraged at Comey — he refused to cooperate — and Obama refused to do much … She must have been fit to be tied … did she see the writing on the wall when Comey not only refused to destroy Trump, but then refused to keep the second subpoena wrt Weiner/Abedin’s computer secret (even if before his announcement it was publicly hinted and not very secret because … well, the New York FBI office hated the Clintons).

    So much we’ll never ever know … like if anyone in the GWB executive branch believed in WMD … and/or if anyone in the Obama executive branch believed Benghazi resulted from that bad bad bad youtube “movie” …

  15. October 26, 2017 at 06:03

    Isn’t the important story that US political leaders are no longer able to have back channel contacts with Russian without those contacts being used by the deep state as justification to monitor their activity?

    • Sam F
      October 26, 2017 at 10:24

      The important story is that politicians can take bribes to subvert the interests and Constitution of the US to support Israeli land thefts and genocides, and accuse their opponents of loyalty to invented foreign monsters, as Aristotle and Plato warned. This reveals the abject corruption of all branches of federal government and the mass media.

  16. Marty
    October 26, 2017 at 05:16

    What difference at this point does it really make!

  17. Furtive
    October 26, 2017 at 01:54

    Trump is a germaphobe. Therefore, he is likely selective with bed partners.

    Besides, Putin duped clinton & obama into taking control of 20% of US uranium resources as part of assistance in negotiating the Iran deal.

    He had an easier partner with clinton – trump is an unknown. He can pay to play with the clintons.

    The Clintons are dangersous, however. You might say, er, Psychopaths.

    Try this

  18. Bill Cash
    October 25, 2017 at 22:41

    It’s interesting how anxiously you have picked up this story about Hillary while offering Trump so much protection

    • Furtive
      October 26, 2017 at 01:55

      Truth is an affirmative defense.

    • Skip Scott
      October 27, 2017 at 07:06


      I see you’re caught up thinking that anyone who attacks Hillary must love the Donald. Did you ever think, for even a second, that maybe they both suck?

  19. tina
    October 25, 2017 at 22:31

    Oh, oh, I want to know, oh, oh , here we go again,…. thank you neon trees. When will this stop? Can we prove HRC killed those 4 people in BENGHAZHI!!!!!! can we prove JARVANKA used private e- mail servers? Can we prove DJT killed those 4 Officers/ servicemen in NIGER!!!!!!! NIGER!!!! But Niger? Jarvanka’s EMAILS! This country is really not well. I want Jarvankas emails, and I want to know every detail about our mission in Niger. Why were 4, count them FOUR, service members ambushed and killed/

  20. Danny Weil
    October 25, 2017 at 22:05

    I think people must now pause and understand that the Çity on the Hill’, America, is over. The American Century as Luce the owner of Time magazine called the 20th century is now declining rapidly.

    Rome comes to mind. Every Empire that has failed has doubled down on the actual causes of their failures.

    America, by overextending its imperialist military reach, can never be resuscitated. the country will experience bankruptcy, violent riots, martial law, curfews, heavy military presence in civilian life and more poverty, famine, pain and suffering.

    All Empires end. It isn’t pretty and it takes time.

    America has been stumbling forward since Vietnam when we broke the bank. It will only get worse.

    Much like when one boils water: it actually changes and becomes steam and when a situation reaches a calamitous and qualitative change, it can never go back.

    I feel sorry for the youth today, the country we have left them and the stain on the world that America has become.

    They will have to dead reckon in a society made up of psychopaths and sociopaths, violence and bread and circus.

    The Clintons, Trumps, empty suits like Obama will come and go, but the society itself is deliquescing.

  21. October 25, 2017 at 21:39

    You guys need to move on. I am glad as anyone that HC did not win, but that was then and this is now. It is clear that Trump is an absolute horror whose cruelty, selfishness and indifference to humanity is beyond recent comparison. Hillary is yesterday, Trump is now. Start utilising your skills to get rid of this monster and leave Hillary where she belongs, in the dustbin of history.

    • Skip Scott
      October 26, 2017 at 09:15

      Ed, I agree in principle, but how to move on is the question. If we oust Trump (for whatever reason), we get Pence. The one positive I see from Trump is that he has unmasked (unintentionally) the grip of the Deep State. Like toto, he has pulled back the curtain. If we can survive the next four years, I think we have a better chance than ever of getting some genuine reformer into office. It’s a big “if”, but with Pence the Deep State goes back underground, and the empire rolls on.

      • evelync
        October 26, 2017 at 09:53

        I’m not anxious for Trump to stay but you’re right, Skip Scott! – Trump exposes himself constantly in public for everyone to see, while the scary Pence plays everything close to the vest and is therefore even more dangerous.

        This long needed public exposure of malfeasance and wrongdoing has a bright side for our democracy if it gets enough people thinking – “hey, most of us could make better choices for this country than the corrupt bozos who’ve been making such a mess here at home and in the rest of the world for decades…….”
        wishful thinking……

  22. October 25, 2017 at 21:16

    I think it is now reasonable to assume that Mother Jones got the Steele dossier from HC’s camp. It was not such a great scoop after all. A reward for the secret tape of Romney dissing the poor? Nonetheless I fail to see why there is such a fuss about the story that HC paid for the dossier. It was well known when it was first published that Steele had been financed initially by the GOP anti-Trump faction and then when he got the nomination that it was passed on to the Dems. What do you expect would happen? Big to do about nothing…….

    • Susan Sunflower
      October 25, 2017 at 21:23

      no, ooops, sorry, no, the Steele investigation was passed to Clinton-based financing when the GOP candidate (as far as I know not positively identified/admitted to) dropped out prior to JUNE 2016 … and Steele was looking for a paycheck (whether he solicited Clinton-based financing is yet another question.

      • Susan Sunflower
        October 25, 2017 at 21:50

        switch-over was apparently in April per the Vanity Fair article … I’ll let you look up when the entries in the dossier-as-shopped/as published on Buzzfeed began.

    • Danny Weil
      October 25, 2017 at 22:18

      All the news fails to hinder the stupidity of American culture. People must understand that the majority of the 330 million Americans not only do not care, they can’t read or write very well. Illiteracy is the veil people wear, to their own detriment, I might add.

      • Susan Sunflower
        October 26, 2017 at 15:07

        They don’t care — RT (not my favored polling source) indicates that more than half of Americans think the investigations are “bad” for the country (but then, irrc, most americans disapproved of the civil rights movement way back when, including mnay conservative African-Americans who were afraid it would rile up the racists while/and achieving nothing, given the long history of failure of efforts to strike down Jim Crow in the courts)…

        Has there been in-depth polling that I’ve never heard of? I guess these investigations have years on their meter before they match the ridiculousness of Whitewater — and — Benghazi. The disaster at Benghazi was worthy of serious investigation/review … it turned into a media circus for the Republican up-and-coming bench. (Interesting how the Obama administration’s 8 years elevated so very few up-and-coming young Democrats).

  23. October 25, 2017 at 21:15

    Have no doubt the Clintons know whereof they speak a propos of “cash for trash.” And if it’s not obvious by now that this dossier is baseless trash, what more can be said? And Hillary’s claim Benghazi happened because of a youtube video…yeah, more trash. How about moving on to a story of real collusion as in the Uranium One deal with Russia while Hillary was Secretary of State, and Russian payback to the Clinton foundation.

  24. Carl Schubert
    October 25, 2017 at 21:08

    The only thing I know is that such evil is spun in all countries by all politicians. The grab for power knows no limits in order to obtain it. Power and money is the ultimate aphrodisiac. It should not be condoned but that is how the mop flops. Sadly!

  25. Sababu A. Sanyika
    October 25, 2017 at 20:24

    Voting for Trump was easy after reviewing the Clinton’s troubled unethical and immoral history, not to mention fact of being US citizens willing to give first loyalty to Israeli regime over our nation without any reservations whatsoever.

    This revelation of dirty dealing to tarnish Trump is certainly not surprising considering Clinton’s frequent associations with other wrong doing allegations.

    Voting for a character qualified female would have been near automatic, but Hillary simply never qualified for high personal standards.

    What is really troubling is that Clinton got as many votes as she did in spite of her having enough poor character references to cause firm rejection of being elected the first female president. The precedent would have stained female candidates for a very long time and would have truly condemned and convicted our nation of moral turpitude.

    The USA has elected probably the worst president ever in Donald John Trump. Almost immediately he set out to betray those who voted for him by doing the opposite of what he had campaigned to do. He’s has proven to be the worst of Washington’s swamp rat politicians. Fact is, he’s swamp rat king all by himself.

    Our nation has a very deep moral problem that must be corrected if we are to survive as a dignified nation.

    • October 25, 2017 at 21:19

      And what? Vote for Trump? Where are you living?

    • Danny Weil
      October 25, 2017 at 22:16

      The nation will not survive the long haul. all Empires die, the issue is how bad the death rattle will be, who will have to feel the quake

    • Bill Cash
      October 25, 2017 at 22:43

      You obviously read nothing about Trump’s past. I recommend David Cay Johnston’s book on Trump. He has know Trump well for over 30 years.

    • Sam F
      October 26, 2017 at 10:07

      Neither oligarchy candidate was worth consideration. The deep moral problem of the US is caused by economic control of the mass media and elections. The Constitution was written before there were economic concentrations larger than plantations and small ships, which would be considered small businesses today. Key amendments are needed to protect mass media and elections from economic power, to monitor officials and their families and associates during their lives, and to improve checks and balances. But now those tools of democracy that permit peaceful change are lost to oligarchy.

      Peaceful change is impossible, unless one includes economic warfare to isolate and collapse the US economy. But that will not be peaceful here, because tyranny yields power only to force. The US must recapitulate the development of democracy.

  26. Susan Sunflower
    October 25, 2017 at 20:22

    Do y’all know that tonight’s frontline is the first of two parts — wrt Vladimir Putin’s grudge match with the USA ??
    MSNBC is telling its viewer that this is all secondary, of no concern compared to, if not the CONTENTS of the dossier … the implications that Trump was … wait for it … either colluding (as in treason) or prime to be blackmailed BY Russia or something … pay no attention to the man behind the curtain …

    • Lois Gagnon
      October 25, 2017 at 21:17

      The liberal corporate media has crossed the Rubicon into full blown ruling class state controlled propaganda. These mindless androids passing as reporters wouldn’t recognize a verifiable fact if it hit them in the face. Nor do they have any desire to.

    • David G
      October 25, 2017 at 21:34

      Yesterday’s NY Times hit piece on RT was a treat as well.

      My favorite part was where it said the “consistently negative stories” about Hilary included “frequent coverage of emails stolen by Russian operatives from Mrs. Clinton’s campaign chairman”.

      Lies built on lies.

      • Susan Sunflower
        October 25, 2017 at 21:46

        yes, the drip-drip-drip manufacturing of consent isn’t even subtle, but — I will say cynically – with the “idealism of the millenials” it doesn’t need to be … it’s truly Pavlovian … Goebbels is smiling …

      • Bill Cash
        October 25, 2017 at 22:45

        You guys must love Breitbart, fox propaganda and trump.

        • anon
          October 26, 2017 at 09:54

          Why not offer an intelligible useful argument if you have one.

  27. RW Ryley
    October 25, 2017 at 20:08

    Another thing I’d like to know is exactly whether or not Debbie Wasserman Schultz is involved in this procurement of Op Research.

    • Danny Weil
      October 25, 2017 at 22:13

      Doesn’t matter. the names change but the game is still the same.

      Imperial wizzardry has now assured the death of the Republic.

  28. October 25, 2017 at 19:53

    Let’s face it Ill and Kill have been the best damn republicans the democrats have ever ran. From cuts to welfare to criminalizing black youth, they were all about taking the country rightward. This is why it is that I called Bill Clinton-Tax Evader in Chief. See Marc Rich on wikipedia.org. And let’s not forget the crapped out primary-blog article at http://www.dopewardrugpeace.wordpress.com. The dems ran the loser and lost. . . And that’s how it polled out too. Sorry.

  29. James
    October 25, 2017 at 19:37

    “Obviously I’m the first person on a campaign to ever take a meeting to hear info about an opponent,” Donald Trump Jr, tweeted. “Went nowhere but had to listen.” “Newsflash? Campaigns of all stripes collect dirt on opponents,” tweeted Jeffrey Lord, who was an official in the Reagan administration and is Donald Trump’s staunchest advocate on CNN. “It’s called ‘oppo research’ as in ‘opposition.’ HRC and Dems did to Trump.”

  30. October 25, 2017 at 19:24

    This does not strke me as a new story but an old hamburger warmed up. At the time the Steele document became public it was reported that the probe into Trump began with financing from republicans like John McCain but when Trump got the GOP nomination they dropped it and it was passed on to the Dems. No story here. Move on.

    • Susan Sunflower
      October 25, 2017 at 19:51

      The dossier was shopped to many people — including David Corn at Mother Jones and Kurt W. at Newsweek by Steele, apparently as some independently financed oppo-research commissioned by a Clinton angel … without the disclosure that it was actually DNC/Clinton campaign financed … we’ll leave the questions of when Clinton/the campaign learn of the contents, but this article suggests they may have received ongoing updates … i.e. the campaign strategy was (in)formed by the research.

      Remember that Clinton desperately wanted Trump to win the nomination believing he was the easiest of the Republican contenders to defeat … she succeeded in part by holding back “shocking revelations” like the pussygrab tape … even this dossier, which was only shopped around AFTER Trump had won the nomination and was The Candidate … (note also that Gloria Allred said she had a half-dozen women ready to go public about Trump groping them since the spring, when the Clinton campaign received the pussygrab tape) …

      IMHO, nuf said … “Russian influence” has nothing on “Clinton influence” — Clinton had powerful dirt to use on Trump … but she waited until he was the official winning Republican candidate … oops, too bad, so sad.

      • David G
        October 25, 2017 at 21:14

        Hillary is Goldilocks: she wants her opponents *just right*.

        She wanted Bernie in the race so the nomination wouldn’t look like a coronation, and would show the Dems stood for something. But once he started doing too well, he was guilty of lèse-majesté.

        She wanted Trump strong in the primaries, but then was shocked when his momentum continued into the general.

      • Bill Cash
        October 25, 2017 at 22:46

        I believe Corn was aware that the initial financing came from a republican camp and was picked up by the democrats.

        • Susan Sunflower
          October 25, 2017 at 22:59

          It was suggested that some Koch brothers analog funded GPS/Steele. The Kochs are not “the Republican Party”, afaik, hence the suggestion that there was deliberate deception about the origins of the dossier. Clinton’s “angel” turned out to be the DNC.

        • Susan Sunflower
          October 26, 2017 at 15:35

          here’s Corn on the subject (from yesterday) —


          he equivocates about what “everyone” knew … and argues it’s a “distinction without a difference” and — imho oddly — now suggests that the dossier he refused to reveal to the world has been somehow validated, redeemed — making it’s origin story irrelevant … which is unsurprisingly the MSNBC meme as well …

          Someone needs to ask Steele if the dossier — as shopped by him, as republished/leaked by Buzzfeed — is in fact complete and/or unedited … and also about the GOP-financed earlier work (dirt) that convinced the Democratic National Committee to pick up the investigation and fees for his services.

          The FBI paid Steele as well — until his name became public — someone needs to talk to Comey-era folks about that decision and the conflict-of-interest/partisan firewalls involved. (Obama might be asked as well). This was seemingly relatively brief — a month or two — late summer/early fall 2016. After Clinton had been cleared wrt the server, before the FBI had the Weiner investigation and that laptop dropped on them, opening the possibility that the “missing e-mails” and possibly other information might be found on that undisturbed, untouched, hard-drive. They had never asked/demanded to examine all personal electronic devices — oops)

  31. Realist
    October 25, 2017 at 18:52

    With all the leakers for cash out there it’s amazing the Clinton’s were able to keep a lid on this for so long. Not only that, but to turn the tables and use “collusion with Russia” to discredit Trump.

    So, what happens now? I take it her public life is over. Even the ridiculous book tour ought to be over and any advances received by the fraudulent author refunded to the publisher.

    Can she be prosecuted? Or, is it really “all’s fair in love, war… and politics?” Richard Nixon didn’t get a pass. Of course, Ms. Clinton does not have a public office to be stripped of, and it might seem cruel to send her up the river in her 70’s.

    Happy birthday, Hillary. What a cosmic joke, no?

    She broke some kind of a glass ceiling. She’s up there with Faust now, in terms of deals with the Devil.

    Can we get back to conducting some serious fair diplomacy with Russia now, and end some of the international crises bequeathed to the world by Obomber and Killary?

    • October 25, 2017 at 21:46

      Amazing the Clintons could keep a lid on it? The media gave her the questions at the debate…er, the mainstream media is in her pocket, ya think maybe? — “keeping a lid” on it was easy, the Corporate Media is part of the “resistance” which is another reason it is such a farce and despised by so many…they knew the truth and didn’t publish it and we’ve seen it as to Weinstein also….

  32. Al Pinto
    October 25, 2017 at 18:36

    It’s not what did HRC knew, it’s more of a who can provide the proof that HRC knew…

    By all accounts, HRC had been isolated by at least three layers from the author of the reports. Nor did she pay for that directly, DNC did the payment presumably from the donations for RHC. Plausible deniability seems like true for HRC in this case….

    • Susan Sunflower
      October 25, 2017 at 21:36

      you may say you’re a dreamer … yeah, you’re the only one … of course we’ll never know because … well, you know about the Clinton’s relationship with transparency … that’s why they spent (by today’s report) over $1 million dollars on the Steele dossier/investigation …

      Gotta wonder when/if the paychecks stopped coming or were switched to some other “benefactor/payor” …

      I’m so tired to the Clinton’s “fog of war” … I want David Corn and Kurt Eichenwald to speak frankly … most “reputable” journalists bristle at suggestion they are being (out damned spot) used as “stenographers” who roll over and piss on their bellies in exchange for the favor of the powerful (in this case, the “Clinton Party” who were — as we were told endlessly — expected to win…

      There’s a story — too tired to source, haven’t delved into it — that the Steele “account” monies were listed in as “legal services” by the DNC …

      Vanity Fair has a tick-tock

      I suspect they are going to answer some of my questions …

    • Susan Sunflower
      October 25, 2017 at 22:18

      it depends we have been told on how you define (parse) “sexual relations” …and everything else … “plausible deniability” is the new “no quid pro quo” I quess … Teach your children well, indeed, always and forever

      • October 26, 2017 at 10:27

        It depends on what the definition of “is” is.

  33. orangutan
    October 25, 2017 at 18:22

    Funny, in his search for “the facts about who commissioned the dossier”, Parry never mentions (as other news organizations do) that the work was originally commissioned by a Republican.

    • Susan Sunflower
      October 25, 2017 at 18:34

      Maybe Steele can be re-designated a double-agent (of that vast right wing conspiracy) who was planted to discredit Clinton with a faux dossier …. Clinton’s the victim again!!!

    • Litchfield
      October 25, 2017 at 21:57

      Yes, he does.
      “Ultimately, the facts about who commissioned the dossier were forced out by a congressional Republican subpoena seeking the bank records of Fusion GPS, the opposition research firm that hired former British intelligence operative Christopher Steele to compile the opposition research, known as “oppo,” against Trump.”

  34. Susan Sunflower
    October 25, 2017 at 18:19

    Imagine if the Clinton/friends of Clinton had hired someone else to dig into Trump finances … rather than going for “Russian influences” … they might even have found Trump doing Russian money-laundering … instead they got primarily unsubstantiated rumors …
    disappointing return-on-investment, doncha think?

    As I’ve said, I think Trump is both a fraud and seriously dirty … and this Clinton dossier sent all the hunting dogs chasing some Russian related something up a tree … heck of a job …

    • Lois Gagnon
      October 25, 2017 at 21:01

      My thoughts exactly. With all the material Trump gives the Democrats to work with, they are idiotic enough to make up the Russia conspiracy which would obviously wind up being outed thus helping the political opponent they were trying to discredit. Way to destroy your own credibility.

      • anon
        October 26, 2017 at 09:30

        Yes, a short list of his bankruptcies and portraits of the struggling citizens they have hurt would show lack of principle. The Russia demonization will be remembered in history as the classic gambit of tyrants.

    • David G
      October 25, 2017 at 21:02

      My hope is that Mueller, despite being sent on the Russian goose chase, will still come out with a raft of indictments related to Trump the lifelong sleaze.

      Trump has never really had to pass muster with any official investigation less malleable than that of the New Jersey gaming commission. By statutory criteria, they should have pulled his licenses back in the 1990s (personally bankrupting him).

      • October 25, 2017 at 21:43

        My hope as to the Clintons also….

      • Litchfield
        October 25, 2017 at 21:55

        If only Trump were the only sleazy one
        What about the actual sleaze of the Dem campaign and the
        Clinton Foundation?
        Not to mention the trail of questions that follows the Clintons since their beginnings in Arkansas?
        The review of What Happened posits the notion that the book is really a tale of how power corrupts in our political system. I reckon the corruption of Hillary Clinton started in Little Rock. There is now a movie out about Barry Seal, starring Tom Cruise. Can anyone connect the dots here between Seal’s connections with the Mena Mountain Municipal Airport, and the Clintons and Bushes?
        Those who freak out over Trump sleaze should be evenhanded.
        Is Trump’s sleaze worse than the Bushes’ and their relationship with the Nazis?
        What about even Mr. Clean Obama?
        What about the mobster Joe Kennedy who made a deal with the Mob to get Jack elected?
        Etc. etc. etc. I am getting quite sick and tired of the obsession with Trump’s sleaze.

        • Susan Sunflower
          October 25, 2017 at 22:54

          there have been suggestions of an “after you my dear alphonse” cooperation between the parties of the duopoly before … the recent flurry of republicans deciding not to run … and the absurd decision by McCain&CO to chose Palin most blatant … McCain made the history books as a presidential candidate (in addition to his extensive other resume) but Palin made it fairly certain republican support would be weak enough to lose.

          As we have seen too starkly in this last year — after her fall — Clinton has remarkably little to offer (and likely never did beyond some sort of “god ordained” believe that she was the one to be America’s first double-X president — because it was predicted long ago … and, some how, “feminism” … so much momentum lost keeping the “dream of a Hillary Clinton presidency” alive — frozen in amber — endless CPR … and they’re still not giving up that ghost of Little Rock Hillary.

        • Max Aubry Scoville
          October 26, 2017 at 10:43

          William Jefferson Clinton was attorney general then governor of Arkansas when the CIA was bringing in the drugs through Mena. It is impossible that he did not know what was going on given the amount of traffic through the area and the duration of the operations as well as the complaints from residents in the area about all this at the time.

          As for why the Democrats have ignored Trump’s Russian mob connections: they are intent on war with Russia. Hillary campaigned on a policy of a no-fly zone over Syira, which she emphasized in the third debate. General Joseph Dunford, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, in testimony before Congress in mid-September 2016, stated that such a no-fly zone would mean war with Russia. The vilification of Russia has been part of the war mongering.

          Citing Trump as a Russian mob partner would put him in opposition to Putin, who as been slowly but steadily bringing the Russian mafiosi to heel over the years. That would undercut the case of Putin’s collaboration with Trump and the resulting interference — and Putin’s “criminal” behaviour. If one looks carefully at Putin’s remarks about Trump, one sees that they are few and far between and remarkably perfunctory, not at all the “endorsement” that many have labelled them as being.

          • Max Aubry Scoville
            October 26, 2017 at 11:01

            Further, if Trump wanted détente with Russia, it was, indeed, for his own benefit. The likeliest scenario is an offer to left as much of the sanctions against Russia a possible throught executive action in return for Putin’s bringing to heel the mobsters Trump is involved with and indebted to. This explains why the Congress passed legislation removing the sanctions from the purview of the executive branch. Now, Trump cannot act, even if he were in a position to pull a deal with Putin.

            Remember, in 2002 Donald Trump owed over $3 BILLION dollars to some seventy banks in New York, and no New York bank would deal with him any more. He turned to Russian-mafia-connected banks in Russia and Cyprus.

            It is reasonable to assume that his debt has only increased since then, hence his refusal to release his tax declarations, which would reveal not only his debt but his creditors.

            With regard to Trump’s Russian mafia connections, see the Dutch documentary (two forty-five-minute segments) ‘The Dubious Friends of Donald Trump”. It was aired early in May in the Netherlands and posted on Youtube, whence it disappreared. Reposted, it disappeared again and so on. It is nonetheless still available on Youtube. In the Hew Hess Hay, there has been NO mention of it in the mainstream or even alternative media that I have seen. Yet the Dutch journalists used entirely sources available to the public.


            Particularly interesting is Bayrock, the company that built Tump Soho Tower, and of which D.J.T: ownes 50%. The documentary shows Trumps during a BBC interview during which he is asked about this, given that Bayrock was (still is, theoreticall) under investigation for racketeering, money-laundering etc. Since Trump is half owner, no decision can be taken without his consent because the other half do not have the 51% ordinarily required to make decisions. Hence, his co-responsibility. Trump declared that he was not an owner, that it was strictly a licensing matter. The BBC journalist insisted that Trump’s name was on the public filing establishing the company. Trump rose, told the journalist he had crowds of people waiting to see him and walked out. You do the math.

          • Skip Scott
            October 26, 2017 at 15:21


            Thanks a lot for these comments. Everything you state makes perfect sense. As for dirty Russian dealings, I can’t wait for the next chapter in the Uranium deal. Wonder if it will get squashed by the PTB. Last I heard Sessions won’t lift the NDA. Wonder what they got on him?

      • Danny Weil
        October 25, 2017 at 22:12

        Don’t cross your fingers. Capitalism is dying world wide and the US will leave the first big corpse.

  35. HLT
    October 25, 2017 at 17:57

    What is going to happen to the recent sanctions against Russia which were approved based on the Russia-gate allegations? In normal circumstances the US would renounce them and apologise to Russia for being mislead by wrong information. But something is telling me that is not going to happen…..

    • irina
      October 25, 2017 at 18:34

      That is a very good question !

      Meanwhile the Campaign Legal Center has filed a complaint because the DNC
      mis-reported its use of funds spent on the dossier as ‘legal services’ :


    • Karl Sanchez
      October 25, 2017 at 19:31

      No, it’s not, and Russia knows it’s not; therefore, we’ve seen an escalation in rhetorical tone regarding the veracity of the US. For example, yesterday, 10/24/17, Russia’s Foreign Ministry issued a statement explaining why it vetoed the proposed UNSCR regarding Syrian chemical weapons; here’s the key excerpt:

      “The Americans chose to proceed with a premature vote on the draft against basic logic and the long-established procedures of the Security Council. They were obviously guided by their own considerations that are far removed from the purpose of establishing the JIM. It has already become their trademark to rush headlong, crudely and brazenly imposing their position on others without bothering to make any sensible arguments. We see this clearly in how allegations of Russian interference in US domestic affairs are being imposed on US society. The same methods are used in the international arena. Damascus is groundlessly accused of crimes and Moscow is charged with allegedly providing cover. They lie without shame. They have seized the JIM, OPCW and the Security Council by the throat, and their intransigence is not tempered by international law, diplomatic rules or even common sense.”
      [Emphasis added.] http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/news/-/asset_publisher/cKNonkJE02Bw/content/id/2920164

      The sentence, “They lie without shame,” [Emphasis added] was slow to finally be uttered–Putin and Lavrov have certainly had several previous opportunities to say it, most recently at the Valdai Club Conference–but now it’s out there and will likely be repeated in a more impressive fashion, most likely to the face of the liar while cameras and microphones capture it all.

      • David G
        October 25, 2017 at 20:46

        Wow. Thanks for sharing that, Karl Sanchez.

        Looks like Russia is finally tired of *appeasing* the U.S. in hopes that more reasonable and cooperative behavior would ensue.

    • Litchfield
      October 25, 2017 at 21:48

      “misled” by wrong info.

  36. Susan Sunflower
    October 25, 2017 at 17:20

    Another question that deserves an answer is whether Steele was “shopping” the dossier with the knowledge and permission of the Clinton campaign … who “owns” the copyright on such a bought-and-paid-for document? (I suspected at the time that Steele’s going underground/radio silence was theatrical, but who supplied / demanded the stage-craft?

    The lies about the anonymous funder of the dossier was likely meant to make it more attractive to journalists who would resist a Clinton-funded dirt-fest … regardless, they still failed to take the bait … (reminds me of the Niger forgeries that were recognized AS forgeries by the reporter they were passed to … but were still considered “authentic” and “damning” by Cheney’s office of special plans … ugh nauseating)

  37. David G
    October 25, 2017 at 16:39

    Stepping back from the details, am I alone in thinking:

    BOTH that Trump’s constructive approach to Russia is (or maybe was, considering all the diplomatic tit-for-tat this year) possibly his only redeeming feature, and that the anti-Russia obsession by U.S. elites is incredibly dangerous and malignant,

    AND ALSO that, Trump being Trump, his reluctance to bash Russia probably springs from the worst motives, such as fear and greed, whether related to money laundering or putative “deals” in Russia or hotel-room water sports?

    • Susan Sunflower
      October 25, 2017 at 16:48

      Trump has put the generals in charge … and he’s got no base of knowledge or even “better” advisors to offer even an alternative world view (Bannon was the counterweight, hardly “better”) … it’s dire. Check out Stephen Cohen on John Batchelor Show podcast … the WWIII trip-wires are multiplying and who-the-hell knows whose voice Trump will be listening to tomorrow.

      The bigger “tragedy” historically is that there is no coherent opposition … the Democrat are still obsessed with internal politics, and still busily and successfully purging their “leftists” … The DLC/DNC bell jar abides … dude.

    • October 25, 2017 at 17:43

      trump’s constructive approach to russia is all about making money for trump

      • Brad Owen
        October 26, 2017 at 04:11

        DOES NOT MATTER the motive. Cooperative friendship would be the outcome, and the THREAT to the Synarchist oligarchy. Got it? Get it.

    • Litchfield
      October 25, 2017 at 21:46

      I agree completely with your first point.
      He had to be brought down for this reason.
      Why should any American president “bash” Russia????

      However, Trump is a poltiical novice and he wants to save his presidency.
      So, all he can think of to do is go along with the bashing.
      And anyhow, he is now surrounded by a junta, so he is really just a tweeting figurehead who does not appear to understand the genuine power of his office.

    • Danny Weil
      October 25, 2017 at 22:11

      I am afraid you cannot see the rot. It is pervasive. America can never recuperate. It will be a third rate power in twenty years.

  38. Robert
    October 25, 2017 at 16:27

    A typically excellent summary and analysis by Robert Parry. My guess is that the corporate media will quickly lose interest in this story so that can resume their main roles as anti-Russia fear-mongers.

    • October 25, 2017 at 21:09

      I find it dishonest that Robert Perry would fail to make any mention that it was an anti-trump republican (most likely Jeb Bush) that started the ball rolling at Fusion GPS

      • October 25, 2017 at 21:41

        That party who first hired Fusion had nothing, zero, to do with Steele being hired from whence the “dirty dossier” which IS the issue came forth–so who cares? It has no bearing on the issue at hand–that “ball” died and nothing from that part of the Fusion “work” is at issue–only what happened after with the DNC Lawyer funding the smear attack against Trump came in and in came Steele….Trump is problematic but to be so defensive for Clinton is a bit much, she has made a career of attempting to destroy any and all adversaries/threats–“bimbo eruptions” etc. — and this type thing is par for her course and then lying about it….Go ahead and love her — thankfully enough in the country didn’t and don’t to keep her from being elected….Further, her shenanigans gave us Trump as she thought she could easily beat him and did all she could to get him attention and to make him the Republican Nominee, and this is a documented fact, she did this–at a time when he was basically being ignored–she wanted to run against Trump and she and her crew more than anyone (the “Russians”…) gave us President Trump….perhaps she can run again in 2020 to please her die hard fans and re-elect Trump…..

      • Litchfield
        October 25, 2017 at 22:31


      • Brad Owen
        October 26, 2017 at 04:07

        Both Bushes and Clintons playing for the Synarchists team against all outsiders, Trump included. THAT is the take-away.

      • GM
        October 26, 2017 at 10:35

        It’s not Robert “Perry”

        P-a-r-r-y. Thanks.

      • Skip Scott
        October 26, 2017 at 15:14

        I can see why you retired, you can’t even get this author’s name right.

  39. Susan Sunflower
    October 25, 2017 at 15:56

    I was just struck by realizing the power of the Clinton army — fueled with deep belief in the vast right wing conspiracy — almost certainly has had and continues to have on our media … it’s too easy to imagine, like the “moral majority” or the “tea party” before them,the calls to the switchboards and the letters to the editor creating a (social media) behemoth far in excess of the reality.

    In the movie/documentary Weather Underground, one aspect of life underground and the social isolation required to stay safe was their persistent belief that in the “movement” and the imminent possibility of popular revolution, even as many folks got on with “mending fences” and getting back to the land … navel gazing and working for a world by improving themselves (a fascinating tale I’ve heard quite a bit about recently — true? not entirely sure). (Similarly, I think that Al-Qa’eda and company, receiving much popular support in the arab/Muslim world, may well have believed – in their isolation – that their movement was stronger and the climate riper for a popular movement to throw out the infidels).

    Although recommended by others days ago, I also recommend Rensin’s fauxnaif review of “What Happened” … (next comment)

    • Susan Sunflower
      October 25, 2017 at 15:57

      A Review of What Happened by an Author Who Insists He Has Never Heard of Hillary Clinton or the 2016 Election

      • Litchfield
        October 25, 2017 at 21:44

        Very interesting essay. I hope all read it.
        Thanks. The only review I have read of What Happened, and, I think, the only one I need to read.

      • Skip Scott
        October 26, 2017 at 08:54

        Thanks Susan. Great link.

      • GM
        October 26, 2017 at 10:34

        Excellent piece. Thank you

  40. Susan Sunflower
    October 25, 2017 at 15:37

    This news — that the Clinton campaign directly financed (as opposed to rich friends of the campaign) — should be a bombshell and it probably will fail to ignite … yes, this is the sort of “fudging” that the Clintons have long engaged in, as if the American memory is so short and the cynical acceptance of dirty practices is entrenched. There were a surprising number of people who thought the Watergate Burglary was also — even then — business as usual.

    Someone should remind the American public (which has grown so self-righteously starched and pressed in their espoused propriety) of both Donald Segretti and Lee Atwater … and others .(Nixon’s red-baiting comes to mind).

    The question remains — what did she know of the dossier’s contents and what was her role in spreading the “news”. It was very much my impression in September/October 2016 , that the Clinton campaign expected bombshell news, likely indictments that never materialized. (Does this explain why the pussy-grab tape they’d been sitting on since spring, was finally but so bumblingly released?)

    Clinton thought the dossier was her ace-in-the-hole (before and after failure to release income taxes stumbled, and the pussygrab tape failed to torpedo his campaign) … more Clintonian miscalculation … no one wanted to publicly attach their name and reputation to the Steele dossier (even though Trump was supposed to end up the loser by all calcuations), why (aside from it being garbage)

    • retlaw
      October 25, 2017 at 17:40

      I think you’re right here suzy….it will fail to ignite because it’s a big nothing burger

      • Susan Sunflower
        October 25, 2017 at 18:42

        The boilerplate on this dossier has been — from the beginning — that it was commissioned by “rich friends of Hillary”, with the strong suggestion that it was done independent of the campaign …. what they knew of the contents or the progress/scope of the investigation was left to conjecture … appears that the ongoing investigation and impending dirty “bombshell” shaped the campaign (other issues being less sexy or exciting and the dossier being an ace-in-the-hole.)

        Someone page David Corn and ask him what he was told of the Clinton’s knowledge of the dossier and its contents.
        See also what’s-his-name at Newsweek.

        • October 25, 2017 at 20:16

          a more likely scenario is that -from the beginning – that it was commissioned by “rich friends” of Jeb Bush

          • Susan Sunflower
            October 25, 2017 at 20:54

            whatever that association (which candidate has not been disclosed/admitted to), it ended before June when the Clintons took over and that candidate left the field …
            yes, speculation has been that it might have been the Bushes but I’ve not seen it confirmed.

            The dossier entries, as leaked by Buzzfeed, as I recall began in June … whether the Buzzfeed “leak” of the dossier as shopped was the “entire dossier” compiled by Steele — including the pre-June content — is another question I’ve rarely seen asked or answered,

            much less if the “Clinton angels” received the prior work on taking over paying for Steele’s investigatory work, but lacked the ownership to authorize Steele to “shop” it to journalists.

            I don’t think there’s any reason to assume either that Buzzfeed’s copy of the dossier (as it was shopped to journalist) was unedited by Steele and others.

            I don’t know if its likely that the “new boss” (the Clinton angel) was allowed possession of the GOP-Funded pre-June investigation … good question … hope you (and I) get an answer.

    • Peter Pan
      October 25, 2017 at 20:13

      Came from Bushes

    • Danny Weil
      October 25, 2017 at 22:10

      Few care, few understand, few participate and less are educated.

  41. Andrew
    October 25, 2017 at 14:04

    What I don’t understand is why Hillary paying a former British agent is kosher, but Trump asking for dirt from Russians is not. Is the only difference former versus current?

    • Skip Scott
      October 25, 2017 at 14:34

      Britain is a perceived ally, the evil Ruskies are perceived (unjustly) as an adversary. Just like the obvious foreign influence of the Israeli government in our elections is tolerated, but the evil Ruskies are undermining our democracy with puppies.

      • retlaw
        October 25, 2017 at 17:41

        unjustly comrade?

        • anon
          October 26, 2017 at 08:31

          Your comment is no more than a foolish accusation of the kind discredited by the article. Please provide evidence and argument or learn from others.

        • Skip Scott
          October 26, 2017 at 09:29

          Yes, I would say unjustly. Unlike most, I am not sheep-dipped in MSM propaganda, and choose instead to read Putin’s speeches and interviews, and base my judgement on the man’s own words. The propaganda our MSM spews is for the sole purpose of keeping our boogeyman for the MIC so they can continue to rob our treasury, and allow our multi-national corporations to continue to rape, pillage and plunder the rest of the world. Heaven forbid we should learn to wage peace in a multi-polar world. Don’t those Ruskies know it’s all OURS?

        • October 26, 2017 at 10:19

          So, justify.

      • Litchfield
        October 25, 2017 at 21:12

        Exactly. This is exactly what a good friend, a Harvard graduate, said to me when I questioned the consistency of her position on ‘interference” and buying “intelligence,” etc.
        Britain and Israel are allies; Russia is an adversary.
        So, it’s OK for our “allies” to influence our elections . . .?
        So, that meme has been absorbed without question by very intelligent people who read the NYT every day.

        Here’s a question: Are we interfering with an influencing Britain’s and Israel’s elections, in this sense of donating vast sums of money and also itroducing fake narratives into the campaign news, etc.? I don’t think so. For one thing, the fact that our campaigns are so long and so incredibly expensive creates the *opportunity* for such corruption, originating both internally and externally.

        • Sam F
          October 26, 2017 at 08:58

          If our government agencies were seeking to corrupt democracy elsewhere, it would be no less criminal than their seeking to control ours.

          Your friend may need to be reminded that her reasoning is a tautology, assuming their conclusion that certain nations must be allies and others enemies. Usually social pressure toward conformity has caused such people to adopt a plausible narrative, rather than examine the evidence and suffer the cost of arguing against their own kind. That engineered ignorance has been common among Hillary sheep, who must have their trans bathrooms and longer maternity leaves at the cost of hundreds of thousands of destroyed lives in the Mideast for Israeli land theft.

          The election must have been controlled by foreign monsters, the pretense of the tyrant demagogue against whom Aristotle and Plato warned thousands of years ago.

    • David G
      October 25, 2017 at 16:16

      Well, it seems Hilary paid Fusion GPS, not Steele directly, and I don’t know whether that company is in the U.S. or the U.K.

      But forgetting that, even if we assume the Clinton camp paid Steele, one could make a colorable legal distinction that they were purchasing a service from a foreign national, which isn’t illegal in itself, while by contrast TrumpWorld is alleged to have received dirt that the Russians were simply offering them, and that could be described as a campaign *contribution* from a foreigner, which is illegal.

      I’m definitely not saying that fine point has anything to do with how this is all actually playing out, so I’m not really answering your question, but if the Dems and MSNBC ever find their backs up against the wall, the argument may be available to them.

      • retlaw
        October 25, 2017 at 17:37

        you got your facts all wrong….actually the Clinton “camp” and the DNC paid a lawyer who hired and paid Fusion GPS for opposition research. Fusion GPS hired Steele’s firm to investigate trump’s ties to Russia. The lawyer disseminated the information back to the Clinton “camp” and the DNC. Did HRC hire Steele…..nope. Did HRC hire Fusion GPS…..nope. Did HRC pay Fusion GPS…..no, her camp paid the lawyer

        • Karl Sanchez
          October 25, 2017 at 19:18

          Yep! All those cut-outs to ensure deniability–at least for HRC, but not for the DNC.

        • David G
          October 25, 2017 at 20:23

          That doesn’t have anything to do with the point I was trying to make. In fact, I don’t see what that extra level of middleman has to do with anything at all.

        • evelync
          October 26, 2017 at 14:25

          and on a side note, today Wall Street on Parade points out that that same lawyer who was behind the Russian dossier tried to undermine Bernie too:

          • Skip Scott
            October 26, 2017 at 15:31

            Thanks evelync- good link.

      • Bob
        October 25, 2017 at 18:54

        Sounds very much like a distinction without a difference.

      • Winfield Shadow
        November 3, 2017 at 13:23

        Hello David G.

        re: legal argument the Dems & MSNBC may have

        re: TrumpWorld vs Hillary and Fusion GPS et al.

        re: there is such a thing as too much point on a pencil ;-)

        Your post took me back in time, when I was trying to find “facts” about Hillary’s and Podesta’s email dump …

        The only FACT I remember is that WikiLeaks posted / released those emails. No one has proved to my satisfaction who actually provided those emails to WikiLeaks.

        If Russia or other Agent “gifted” Trump by using WikiLeaks as a surrogate, that is not a crime in and of itself, unless it was TrumpWorld itself that was the supplier and participated in the hack directly or indirectly. I do not consider it a “fact” that it was the Russians who supplied WikiLeaks with these emails.

        So, yet another hairball to unravel. I will not be losing any sleep over the possibility that … “but if the Dems and MSNBC ever find their backs up against the wall, the argument may be available to them.” (the argument being that TrumpWorld directly received dirt on Hillary — which is still a bit lame unless The Donald Camp participated in the server hack – Podesta phishing exploit.)

        erratum: Hillary’s emails where the real deal — the dossier sucks kosher mouse-doodles

        – Winfield Shadow

    • retlaw
      October 25, 2017 at 17:42

      she didn’t…..that’s the difference

      • anon
        October 26, 2017 at 09:04

        You seek to hide wrongdoing behind a trivial distinction, a lawyer or a Hillarist.

  42. October 25, 2017 at 13:42

    It’s a telling example of the vast lack of political knowledge among the voting population that this entire situation can become blown so far out of proportion instead of simply being acknowledged as business as usual. When HAVEN’T political parties paid people to dig up nasty stuff against the other side?

    Sadly, it’s also revelatory of how deeply ingrained the belief in the fairness of the corporate media is that so many people are firmly convinced the entire Russian interference narrative is not just true but has been verified by “intelligence agencies.” Likewise, the new narrative conflating any non-corporate news source as either “fake news” or influenced by Russia is making the effort to bring the truth out even harder. Worse, the latter is showing signs of being a well-written program for undermining the First Amendment.

    • Danny Weil
      October 25, 2017 at 22:09

      It is called ignorance. People get the government they deserve.

  43. Loretta
    October 25, 2017 at 13:13

    Hilarious!! What an amazing Story!!! Steele stole the show! Our Man in Havanna!!!

    • Antonia
      October 25, 2017 at 13:34

      I thought the same!

      • MEJanssen
        October 27, 2017 at 07:23

        Excellent comparison. All we need now are pictures of vacuum cleaner parts photos hopped to look like Russian weapons.

  44. Abe
    October 25, 2017 at 12:54

    Both Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump were highly paid by their leading pro-Israel donors to obsessed about starting war with Iran.

    As noted back in 2014 by journalist Alex Kane at Alternet, agents of a foreign government – Israel – openly declared their efforts to influence the U.S. presidential election:

    “Sheldon Adelson and Haim Saban, two billionaires with right-wing, pro-Israel agendas, took the stage at the Israeli American Council’s inaugural conference in Washington, D.C. They fantasized about bombing Iran and about buying the New York Times because they said it’s biased against Israel. Both [went on to] to play an outsized role in the 2016 presidential elections by flooding the campaign with money to support their favored candidates. In a post-Citizens United world, Adelson and Saban are kings, and Israel will be the beneficiary of their largesse […]

    “Saban and Adelson are on opposite ends of the mainstream (and narrow) political spectrum. Adelson is a casino mogul who bankrolled the 2012 presidential campaigns of GOP candidates Newt Gingrich and Mitt Romney. Saban is in the entertainment business and is a major Democratic Party donor. But when it comes to U.S. foreign policy and Israel, Saban and Adelson take many of the the same positions, displaying an eagerness for war with Iran and a desire to keep the U.S. alliance with Israel rock-solid.

    “’There’s no right or left when it comes to Israel,’ Saban said in what news reports called a joking reference to the moguls’ seating positions at the conference where they spoke.

    “But the quip was more than just a joke. It was a nod to how the Democratic and Republican parties are united in singing Israel’s praise, backing its military actions and voting to give the country $3.1 billion in U.S. military aid annually. […]

    “Saban, an Israeli-American famous for producing the TV show Power Rangers, is currently the CEO of the Saban Capital Group, which invests in media companies around the world. A 2010 New Yorker profile of Saban by Connie Bruck paints a portrait of a man who is heavily influential, charming and hawkish. ‘I’m a one-issue guy and my issue is Israel,’ he told the New York Times in 2004.

    “At the the event with Adelson, Saban had a crude prescription for what Israel should do about Iran. ‘I would bomb the living daylights out of the sons of bitches.’ The answer came during a discussion of what Saban would do if he were Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and thought a nuclear deal with Iran was a threat to Israel.

    “His chosen candidate is Hillary Clinton, the front-runner for the Democratic Party nomination in 2016. As Bruck reported in the New Yorker, Saban has given millions of dollars to the Clintons in the form of donations to Bill Clinton’s presidential library and the Clinton Global Initiative.

    “Speaking about Clinton to the Washington Post at the conference, Saban said, ‘I have told her and everybody who’s asked me, ‘Whatever it takes, we’re going to be there…’ She would be a fantastic president for the United States, an incredible world leader and one under whom I believe — deeply — the relationship with the U.S. and Israel will be significantly reinforced.’

    “Clinton has given backers like Saban ample reason for thinking of her as the perfect candidate for Israel. During the 2008 presidential election, Clinton was asked by ABC’s ‘Good Morning America’ what she would do if Iran used a nuclear weapon on Israel. ‘In the next 10 years, during which they might foolishly consider launching an attack on Israel, we would be able to totally obliterate them,’ she said. This year, in an interview with the Atlantic’s Jeffrey Goldberg, she doubled down on her pro-Israel agenda. ‘If I were the prime minister of Israel, you’re damn right I would expect to have control over security [in the West Bank],’ she said.

    “GOP donor Adelson’s choice for who to back in the 2016 race is trickier. […] After the GOP losses in 2012, Adelson promised he would ‘double’ his donations to the party. […]

    “Adelson, who made his fortune in the casino business, is one of the richest people in the world. He has used his largesse to shower pro-Israel groups like the Republican Jewish Coalition and the Zionist Organization of America with millions of dollars. In 2012, it was Adelson who prolonged the GOP primary by boosting Newt Gingrich, who famously proclaimed, in line with Adelson’s views, that the Palestinian people were ‘invented,’ that there is no such thing as a Palestinian nation. When Gingrich finally dropped out, Adelson gave $30 million to a pro-Mitt Romney super-PAC.

    “His influence in the Republican Party was made clear in March of [2014]. Chris Christie and other potential presidential candidates flew out to speak to the Adelson-backed Republican Jewish Coalition. But Christie tripped up when he used the term ‘occupied territories’ to refer to the West Bank and Gaza. While the Palestinian territories are indeed under occupation–a term used even by the U.S. State Department – Adelson and his ilk reject that view. The audience at the RJC event in March was no fan of the ‘occupied’ remark, and Christie later apologized to Adelson.

    “The casino mogul apparently believes Israel should hold onto the West Bank forever, even at the cost of democracy in the area. ‘I don’t think the Bible says anything about democracy,’ Adelson said on November 9. ‘God talked about all the good things in life. He didn’t talk about Israel remaining as a democratic state, otherwise Israel isn’t going to be a democratic state — so what?’

    “Adelson also said that the U.S. should ‘not just talk [with Iran]. I would take action.’ [In 2013], Adelson made waves when he suggested that President Obama should launch a nuclear weapon at Iran […] when it comes to Israel and Iran, the two candidates, backed by people like Saban and Adelson, will have many of the same prescriptions: ramp up pressure on Iran and back Israel no matter what. The only debate will be on how far to take those positions. Think of it as a battle between the Saban position of bombing the ‘sons of bitches’ vs. the Adelson position of nuking Iran.”


    • JWalters
      October 25, 2017 at 20:09

      Thanks for this post. The mainstream news outlets, including the PBS Newshour, assiduously keep American voters in the dark about these background influences on American politics. Hillary’s enthusiastic, grass-roots supporters are completely ignorant of her cruel, bigoted, warmongering “donors” (i.e. puppetmasters), and Clinton’s promises to them. And the Clinton campaign took proactive steps to keep them ignorant, as the leaked DNC emails showed. Her deception was as monstrous as the monstrous policies she promised to follow if elected.

      It may be the Clintons were roped into their role by a mafia-style “offer you can’t refuse” from the bankers. John Perkins has told how the bankers would approach a newly elected third-world president and say essentially, “In one pocket I have millions of dollars for you and your family, and you will live out your lives in comfort. In the other pocket is a bullet with your name on it.” Chelsea getting $60,000 for a speech looks suspicious. And Hillary understandably wouldn’t want a tragedy to befall her granddaughter.

      • Danny Weil
        October 25, 2017 at 22:07

        The role of corporate media, which NPR now is, is to conceal not reveal

    • Litchfield
      October 25, 2017 at 20:58

      “As noted back in 2014 by journalist Alex Kane at Alternet, agents of a foreign government – Israel – openly declared their efforts to influence the U.S. presidential election:”

      When is someone going to push back—hard, very hard—on this obvious, celebrated meddling, and start to use the T-word, treason, for those who are in the pay and the thrall of the Israel Lobby?

      Please, God, let it be soon—very soon.

      • Danny Weil
        October 25, 2017 at 22:08

        Agreed. Israel and their supplicants all influenced the elections, the Saudis included. the only people who did not influence the election were the Americans themselves. 47% of eligible voters stayed home for they know the game is over.

      • Igor Slamoff
        October 25, 2017 at 23:35

        Yeah, so the Zionists pay big money to control US politics.
        Howzabout the other side?
        Qatar donated millions of dollars to the Brookings Institution, Saudi Arabia finances Georgetown University’s Wahhabi propaganda center run by the Islamist apologist John Esposito, Saudi Arabia also finances CAIR, and so forth. How come none of this is ever mentioned?
        The writers and readers of this web site live in an ideological bubble that is just as hermetic as the ideological bubble surrounding the wingnuts.

        • anon
          October 26, 2017 at 08:24

          A foolish zionist remark with the pretense of a Russian pen name. The comments lament the absence of criticism of the far greater Israeli bribery of politicians, and you pretend that it doesn’t matter a long as someone else did something at all similar.

        • Ames Gilbert
          October 26, 2017 at 12:13

          Calm down. Do a little research, and you’ll find that KSA and Israel are on the SAME side. Best buddies, cosying up to each other, even supporting each others military adventures.
          Not that this will prevent them from stabbing the other in the back at some point in the future, after all they learnt from the best, the U.S. and the Brits, and they specialize in ‘divide and conquer’ and treaty breaking and treachery.

    • tina
      October 26, 2017 at 00:09

      How do we do NIGER!!!! Four dead, no accountability. none what so ever. Jarvanka’s emails. Deaths and e-mails. I want trey gowdy to spend at least the next 5 years investigating. How could we lose 4, count them, four, red blooded Americans under the watch of the Secretary of State, Rex Tillerson and trump ? Are they or are they not responsible?. I demand massive investigations.

      • MEexpert
        October 26, 2017 at 09:58

        Tillerson doesn’t send our boys overseas, Mattis does. Tillerson probably wasn’t even told about it. Anyway, our troops are in 170 countries around the world. I wonder doing what?

Comments are closed.