There is a tremendous amount of obfuscation coming from democrats after the revelation that Hillary Clinton and the DNC paid Fusion GPS to contract Christoper Steele to create the now infamous “Dossier”. One of the most significant falsehoods is that the dossier origins began with an unknown GOP entity within the primary. This narrative is entirely false.
The “Russian Dossier” did not begin assembly until after it was commissioned by Hillary Clinton and the DNC (June 2016). Prior to that Fusion GPS was simply doing opposition research on behalf of a Trump opponent (stopped April 2016).
We likely know, with great confidence, exactly who that 2016 originating Trump opponent was. Thanks to: the timing, the originating entities, the associations and the player networks behind the 2015 GOP road map splitter strategy. I’ll get to that aspect later.
First it’s important to frame a correct baseline. Fusion GPS was doing commissioned opposition research. AFTER April 2016, the Clinton Campaign and DNC then began financing Fusion GPS to create the “Russian Dossier”. Christopher Steele began in June 2016 – The “Russian dossier” did not start assembly until commissioned by Clinton and the DNC. This distinction is important.
(Via WaPo) … [Marc E.] Elias and his law firm, Perkins Coie, retained the firm [GPS Fusion] in April 2016 on behalf of the Clinton campaign and the DNC. Before that agreement, Fusion GPS’s research into Trump was funded by a still unknown Republican client during the GOP primary.
The Clinton campaign and the DNC, through the law firm, continued to fund Fusion GPS’s research through the end of October 2016, days before Election Day.
What began as ordinary commissioned opposition research into candidate Donald Trump back in 2015, stopped in April 2016. This date is important because two key people, allies in the GOPe roadmap for Jeb Bush, took action at the exact same time the oppo-research was discontinued.
Back in 2014/2015 we outlined the entire process the influence agents within the GOPe were using to elect Jeb Bush. At first many thought we were nuts, however as time progressed through late 2015 and into the 2016 primaries the tripwire evidence was so overwhelming almost everyone had to admit what was going on.
Take a good look at this picture from the 2014 U.S. Chamber of Commerce Christmas Dinner celebration.
(left to right) Jeb Bush, Rupert Murdoch, Valerie Jarrett.
Christopher Steele was the retired British MI6 operative who authored the “Russian Dossier”. Mr. Steele also formerly worked under Sir John Macleod Scarlett, a retired senior British Intelligence Officer in Moscow before Steele starting his own “consulting” business, Orbis in 2009.
Sir John Scarlett was behind the Tony Blair dossier claiming Saddam had deliverable weapons of mass destruction. He has experience trafficking fabricated charges and putting them in the hands of powerful people. However, more importantly, since 2011 Scarlett also sits on the board of Rupert Murdoch´s rebranded News UK, formerly News International.
This network is the likely connection between Rupert Murdoch wanting to aid the Jeb Bush candidacy and connect opposition research via familiar intelligence gathering operatives in the U.K. It is highly likely, though not certain, the originating finances for the GOP “opposition research” on Trump, via Fusion GPS, came from Rupert Murdoch.
However, after the initial research was decommissioned, it was the Clinton Campaign and the DNC who became the financing entities, contacted Fusion GPS for continuance of the Fusion research and framed the resulting narrative (toward a Russian Conspiracy).
From the Washington Post: […] “Fusion GPS did not start off looking at Trump’s Russia ties, but quickly realized that those relationships were extensive, according to the people familiar with the matter. When the Republican donor stopped paying for the research, Elias, acting on behalf of the Clinton campaign and the DNC, agreed to pay for the work to continue.”
It is important to note that Christopher Steele didn’t begin working on the “Russia Conspiracy Dossier” until June 2016, two months after it was dropped in April.
It was during the summer of 2016 when Christopher Steele framed the “Trump Russian Dossier” around sketchy and unsubstantiated intelligence reports he was personally creating from his research. Steele previously worked in Russia for British intelligence. The dossier was simply a compilation of individual reports he prepared for Fusion. The dossier alleged that the Russian government collected compromising information about Trump and the Kremlin was engaged in an active effort to assist his campaign for president.
From the Chicago Tribune (FEB):
[…] Steele, 53, began his Trump investigation in June 2016 after working for another client preparing a report on Russian efforts to interfere with politics in Europe.
U.S. intelligence had been independently tracking Russian efforts to influence electoral outcomes in Europe.
Steele was hired to work for a Washington research firm, Fusion GPS, that was providing information to a Democratic client. Fusion GPS began doing Trump research in early 2016, before it hired Steele, on behalf of a Republican opposed to the businessman’s candidacy. The firm declined to identify its clients.
[…] As summer turned to fall, Steele became concerned that the U.S. government was not taking the information he had uncovered seriously enough, according to two people familiar with the situation.
In October, anticipating that funding supplied through the original client would dry up, Steele and the FBI reached a verbal understanding: He would continue his work looking at the Kremlin’s ties to Trump and receive compensation for his efforts.
But Steele’s frustration deepened when FBI Director James Comey, who had been silent on the Russia inquiry, announced publicly 11 days before the election that the bureau was investigating a newly discovered cache of emails Clinton had exchanged using her private server, according to people familiar with Steele’s thinking.
Those people say Steele’s frustration with the FBI peaked after an Oct. 31 New York Times story that cited law enforcement sources drawing conclusions that he considered premature. The article said that the FBI had not yet found any “conclusive or direct link” between Trump and the Russian government and that the Russian hacking was not intended to help Trump. (link)
Byron York discusses the importance of the FBI angle:
(WASHINGTON) […] But knowing that the Clinton campaign, the DNC, and Perkins Coie supported the dossier is not the end of the story. The most important next step is the FBI.
Sometime in October 2016 — that is, at the height of the presidential campaign — Christopher Steele, the foreign agent hired by Fusion GPS to compile the Trump dossier, approached the FBI with information he had gleaned during the project. According to a February report in the Washington Post, Steele “reached an agreement with the FBI a few weeks before the election for the bureau to pay him to continue his work.”
It was an astonishing turn: the nation’s top federal law enforcement agency agreeing to fund an ongoing opposition research project being conducted by one of the candidates in the midst of a presidential election. “The idea that the FBI and associates of the Clinton campaign would pay Mr. Steele to investigate the Republican nominee for president in the run-up to the election raises further questions about the FBI’s independence from politics, as well as the Obama administration’s use of law enforcement and intelligence agencies for political ends,” wrote Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa.
In the end, according to reports, the FBI did not pay Steele. But the dossier did not go away. Indeed, in January 2017, Comey briefed President-elect Trump (and President Obama) on the dossier’s contents. (read more)
Representative Elise M. Stefanik is a young, freshman republican congresswoman from the Albany New York area. And using a probative questioning timeline, she single-handily pulled the mask from FBI Director James Comey, yet no-one seemed to notice.
Obviously Ms. Stefanik has not been in the swamp long enough to lose her common sense.
In the segment of the questioning below Rep. Stefanik begins by asking director Comey what are the typical protocols, broad standards and procedures for notifying the Director of National Intelligence, the White House and senior congressional leadership (aka the intelligence Gang of Eight), when the FBI has opened a counter-intelligence investigation.
The parseltongue response from Comey is a generalized reply (with uncomfortable body language) that notification of counter-intel investigations are discussed with the White House, and other pertinent officials, on a calendar basis, ie. “quarterly”.
With the statement that such counter-intel notifications happen “generally quarterly”, and against the backdrop that Comey stated in July of 2016 a counter-intel investigation began, Stefanik asks:
…”when did you notify the White House, the DNI and congressional leadership”?
BOOM! Watch an extremely uncomfortable Director James Comey outright LIE… by claiming there was no active DNI -which is entirely false- James Clapper was Obama’s DNI.
Watch it again.
Watch that first 3:00 minutes again. Ending with:
…”Because of the sensitivity of the matter” ~ James Comey
Director Comey intentionally obfuscates knowledge of the question from Rep Stefanik; using parseltongue verbiage to get himself away from the sunlit timeline.
The counter-intel investigation, by his own admission, began in July 2016. Congress was not notified until March 2017. That’s an eight month period – Obviously obfuscating the quarterly claim moments earlier.
The uncomfortable aspect to this line of inquiry is Comey’s transparent knowledge of the politicized Office of the DNI James Clapper by President Obama. Clapper was used rather extensively by the Obama Administration as an intelligence shield, a firewall or useful idiot, on several occasions.
Anyone who followed the Obama White House intel policy outcomes will have a lengthy frame of reference for DNI Clapper and CIA Director John Brennan as the two primary political operatives. Brennan admitted investigating, and spying on, the Senate Intelligence Committee as they held oversight responsibility for the CIA itself.
The first and second questions from Stefanik were clear. Comey’s understanding of the questions was clear. However, Comey directly evaded truthful response to the second question. When you watch the video, you can see Comey quickly connecting the dots on where this inquiry was going.
There is only one reasonable explanation for FBI Director James Comey to be launching a counter-intel investigation in July 2016, notifying the White House and Clapper, and keeping it under wraps from congress. Comey was a participant in the intelligence gathering for political purposes – wittingly, or unwittingly.
As a direct consequence of this mid-thought-stream Comey obfuscation, it is now clear -at least to me- that Director Comey was using his office as a facilitating conduit for the political purposes of the Obama White House.