Category Archives: Investigations

The Russiagate Whitewash Era Begins, by Matt Taibbi

The Russiagate hoax had a cast of hundreds, maybe thousands, but rest assured, the search for a few good scapegoats has begun and the rest will thrive, getting off scot-free. From Matt Taibbi at taibbi.substack.com:

After the WMD mess, Judith Miller got the blame, while a long list of just-as-guilty media villains failed upward. Now, a nervous press is looking for Russiagate’s fall guys

“There is an old saying in journalism: You’re only as good as your sources,” wrote Washington Post fact-checker Glenn Kessler, in a piece about the indictment of “Steele Dossier” source Igor Danchenko. The latter is being set up to take the rap as the dirty Russian rat who hoodwinked poor civic-minded Christopher Steele, the FBI, and the entire American press corps into propping up the biggest hoax since the WMD affair.

After America invaded Iraq and failed to turn up weapons of mass destruction, the press went into CYA mode. Pundits who’d panted for war now cooked up a new narrative, that the WMD “mistake” had been caused by a combination of faulty intelligence, over-confident officials in the George W. Bush White House, and one New York Times writer named Judith Miller. Everyone else who so forcefully screwed the pooch on that story, from New Yorker editor David Remnick to New York columnist Jonathan Chait to current Atlantic editor Jeffrey Goldberg, emerged either unscathed, or draped in awards and promoted.

Now, the Russiagate tale many of those same people hyped is falling apart, and the industry is again building battlements to protect careers from a cascade of humiliating revelations. This time, a combination of Danchenko, Buzzfeed editor Ben Smith, and perhaps a few organizations like McClatchy will be tossed out of the lifeboat. If you’re ever tempted to think there’s honor among thieves, check out this recent flurry of Russiagate finger-pointing.

Continue reading→

Prosecution Of Project Veritas Sounds Warning About Two-Tier Justice & Big-State Corruption, by Roger Kimball

There is no innocent explanation for why the FBI is investigating an allegedly stolen diary and raiding James O’Keefe’s house. From Roger Kimball at The Epoch Times via zerohedge.com:

Whatever else can be said about the FBI’s vendetta against James O’Keefe and Project Veritas, his investigative journalism enterprise, it is a useful reminder of two things:

1) that we increasingly live in a two-tier society in which the lower tier can expect the arbitrary intrusion of all the coercive elements of the state, and

2) that the fundamental legitimacy of many important American institutions is draining away rapidly like a full bathtub that is suddenly unplugged.

Scott Johnson at Powerline has an excellent summary of the case thus far.

Last Thursday, the FBI conducted a raid against two former employees of Project Veritas.

A few days later, they conducted a dawn raid against O’Keefe himself. It was the full monty.

According to Harmeet Dhillon, a lawyer for PV, the G-men showed up with a battering ram, cuffed O’Keefe, and tossed him out in the hallway in his underwear as they proceeded to ransack his home.

They made off with lots of booty, including two mobile phones chock full of privileged attorney-client communications, donor information, as well as information about ongoing Project Veritas investigations.

Yes, but what were the Feds looking for.

Why the fancy-dress SWAT-team routine?

They were apparently looking for a diary kept by Ashley Biden, daughter of Joe Biden, President of the United States.

The diary, you see, may be real—or maybe not. If real, it may have been stolen. It may have been left behind in a room once occupied by Ashley Biden.

Project Veritas, in any event, denies having stolen it.

From bits that were leaked back before the 2020 election, we can say that the document is certainly full of items that, if true, are embarrassing to Joe Biden.

Continue reading→

Durham Indicts Danchenko, by Peter Van Buren

Are we ever going to get an investigation of the Clinton campaign’s collusion with Russia? From Peter Van Buren at theamericanconservative.com:

The unravelling of the Steele dossier shows the only campaign that colluded with Russia was Hillary Clinton’s.

ALEXANDRIA, VA – NOVEMBER 10: Russian analyst Igor Danchenko is pursued by journalists as he departs the Albert V. Bryan U.S. Courthouse after being arraigned on November 10, 2021 in Alexandria, Virginia. Danchenko has been charged with five counts of making false statements to the FBI regarding the sources of the information he gave the British firm that created the so-called “Steele Dossier,” which alleged potential ties between the 2016 Trump campaign and Russia. (Photo by Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images)

It was Hillary all along. The indictment by Special Counsel John Durham of Igor Danchenko for lying to the FBI proves conclusively the Steele dossier was wholly untrue. There was no Russiagate except for the one created out of lies. The only campaign that colluded with Russia was Clinton’s.

Clinton paid for the dossier to be created and Clinton people supplied the fodder. Steele, working with journalists, pushed the dossier into the hands of the FBI to try to derail the Trump campaign. When that failed, the dossier was used to attack the elected president of the United States.

Let’s start with a quick review of what Durham has uncovered about the most destructive political assassination since Kennedy.

Christopher Steele, paid by the Clinton campaign (after Clinton’s denial, it took a year for congressional investigators to uncover that the dossier was commissioned by the opposition research firm Fusion GPS, working for the Democratic Party and Hillary Clinton’s campaign, paid through the Perkins Coie law firm), seems to have done no investigative work. Instead, his reputation as a former British intelligence officer was purchased to validate a dossier of lies and then traffic them to the FBI and journalists.

Durham’s investigation confirms one of Steele’s key “sources” is the now-arrested Danchenko, a Russian emigre living in the United States. Steele was introduced to the Russian by Fiona Hill, then of the Brookings Institution. Hill would go on to play a key role in the Ukraine impeachment scam. Danchenko completely made up most of what he told Steele about Trump-Russian collusion.

Continue reading→

Durham Exposes New Links To Clinton Campaign in Creation of Russian Collusion Scandal, by Jonathan Turley

A lot of high-ranking “Great Democrats” are turning up on the periphery of John Durham’s Russiagate investigation. From Jonathan Turley at jonathanturley.org:

Below is my column in The Hill on the recent links established by Special Prosecutor John Durham and the Clinton campaign.

Here is the column:

To my good friend … A Great Democrat.” Those words written to a Russian figure in Moscow, inside a copy of a Hillary Clinton autobiography, may be the defining line of special counsel John Durham’s investigation. The message reportedly was written by Charles Dolan, a close Clinton adviser and campaign regular whom news reports identify as the mysterious “PR-Executive 1” in the latest Durham indictment, this time of Igor Danchenko.

Danchenko, 43, was a key figure in the compilation of the infamous Steele dossier that led to the now discredited investigation of alleged collusion between the Trump campaign and the Russian government during the 2016 presidential race. But Danchenko, a Russian emigre living in the U.S., seems unlikely to be the Durham investigation’s apex defendant. In fact, Durham describes him at points more like a shill than a spy, an “investigator” who was fed what to report by Clinton operatives such as Dolan.

Durham is known as a methodical, apolitical and unrelenting prosecutor. Thus far, his work seems to betray a belief that the FBI got played by the Clinton campaign to investigate the Trump team. The question is whether Durham really wants to indict just the figurative tail if he can get the whole dog — a question that now may weigh heavily on a number of Washington figures, just as it did following Durham’s indictment in September of Clinton campaign lawyer Michael Sussmann.

Danchenko’s indictment on five counts of lying to the FBI serves two obvious purposes. First, these counts — with a possible five years in prison on each — are enough to concentrate the mind of any defendant about possibly flipping for the prosecution. Second, indicting Danchenko “hoists the wretch” for potential targets to see and consider that there but for the grace of God — and Durham — go they.

Continue reading→

Out-Thought, Out-Bought, Out-Fought: Why the “9/11 Truth” Movement Failed, by Alan Sabrosky

As every lawyer knows, there’s a big difference between having a case and making a case. From Alan Sabrosky at unz.com:

Sometimes you have to lie to others to buy time to deal with a problem.

But never lie to yourself. –Lt. Gen Bernard C. “Mick” Trainor, USMC (Ret.)

I have cited my late friend “Mick” Trainor’s words elsewhere, and kept them in mind since he said them to me in the late 1980s.They ought to be graven in granite in the minds of everyone of good heart in public life. They are also an indictment of the “9/11 Truth” movement as a whole, which tried to speak the truth about this atrocity to the people as well as to those in power, but increasingly lied to itself about the effect it was having. It finally ended in complete failure, lacking only a decent funeral oration.

An Overview

It gives me no pleasure at all to write these words. I personally came to the movement late in 2009, then met many excellent people and worked with many fine editors at a time when overt censorship was still minimal. The best of the “Truthers” shared one thing in common: they were right that the US Government explanation of the 9/11 attacks was singularly flawed, in whole and in all its major parts. But they – and I include myself here – were never able to convey that message in a politically significant way to enough of the American public to matter.

The net effect is that despite innumerable articles, speeches, seminars, videos, protests and the like by tens of thousands of activists, the 20th anniversary of 9/11 came and went with barely a whimper. It was preceded by the collapse of the 9/11 lawyers effort in New York City on which so many had staked their hopes, and the dismissal of Richard Gage – the founder of the seminal “Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth” – from his own organization by his own board. It is tragic enough when evil triumphs, which is what the real planners and perpetrators of 9/11 did. It is even worse when the collapse of the efforts to expose them and to bring them to justice ends in farce.

Continue reading→

Fate of Anti-War Journalism Lies in Upcoming Assange Hearings, by Sam Carliner

Antiwar journalism is already on life support. It dies if Assange is shipped to the US and convicted. Fro Sam Carliner at antiwar.com:

Within just a few days, the United States will once again make its case in a UK court that it has a right to extradite WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange to be tried under the Espionage Act, in what remains this century’s most dangerous attack on global press freedom.

These hearings, taking place on October 27 and 28, are an attempt to appeal the decision that Judge Vanessa Baraitser made earlier this year to not extradite Assange to the United States because it is likely he will commit suicide if subjected to the inhumane conditions of the U.S. prison system. However, while this decision was focused on his health, these hearings are really about what the Assange case has always been about: the United States’ determination to silence anyone who exposes the crimes of the US empire.

Leading press freedom and human rights organizations have been clear about the implications of a potential Assange extradition and have called on President Biden to drop the case. If there were still any doubts that the Department of Justice’s focus on Assange was corrupt and politically motivated, those who remain skeptical should consider two major revelations about the US campaign against Assange since the last hearing.

Earlier this year the Icelandic news outlet Stundin reported that a key witness in the prosecution against Assange admitted to lying in his indictment. This witness was Sigurdur Ingi Thordarson, a convicted pedophile and fraudster. The FBI promised Thordarson immunity from prosecution under the condition that he lie about his relationship with WikiLeaks in an indictment which would strengthen the DOJ’s conspiracy charge against Assange. Along with the debunked claim that Assange pressured whistleblower Chelsea Manning into hacking a US government computer, Thordarson’s indictment was supposed to paint Assange as having a pattern of pressuring sources to commit cyber crimes. The Stundin article should put to rest any belief that the United States is being honest about its stated reasons for going after Assange.

Continue reading→

Indicted Clinton lawyer hired CrowdStrike, firm behind dubious Russian hacking claim, by Aaron Maté

Nobody has investigated the dark nooks and crannies of the Russiagate story more thoroughly than Aaron Maté. From Maté at mate.substack.com:

The indictment of Michael Sussmann raises new questions about Russiagate’s foundational Russian hacking allegation. That claim originates with CrowdStrike — a firm hired and overseen by Sussmann.

CrowdStrike’s May 2016 contract with Clinton campaign lawyer Michael Sussmann

The indictment of Hillary Clinton lawyer Michael Sussmann for allegedly lying to the FBI sheds new light on the pivotal role of Democratic operatives in the Russiagate affair. The emerging picture shows Sussmann and his Perkins Coie colleague Marc Elias, the chief counsel for Clinton’s 2016 campaign, proceeding on parallel, coordinated tracks to solicit and spread disinformation tying Donald Trump to the Kremlin.

In a detailed charging document last month, Special Counsel John Durham accused Sussmann of concealing his work for the Clinton campaign while trying to sell the FBI on the false claim of a secret Trump backchannel to Russia’s Alfa Bank.

But Sussmann’s alleged false statement to the FBI in September 2016 wasn’t all. Just months before, he helped generate an even more consequential Russia allegation that he also brought to the FBI. In April of that year, Sussmann hired CrowdStrike, the cybersecurity firm that publicly triggered the Russiagate saga by lodging the still unproven claim that Russia was behind the hack of Democratic National Committee emails released by WikiLeaks.

At the time, CrowdStrike was not the only Clinton campaign contractor focusing on Russia. Just days before Sussmann hired CrowdStrike in April, his partner Elias retained the opposition research firm Fusion GPS to dig up dirt on Trump and the Kremlin.

These two Clinton campaign contractors, working directly for two Clinton campaign attorneys, would go on to play highly consequential roles in the ensuing multi-year Russia investigation.

Continue reading→

Civil Liberties Are Being Trampled by Exploiting “Insurrection” Fears. Congress’s 1/6 Committee May Be the Worst Abuse Yet. By Glenn Greenwald

Democrats have been screaming “McCarthyism!” in various contexts since McCarthy. Their 1/6 committee looks a lot like Tailgunner Joe’s. From Glenn Greenwald at greenwald.substack.com:

Following the 9/11 script, objections to government overreach in the name of 1/6 are demonized as sympathy for terrorists. But government abuses pose the greater threat.

Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA), Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-MD), Rep. Liz Cheney (R-WY) and Rep. Adam Kinzinger (R-IL) arrive for the House Select Committee hearing investigating the January 6 attack on the U.S. Capitol on July 27, 2021 at the Cannon House Office Building in Washington, DC. (Photo by Drew Angerer/Getty Images)

When a population is placed in a state of sufficiently grave fear and anger regarding a perceived threat, concerns about the constitutionality, legality and morality of measures adopted in the name of punishing the enemy typically disappear. The first priority, indeed the sole priority, is to crush the threat. Questions about the legality of actions ostensibly undertaken against the guilty parties are brushed aside as trivial annoyances at best, or, worse, castigated as efforts to sympathize with and protect those responsible for the danger. When a population is subsumed with pulsating fear and rage, there is little patience for seemingly abstract quibbles about legality or ethics. The craving for punishment, for vengeance, for protection, is visceral and thus easily drowns out cerebral or rational impediments to satiating those primal impulses.

The aftermath of the 9/11 attack provided a vivid illustration of that dynamic. The consensus view, which formed immediately, was that anything and everything possible should be done to crush the terrorists who — directly or indirectly — were responsible for that traumatic attack. The few dissenters who attempted to raise doubts about the legality or morality of proposed responses were easily dismissed and marginalized, when not ignored entirely. Typically, they were vilified with the accusation that their constitutional and legal objections were frauds: mere pretexts to conceal their sympathy and even support for the terrorists. It took at least a year or two after that attack for there to be any space for questions about the legality, constitutionality, and morality of the U.S. response to 9/11 to be entertained at all.

For many liberals and Democrats in the U.S., 1/6 is the equivalent of 9/11. One need not speculate about that. Many have said this explicitly. Some prominent Democrats in politics and media have even insisted that 1/6 was worse than 9/11.

Continue reading→

Buzz Off, Attorney General Garland. Furious School Parents Will Not Be Silenced. Updated. by Mark Glennon

Pretty soon they’ll be chanting F**k “Merrick Garland” at football games. From Mark Glennon at wirepoints.org:

UPDATE 10/9/21: A request has now been made for an investigation over what appears to be an orchestrated effort to silence parents at school boards and gave rise to Garland’s directive. 

It’s tempting to see the new directive by Attorney General Merrick Garland as merely a transparent attempt to intimidate parents into silence on opinions that the Biden Administrations doesn’t like. But it’s worse than that. It’s worth going though the reasons why this misconduct by federal law enforcement is so appalling, and to remind parents why they should not be deterred.

Many parents in Illinois and across the country have spoken out recently with unprecedented anger in unprecedented numbers at school board meetings and beyond. Their complaints have been about Critical Race Theory in classrooms, mask mandates and explicit materials for minors about sexuality and gender. We’ve written here often supporting some of those complaints. My colleague Ted Dabrowski and I have participated in some of the efforts directed toward our own childrens’ schools.

U.S. Attorney General Merrick Garland

But on Monday, Garland issued a directive to the FBI and federal law enforcement officials across the nation to focus on alleged criminal conduct in protests by parents.

Outrage ensued immediately, and appropriately, from parents, their organizations and commentators who are infuriated that a threat of federal law enforcement is being used to try to scare them out of constitutionally protected speech.

Continue reading→

“Keyword Warrants” – Feds Secretly Ordered Google To Identify Anyone Searching Certain Information, by Tyler Durden

Google is not “free” in any sense of the word. You’re the product and Google is under no obligation to hold your information confidential. From Tyler Durden at zerohedge.com:

An accidentally unsealed court document reveals that the federal government secretly ordered Google to provide data on people searching specific search words or phrases, otherwise known as “keyword warrants,” according to Forbes.

According to the report, the Justice Department inadvertently unsealed the documents in September (which were promptly re-sealed), which were reviewed by Forbes. In several instances, law enforcement investigators asked Google to identify anyone searching for specific keywords.

The first case was in 2019 when federal investigators were on the hunt for men they believed sex-trafficked a minor. According to a search warrant, the minor went missing but reappeared a year later and claimed to have been kidnapped and sexually assaulted. Investigators asked Google if anyone had searched the minor’s name. The tech giant responded and provided law enforcement agents with Google accounts and IP addresses of those who made the searches.

There have been other rare examples of so-called keyword warrants, such as in 2020 when police asked Google if anyone searched for the address of an arson victim in the government’s racketeering case against singer R Kelly. Then in 2017, a Minnesota judge requested Google to provide information on anyone who searched for a  fraud victim’s name.

Continue reading→