Posted on 12/24/2018 3:26:10 AM PST by Liz
--snip--
According to former British spy Christopher Steele, insuring the election was precisely the concern of the Clinton campaign when it paid him and research firm Fusion GPS to compile his controversial dossier on Donald Trump. Despite being widely declared the shoo-in for the White House, the Clinton campaign wanted insurance - and Steele and Fusion were there, as one insurer famously says, "like a good neighbor."
Steele was recently called for a deposition in London in a defamation action filed by three Russian bankers for allegedly false claims in the dossier. Steele's statements included some surprising admissions, particularly regarding the purpose of his contract with the U.S. law firm of Perkins Coie.
Throughout the campaign, and for many weeks after, the Clinton campaign denied any involvement in the creation of the dossier that was later used to secure a secret surveillance warrant against Trump associates during the Obama administration. Journalists later discovered that the Clinton campaign hid the payments to Fusion as a "legal fees" among the $5.6 million paid to the law firm. New York Times reporter Ken Vogel at the time said that Clinton lawyer Marc Elias had "vigorously" denied involvement in the anti-Trump dossier. When Vogel tried to report the story, he said, Elias "pushed back vigorously, saying 'You (or your sources) are wrong.'"
Times reporter Maggie Haberman likewise wrote: "Folks involved in funding this lied about it, and with sanctimony, for a year." Even when Clinton campaign chairman John Podesta was questioned by Congress on the matter, he denied any contractual agreement with Fusion GPS. Sitting beside him was Elias, who helped devise contract.
Later, confronted with the evidence, Clinton and her campaign finally admitted that the dossier was a campaign-funded document that was pushed by Steele and others to the media.
In one of his answers to an interrogatory, Steele explained: "Fusion's immediate client was law firm Perkins Coie. It engaged Fusion to obtain information necessary for Perkins Coie LLP to provide legal advice on the potential impact of Russian involvement on the legal validity of the outcome of the 2016 U.S. Presidential election. Based on that advice, parties such as the Democratic National Committee and HFACC Inc. (also known as 'Hillary for America') could consider steps they would be legally entitled to take to challenge the validity of the outcome of that election."
Steele's testimony suggests that the dossier was not just a political hit job but a type of insurance for a catastrophic political event.
The dossier ultimately found its way from a Fusion GPS employee, Nellie Ohr, to her husband, Justice Department official Bruce Ohr. From there, it became the basis of Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) warrants targeting figures like Trump campaign adviser Carter Page, signed off by the Obama administration with the involvement of later-fired FBI director James Comey and his deputy, Andrew McCabe. (Ohr was later demoted over his involvement.) Page was never charged with a crime while key players like Fusion GPS co-founder Glenn Simpson invoked the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination to refuse to answer further questions from Congress. The FBI knew the dossier was part of a Clinton campaign operation but told the secret FISA court that it was only speculating about a possible political motive for the material. Notably, however, the FBI's warrant application indicates that Steele denied knowing the purpose behind the dossier. In the 412-page application, the FBI buries the issue in a footnote, stating that Steele was hired by Fusion GPS to conduct research on Trump and that "The identified U.S. person never advised [Steele] as to the motivation behind the research into [Trump] ties to Russia. The FBI speculates that the identified U.S. Person was likely looking for information that could be used to discredit Candidate #1's campaign."
We now know that Steele and Fusion GPS aggressively shopped the dossier with any reporter who would listen, while also pitching it to Ohr and the FBI. Notably, the dossier story was broken by investigative journalist Michael Isikoff who recently admitted, "When you actually get into the details of the Steele dossier, the specific allegations, we have not seen the evidence to support them, and, in fact, there's good grounds to think that some of the more sensational allegations will never be proven and are likely false."
Steele's recent comments magnify the concerns. Ultimately, the dossier was used for precisely the purpose described by Steele: It led to the special counsel investigation, which quickly diverted to other criminal allegations unrelated to the dossier's most sensational claims, like hacking or coordination with WikiLeaks and Russian trolling operations. Indeed, Democratic leaders' new claims of a "massive fraud" in the election is the alleged violation of campaign finance laws to pay hush money to a porn star and former Playboy bunny.
I supported the appointment of special counsel Robert Mueller, and still support the completion of his investigation without interference. Yet, we should not be willfully blind to the implications of the dossier's use to support a secret FISA investigation.
Some of us have long criticized the secret court as operating below the constitutional standard set out in the Fourth Amendment for searches and seizures. In this case, using that secret court, a dossier funded by the Democratic presidential candidate was given to the outgoing Democratic administration to investigate advisers to the Republican challenger and his business dealings. That alone should be deeply troubling, even without the unproven allegations.
Of course, Clinton wasn't the only candidate seeking political insurance. The controversial Trump Tower meeting with Russian operatives was held to hear promised evidence of alleged criminality by Clinton and her foundation; both candidates sought information from Russian sources to undermine each other. That may be unseemly, but it's not unlawful.
The submission of at least one of Mueller's reports may be just weeks away. Regardless of whether he finds crimes, it was important for this investigation to reach its proper conclusions. Yet, no matter how it ends, concerns will remain over how it began ... as a political insurance plan.
Jonathan Turley is the Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at George Washington University. You can follow him on Twitter @JonathanTurley.
And the MSM yawns.
Welcome to the USSA, comrades. The Deep State won.
Someone should go and do a complete movie over what the Russians ‘would really do’ if they chose to influence the outcome of an election...to include faking everyone out in the primary system, arrangine Russian hookers for accepted lobbyists, and arranging the ballots for the President and one-third of the Senate. The cherry on the cake would be a marginalized FBI who would lucky to solve a ‘lost-dog’ case.
sad..........water under the bridge no one goes to jail. Once Trump leaves office its all over what we see in Europe is now going to be realized in America. The cancer will have won.
<><> handed off by Fusion GPS employee, Nellie Ohr, to her husband, DOJ official Bruce Ohr,
<><> with a sprinkle of DNC fairy dust, the dossier became the "real thing"....
<><> the basis of Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) warrants,
<><> specifically targeting Trump campaign adviser, Carter Page,
<><> signed off by the Obama administration,
<><> high mucky-muck FBI director James Comey and deputy, Andrew McCabe jumped in feet-first,
Wow. Aint this a shocker---Ohr was later demoted over his involvement?
Great graphic.
Like the rest of the first 10 amendments to the constitution, the 5th Amendment expresses and guarantees a RIGHT, not a privilege.
We lost the Republic on Usurpation Day, January 20, 2009.
BOTH parties cooperated to violate the Constitution.
All of the crimes committed against the Trump campaign and administration were made possible by the Kenyanesian Usurper.
Good point.....too bad we have to emphasize it to these dolts.
<><> faking everyone out in the primary system,
<><> arrangine Russian hookers for accepted lobbyists,
<><> arranging the ballots for the President and one-third of the Senate.
Hah, they come up with a lousy "pee dossier." Heck, Hillary ordered the Ruskis to go whole hog.
If they knew, why isn’t there a conga line to prison?
The significance of this article is not what it says, these facts were well known here more than a year ago. The significance is in who said them, and where they are written. Turley and The Hill are consumit swamp dwellers. The fact that this information is written and accepted by one of the few adults from the Swamp is not insignificant.
This is a modified limited hangout.
And the uniparty makes Nixon look like a piker.
“I supported the appointment of special counsel Robert Mueller, and still support the completion of his investigation without interference.”
Now that we know the purpose and origin of “The Dossier”, why do you (Mr. Turley) still support completing the investigation without interference?
btt
The precedent has been set. They will learn from any mistake made and use this experience to bring down a future duly elected President. If the Clintons and their cronies are not arrested, I will not ever vote again!
Like It tell my liberal “friends” the Deep State™ is doing what they want and not what you want them to do. You just happen to agree with them and it seems great. Wait until it turns on you.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.