« What? That can't be!! | Main | Tillerson dosn't have a clue ... »

25 October 2017


Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.


“Clinton campaign, DNC paid for research that led to Russia dossier
Marc E. Elias, a lawyer representing the Clinton campaign and the DNC, retained Fusion GPS, a Washington firm, to conduct the research.
Michael Sussmann, a lawyer from the same firm that hired Fusion GPS on order of Democrats, hired the Crowdstrike cyber-outlet to investigate the leak of DNC emails. Crowdstrike and the DNC denied the FBI access to the relevant servers but asserted that "Russian hacking" was the source of the leak.
McCain had already been involved in distributing the report…”
Looks and sounds like a treasonous anti-government activity.

Here is another interesting angle: “Mr. Steel, the ex-MI6 spy 'who worked with murdered Alexander Litvinenko' [and who made the "discovery" that it was the Kremlin that hit the triple agent] flees his £1.5m home 'fearing for his life' leaving his pet with neighbors after being outed as the man behind the dirty dossier on Donald Trump.” – What a remarkable man! Nicely paid and always on call.


I am always upset that the fourth estate is so corrupted now with partisan thinking that no one wants to investigate in detail what BC was doing with the help of his friend Espstein.

We read a few lines in the news, and then like the proverbial "sound and fury" it is heard no more.

The Clintons should have been pariahs a long time ago.


"...the FBI, CIA, NSA are prohibited from interfering in domestic political affairs."
This is critical statement for the ongoing Russiagate affair. It would be great to know the details of the (alleged) prohibition.

robt willmann

The immediately preceding main post by Col. Lang brought up the Washington Post article of 24 October, which article has caused some discussion in the mass media, and the main post above references the article.

What is the Washington Post newspaper doing revealing that the Hillary Clinton campaign and Democratic National Committee (DNC) paid for research that led to the Russia "dossier"? The article looks and feels like a "modified limited hangout". But for whose benefit? That would be for H. Clinton and the DNC, of course.

The article does three things: 1) it says that the Hillary campaign and the DNC "helped fund" the so-called research; 2) it lays it all off on the Perkins Coie law firm and a lawyer there, Marc Elias; and 3) it lets the present DNC and the Clinton campaign play dumb and say that they known nothing about Fusion GPS and the dossier (paragraphs 10-12).

By putting the monkey on the back of the Perkins Coie law firm, the WashPost tries to prevent any questions being directed at the Hillary campaign and the current DNC.

1. Elias "retained Fusion GPS" … "to conduct the research".

2. The law firm "retained the company in April 2016 on behalf of the Clinton campaign and the DNC".

3. The Clinton campaign and the DNC, "through the law firm", continued to fund Fusion GPS through the end of October 2016.

4. Fusion GPS "gave Steele's reports and other research documents [what are those?] to Elias".

5. It is "unclear how or how much [both how and how much!] of that information was shared with the campaign and the DNC", and "who in those organizations was aware of the roles of Fusion GPS and Steele. One person close to the matter said the campaign and the DNC were not informed by the law firm of Fusion GPS's role" (ROFL). Huh? What? "I know nozzing, man!"

6. Elias, "acting on behalf of the Clinton campaign and the DNC, agreed to pay for the work to continue".

You can see from this little list what the Washington Post is doing. It is publicly describing that one line of attempted defense as the issue heats up is the attorney-client privilege, and it says as much--

"Those people [!] said that it is standard practice for political campaigns to use law firms to hire outside researchers to ensure their work is protected by attorney-client and work-product privileges".

Well, I am not sure that trying to hide behind the attorney-client privilege is as clear-cut as the WashPost and "those people" are saying. To begin with, an attorney-client relationship has to exist as defined by the ethics and disciplinary rules of the Bar association in the applicable state, as further interpreted by appellate court decisions, and possibly state laws. If push comes to shove, there are other issues that come into play about whether a communication is covered by the privilege.

This brings us to a curious sentence in the article: "Some of the details [regarding what?] are included in a Tuesday letter sent by Perkins Coie to a lawyer representing Fusion GPS, telling the research firm that it was released from a client-confidentiality obligation". The letter was apparently sent the same day, 24 October, that the article was published.

Notice the term the WashPost uses -- "client-confidentiality obligation". Because of a time squeeze right now, maybe more on this later.

On 25 October, the newspaper published a kind of hodgepodge explanation about the 24 October article, entitled "The Clinton camp and DNC funded what became the Trump-Russia dossier: Here’s what it means"--


Eric Newhill

That cuts both ways. He was sentence for corruption, indicating that wheeling and dealing is not totally tolerated and that Ruskies would have to obtain the uranium fair and square via purchase of the company that controls it.

different clue


I believe I read recently the theory that for the WP and/or the NYT to even be permitted to write anything about possible Putin/Nazarbayev bribery to the Clinton Foundation in return for greenlighting the Uranium One deal . . . indicates that somebody has decided that Clinton has reached the end of its public usefulness, and they are sending Clinton the message that it needs to retreat into private obscurity or there will be more revelations to come and then investigations to come after that.

different clue

Pacifica Advocate,

Perhaps JamesT is implying that the Inner Establishment has decided that Clinton is more an embarrassment than an asset, and they are beginning to warn her that she needs to retreat quietly into private obscurity. And this is just a warning example of the many things the Inner Establishment "could" direct its MSM to discuss in public if the Clintons won't go quietly.

What if the Inner Establishment decides that the National Enquirer-type story about Clinton's flights on the Air Pedo Express to Epstein Island need to begin showing up in the New York Times? Is that what it will take to convince the Clintons to disappear from public view and quietly count and spend their money in private?

Sam Peralta


In reading this post by Publius Tacitus and the comments on this thread, particularly the comments of David Habakkuk, I am convinced that there is something very fishy in the actions of the leadership of our intelligence agencies and the role of the UK intelligence agencies.

Do folks here have an inkling of what they are up to here and why they were motivated to do what they did?

Pacifica Advocate

>>>You're suggesting that Russia was threatening to invade a sovereign country if Uranium One wasn't approved?!!?

No. I'm suggesting that Kazakhstan is as suscept to Russian meddling and purchase as Mexico is to American meddling and purchase.

This seems an easy and quite solidly established concept for me to accept; can you politely explain to me why it is so difficult for you?

blue peacock

Well, it wasn't McCain or Ted Cruz or Jeb who funded Fusion GPS initially, but a Wall St billionaire hedge fund guy. They ended the contract before Steele was hired, which happened after Hillary & DNC started paying them.

Lawyers for the conservative publication Washington Free Beacon informed the House Intelligence Committee Friday that the organization was the original funder for the anti-Trump opposition research project with Fusion GPS.

The Free Beacon funded the project from the fall of 2015 through the spring of 2016, whereupon it withdrew funding and the project was picked up by the Democratic National Committee and the Hillary Clinton campaign.

The original arrangement between the Free Beacon and Fusion GPS involved opposition research into multiple Republican candidates, not just front-runner Donald Trump.

Sources close to the Free Beacon stress that the project, when the Free Beacon funded it, had nothing to do with Russia and did not involve Christopher Steele, the former British spy who gathered anti-Trump dirt in Russia. Steele was retained by Fusion GPS when the project was funded by Democrats, and not in its initial phase, when the Free Beacon was involved.


Pacifica Advocate

>>>He was sentence for corruption, indicating that wheeling and dealing is not totally tolerated....

He was sentenced for corruption, and that only indicates that the ruling Kazakh junta was displeased with him.

You really have absolutely no idea how that place is run, do you? Think "Banana Republic"--50s-era Nicaragua or El Salvador--but with less brutality.




That is very interesting. Publius Tacitus is correct about the Clintons. These two are low life grifters and who somehow made it to the top of society, like the two people he compares them to: Bonnie Parker and Clyde Barrow.

I don't know if you've seen the well-known movie starring Faye Dunaway and Warren Beatty, but after all of todays's revelations in the news, I've been replaying in my mind the last scene in that movie when Bonnie and Clyde meet their end.

I guess I wouldn't want that horrific a fate for the Clintons, but I would sure like to see them removed from public life and living in shameful obscurity.


That is very interesting. I would sure like to see both Bill Clinton and Hillary Clinton do just as you wrote--become nothing but obscure private citizens.

I think, however, that there will be many people who have had personal ties with them who may prefer for them to meet the fate of the people Publius Tacitus has compared them to: Bonnie Parker and Clyde Barrow.

After today's news reports I do think that their public life will become very difficult.

Eric Newhill

Yes, I'm sure Kazakhstan is subject to corruption just as are the governments Mexico and the United States.

What you are not getting is that Kaz. officials already exercised corruption by dealing with Uranium One pre-Russian ownership. I don't care what you think about corruption, vicious strongmen, whatever....the uranium rights belonged to Uranium One. You are suggesting that kaz. would simply ignore the UO deal and re-sell the same uranium to Russia. I don't accept that anymore than I would accept you telling me that Mexico would confiscate a US owned maquiladora and sell it to Japan.

The comments to this entry are closed.

My Photo

February 2021

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
  1 2 3 4 5 6
7 8 9 10 11 12 13
14 15 16 17 18 19 20
21 22 23 24 25 26 27
Blog powered by Typepad