BACKGROUND:
WikiLeaks published stolen eMails from John
Podesta and the Democrat National
Committee (DNC) showing how Hillary Clinton
rigged the primaries against Bernie Sanders.
According to WikiLeaks, a angry DNC staffer,
who was a Bernie Sanders supporter, gave them a
flash drive with the DNC emails.
Hillary Clinton tried to divert attention
from those eMails by hiring a
'Democrat-friendly' company owned
by Ex-Russians who hated Putin
to immediately claim (in one day!)
that Russians hacked the DNC.
Hillary refused to let the FBI examine the
DNC servers to verify that claim (actually
the location of hackers not caught in
the act is mainly a wild guess),
so the 'Russians did it' claim is unproven.
In early July 2016, Mr. Christopher Steele
went to the FBI to talk about the "Trump Dossier"
he was paid to write for Fusion GPS (paid
for by Hillary Clinton & the DNC), which was
his fictional document to slam Trump
with lies provided mainly by Russian
intelligence operatives, who have a
reputation for planting phony stories.
The "Trump Dossier" was hinted about before
the election, but not released - most likely
because nothing in it could be verified
-- it could have been an "October Surprise"
that backfired.
The Billy Bush's Access Hollywood "sex tape"
was the first choice - released October 7, 2016
to derail Trump's campaign, and most people
thought it did ... so there seemed to be
no need to release an unverified Trump Dossier
when there was real audio of Trump talking
trash inside the bus.
By July 2016, Hillary Clinton
was attacking Trump
about Russian ties that did not exist.
Without any evidence, the FBI, CIA, NSA,
and Director of National Intelligence
James Clapper issued a formal assessment
on Jan. 6, 2017, that “Putin ordered
an influence campaign in 2016 aimed
at the US presidential election
… [in order] to undermine public faith
in the US democratic process,
denigrate Secretary Clinton,
and harm her electability
and potential presidency.”
We now know the "influence"
turned out to be $100,000
of lame Facebook ads,
most placed AFTER the election.
The most effective ad seemed to be
one organizing a demonstration against
President Trump after the election.
After one year of investigation, Special Council
Robert Mueller has found no Russian ties
-- if he had, they would have been leaked to the
leftist-biased mainstream press immediately.
THE NEW YORK TIMES STORY:
Note: The New York Times
is the perfect newspaper
to line the bottom
of your bird cage!
The press and the Democrats have all gone
off the deep end in search of a Russia connection
that doesn’t exist.
The New York Times recently had a 3,600-word
front-page article to explain why the FBI
had to investigate candidate Trump
immediately after the (sham) "investigation"
of Hillary Clinton ended in early July 2016.
The FBI investigation will be two years old
in two months.
The N.Y Times article was written by Matt Apuzzo,
Adam Goldman, and Nicholas Fandos.
The title:
“Code Name Crossfire Hurricane:
The Secret Origins of the Trump Investigation."
Their main argument is that four Trump
campaign aides had “obvious or suspected
Russian ties.”
(1)
Michael Flynn,
according to the Times,
“was paid $45,000 by the Russian
government’s media arm for a 2015 speech
and dined at the arm of the Russian president,
Vladimir V. Putin.”
That is a lie:
Flynn was merely sitting at a table at which Putin
happened to sit down for “maybe five minutes,
maybe twenty, tops,” according to Green Party
presidential candidate Jill Stein who was just
a few chairs away. No words were exchanged,
Stein says, and “[n]obody introduced anybody
to anybody. There was no translator. The Russians
spoke Russian. The four people who spoke English
spoke English.”
(2)
Paul Manafort,
who was Trump’s campaign chairman
for a few months, “lobbied for pro-Russia interests
in Ukraine and worked with an associate who
has been identified as having connections
to Russian intelligence.”
That is a lie:
The Manafort associate was a Russian-Ukrainian
translator named Konstantin Kilimnik
who studied English at a Soviet military school
and who vehemently denies any such connection.
It seems that the Ukrainian authorities
did investigate the allegations at one point
but declined to press charges.
So the connection is unproven.
(3)
Carter Page,
a Trump foreign-policy adviser
“was well known to the FBI” because
“[h]e had previously been recruited
by Russian spies and was suspected
of meeting one in Moscow
during the campaign.”
That was a lie:
Carter Page was approached by what he thought
were Russian trade representatives at a
January 2013 energy symposium in New York.
When the FBI informed him five or six months later
that it believed the men were intelligence agents,
Page appears to have cooperated fully,
based on a federal indictment filed
faith the Southern District of New York.
Page acted as an informant helping the FBI.
(4)
George Papadopoulos,
a “young and inexperienced
campaign aide whose
wine-fueled conversation
with the Australian ambassador
set off the investigation.
Before hacked Democratic emails
appeared online, he had seemed to know
that Russia had political dirt on Mrs. Clinton.”
That was a lie:
Papadopoulos was talking about Hillary's
30,000+ (her number, could be many more)
State Department emails she had stored on a
private computer, which she had deleted
in response to a subpoena from Congress.
Papadopoulos was referring to those emails ,
which were in the news because Trump
frequently talked about them, not the eMails
released by WikiLeaks.
