Origin of the Russian Collusion Lie - Jimmy Dore

Who Is Jimmy Dore

"American stand-up comedian and political commentator best known for hosting The Jimmy Dore Show. His political views can be described as progressive, populist, leftist, anti-establishment and anti-war."




"First of all, of the Russia bullshit McCarthyism smears, or whatever, propaganda that's been being pushed through the media from the Democrats, and every - through the neoliberal elite. Pushing this Russia thing. And where did it come from? (points) This is an internal document from the Hillary Clinton campaign. It was created - Hillary Clinton for President consultant team, a guy named Pete Brodnitz, this was from June 2015. And this is from an internal poll they did on the horserace. It's called "Topline Results."
"So if you look where that arrow points, that's the conclusion of their internal polling was that Secretary Clinton's top vulnerability as tested in this poll is the attack that claims that as Secretary of State, she signed off on a deal that gave the Russian government control over 20% of America's uranium production after investors in the deal donated over $140 million to the Clinton Foundation, just like Dylan Radigan (sp?) just said."
"And by the way Bill Clinton also got a half million dollars from a Kremlin-connected bank at the same time as this deal was going through. And that was among his highest-paid speeches of his life. So that's real. That's a real connection. Her internal polling showed that was her biggest vulnerability because half of all likely voters are less likely to support Clinton after hearing that statement, and 17% were much less likely to support. So they said that was her biggest vulnerability."
"And what do you do with your vulnerability? You throw it on your opponent. Also, what is your opponent's biggest strength? You attack it. When John Kerry ran against George Bush, he was a war hero, he had Purple Hearts and a Bronze Star. They attacked his Purple Hearts, they said they were a fake, he got 'em when he was running away, the guys who worked with him on the Swift Boat hated him, that's where they attacked - his strength."
"So Donald Trump's biggest strength was his patriotism. So they f--ing take her biggest vulnerability, and they throw it on his biggest strength. And that was a decision made by John f--ing Podesta. And how do I know that? Because here it is."

12/21/2015. So just a few months after that internal report, Donald Trump starts to surge. At the end of 2015, he starts to surge, and they start to get scared. So if you read that part in blue at the bottom, what it says is, 'The best approach is to slaughter Donald for his bromance with Putin.' That's from December f--ing 2015. After the June thing. So there you go. That's where this comes from.

"This is f--ing made up. And you know how I know it will never be proven, is because the FBI and the DHS, Department of Homeland Security, were not allowed to look at the DNC or Podesta servers. So we'll never have f--ing proof ever. That's the only way you could prove it."
"So, there you go. How is that f--ing possible? You tell me how that's f--ing possible. I'll tell you how that's possible. Because they're all f--ing corrupt. That's how it's possible. Because at the time Loretta Lynch was running Department of Justice. That's why. Because Barack Obama was the president. That's why. And everybody thought Hillary Clinton was gonna be f--ing President. That's why it happened. I just answered."
By Dr. Dannielle (Dossy) Blumenthal. All opinions are Dr. Blumenthal's own. This post is hereby released into the public domain.

5 Signs Of A False Narrative

1. You “must” believe, or you’re the problem.

2. If you disagree, follow only the designated opposition. 

3. It’s you versus me and neither of us have much power.

4. Certain names must remain unspoken.

5. Blame the bogeyman, preferably a religious one.


All opinions are the author’s own. Public domain.

Hillary Clinton: When It Comes To Radical Islamic Terror, You Reap What You Sow

First, see this interview with Greta Van Susteren (published 2012):
Van Susteren: "So you think if we walked away from this, didn't give them money today, it would be worse for us from a security standpoint? 
Clinton: "I do. We're building a relationship which did not exist. I said in our last trip when you were with me that we had a huge trust deficit, in part because the United States had, to be fair, we had helped to create the problem we're now fighting." 
Van Susteren: "How?" 
Clinton: "Because, when the Soviet Union invaded Afghanistan, we had this brilliant idea that we were gonna come to Pakistan, and create a force of mujahideen, equip them with Stinger missiles and everything else, to go after the Soviets inside Afghanistan. And we were successful. The Soviets left Afghanistan and we said: "Great, goodbye" (makes hand gesture as if to say "we washed our hands of them"). Leaving these trained people, who were fanatical, in Afghanistan, and Pakistan, leaving them well-armed, creating a mess, frankly, that at the time we didn't really recognize, we were just so happy to see the Soviet Union fall, and we thought, okay fine, we're okay now, everything's gonna be so much better. Now you look back, the people we're fighting today, we were supporting in the fight against the Soviets."
Clinton makes a similar admission here (undated video):
The people we are fighting today we funded twenty years ago….and it was President Reagan in partnership with the Congress, led by Democrats, who said you know what it sounds like a pretty good idea… let’s deal with the ISI and the Pakistan military and let’s go recruit these mujahideen. And that's great, let get some to come from Saudi Arabia and other countries, importing their Wahabi brand of Islam so that we can go beat the Soviet Union.  
"And guess what, they retreated … they lost billions of dollars and it led to the collapse of the Soviet Union....it wasn’t a bad investment in terms of Soviet Union but let’s be careful what we sow… because we will harvest.  
"So we then left Pakistan … We said okay fine you deal with the Stingers that we've left all over your country, you deal with the mines that are along the border and, by the way, we don’t want to have anything to do with you… in fact we’re sanctioning you."
Someone commented on the Van Sustern interview: "I think that's the only truth she's ever spoken."

By Dr. Dannielle (Dossy) Blumenthal. All opinions are those of the author. This post is hereby released into the public domain.

10 Reasons To Be Outraged About The Report Of The Special Counsel

1. It Wasn't About Election Interference

Covert Influence Activities Were Already A Given

Russia did try to interfere in our election.

As I noted in my topline summary of the Special Counsel's own executive summaries of the nearly 450-page report, In the beginning they were generally fomenting discord (2014-2015), but then (2016) they turned actively toward pushing the election in the direction of President Trump and away from candidate Hillary Clinton. 
  • Used covert propaganda to sow discord among the American public and undermine the election process. Their tools included included social media, advertising, and political rallies.
  • Hacked into Democrats' servers, and the personal email of Democratic political figures, and dumped what they found through several phantom social media accounts as well as Wikileaks.
Regardless of whether the United States does the same thing to other countries, what they did violated our laws. However, then-President Obama knew about this since 2014. And in fact, both President Trump and then-President Obama minimized the threat of Russian interference on our electoral process.

A Political Consolation Prize

Perhaps it was an investigation influenced by political pressure from Hillary Clinton, who was widely expected to win the election, and who wanted to show that the Russians materially aided her opponent to such an extent that she lost the Presidency due to her. This appears to be the line that the mainstream media is taking. The Washington Post
"The Russian government interfered in the 2016 presidential election in sweeping and systematic fashion.” One reaction from Congress must be to weigh the evidence of obstruction. The other must be to ensure that Russia — and any other hostile actor — does not succeed in interfering again.
Politico: "Special counsel Robert Mueller’s long-awaited report hammered home a crucial reminder Thursday: The Kremlin mounted a massive online campaign to wreak havoc on U.S. democracy in 2016."

It is of course painful for anyone to admit that people just don't want to vote for them, Russian interference or not. 

A Partisan Field Day

The real reason for the "Russia collusion" investigation was to undermine the Nation's confidence in President Trump, stop him from actually doing his job (see for example Senator Schumer's attempt to "delay" the confirmation vote on Supreme Court Justice Neil Gorsuch over it) and perhaps even get him impeached. (On March 21, 2017, referring to the Russia investigation, Trump-hater Rep. Maxine Waters stated outright: "Get ready for impeachment.")

It was a witch hunt, just as President Trump says, a statement with which half of Americans agreeAndrew McCarthy writes in the National Review:
"Those peddling the 'Putin hacked the election' story have always lacked credible evidence that Trump was complicit in the Kremlin’s 'cyber-espionage.'....The Russians apparently started hacking operations in 2014, long before Trump entered the race. The FBI first warned the Democratic National Committee about penetration of its servers in September 2015. By the time Trump won, the Bureau and U.S. intelligence agencies had been working hard to understand the nature and extent of Kremlin-directed hacking operations for two years. Yet, as thorough as the investigation was, no one could credibly say Trump was a participant in Russia’s malfeasance. The best Obama’s notoriously politicized CIA could say was that Trump was Putin’s intended beneficiary."
Bolstered by the ongoing investigation, numerous media outlets trashed President Trump as "Putin's pawn." The belief that the President was somehow indebted to Russia for his election victory led to countless smears by journalists and celebrities alike; the Urban Dictionary now had a new term, "Putin's Bitch."

When the report came out exonerating the President, celebrities expressed not relief, but disbelief. For example, Bette Midler stated: "26 Russians [sic] agents deported from US...but....no collusion...Ok. As they say in LA, suck it up and VOTE BLUE in 2020!!"

Comey's Moral Compass

James Comey, then-FBI director, initiated the investigation in July 2016. Comey had a personal beef with President Trump; he's called him "morally unfit to be president." 

But if you review the evidence carefully, it's too simplistic to say that Comey simply tanked President Trump just because he didn't approve of him. 

At first blush, it does seem that way. Comey refused to clear the air and say publicly from the outset that President Trump was not under investigation (a fact which Comey had stated to the President multiple times). This simple statement of reality would have allowed President Trump to do his job without false stories undermining his motives at every turn.

But Comey was deeply concerned that new information might emerge to implicate the President, and didn't want to have to reverse himself. He outlined his reasoning in his June 8, 2017, Statement for the Record, James Comey, Senate Select Committee on Intelligence:
"He [President Trump] repeatedly told me, 'We need to get that fact out" [that there was no investigation underway of the President]. "I did not tell the president that the FBI and the Department of Justice had been reluctant to make public statements that we did not have an open case on President Trump for a number of reasons, most importantly because it would create a duty to correct, should that change."
Why are the words "duty to correct" a "loaded term" for Comey? Because the last time he issued an "update" stating that the Clinton email investigation had been reopened to examine Huma Abedin's laptop—the resulting furor damaged Hillary Clinton politically, possibly even costing her the election.

Indeed, among the many things Hillary Clinton blames for her election loss in 2016, Comey's action is prime among them. She has stated: "The determining factor was the intervention by Comey on October 28...but for that intervention, I would have won."

"It makes me mildly nauseous to think that we might have had some impact on the election, but, honestly, it wouldn’t change the decision. Everybody who disagrees with me has to come back to October 28 with me, and stare at this and tell me what you would do. Would you speak or would you conceal?”
Why did Comey think that he should conceal what he knew about the President's innocence? In the world of securities, at least, the "duty to correct" must be balanced with the "duty to update."

This is something we will never know. What we do know is that Comey's firing had something to do with letting people think President Trump was guilty. The termination letter gets this on the record.

2. The "Swamp" Gone Off The Rails 

In any case, as the Mueller report makes clear, President Trump is visibly frustrated at his situation. Consider how deeply dysfunctional our Nation's capital is when a single bureaucrat's "in the weeds" personal judgment can elect a President or tank a Presidency.

Consider what a "swamp" Washington D.C. is when a Presidency is nearly destroyed by the hypocrisy and destructiveness of partisan lawmakers and journalists who let him fry in the court of public opinion for a crime he didn't commitsolely for political reasonsand then accused him of obstructing justice for protesting. 

Amid all the smoke and mirrors here, it is hard to see how outrageously the President Trump was treated. But it was singularly outrageous, and he has every right to be angry.

3. Legitimately Elected, Politically Framed

The entirety of President Trump's behavior must be understood in the context of his being framed, whether actively or passively. It wasn't just that he knew he was innocent, it was that the head of the FBI, James Comey, told him so, then said he could not comment on the matter, frustrating all sides.

Not only that, but on March 20, 2017, Comey's public statement made it look like there was a possibility that Trump was actually guilty:
“The F.B.I., as part of our counterintelligence mission, is investigating the Russian government’s efforts to interfere in the 2016 Presidential election. And that includes investigating the nature of any links between individuals associated with the Trump campaign and the Russian government, and whether there was any coƶrdination between the campaign and Russia’s efforts.”
Future investigations will have to grapple with this fact: Since the President's innocence was a foregone conclusion, and known to the FBI, anything that the FBI did to pretend he was guilty (or to enable that perception) had the effect of undermining the government and encouraged sedition.

After all, if the President of the United States is an "immoral" "fascist" "bigoted" and a "Nazi," then isn't it morally right to join the "resistance?"

4. No Collusion

Despite the Russians' intent to interfere, there was no collusion on the Trump side, and some of these supposed circumstantial evidence examples are absolutely mind-boggling. Why are they even here?
  • We are told that the infamous Access Hollywood tape was released (damaging to candidate Trump) and less than 60 minutes later there was a Wikileaks dump. But this doesn't tell us who timed it. For example, Dr. Michael Salla reports that researcher Jerome Corsi stated on April 11, 2018: "About three years ago a group of Generals came to me....they talked to Donald Trump, and Trump had agreed he would run, and they agreed that if he would run, they would conduct their coup d’etat as a legitimate process, rooting out the traitors within government. And that pact between the military and Donald Trump has held." 
  • Candidate Trump makes a sarcastic comment about the Russians releasing Hillary's "missing" emails. But the same report states that Trump did not think the Russians were responsible for the Wikileaks hack.
  • The Trump campaign was interested to learn that Wikileaks might dump damaging emails about Hillary. What is actually noteworthy about this, if President Trump (like everyone else), knows that Hillary is crooked and wants her to be prosecuted?
  • The "Internet Research Agency" (a front for a Russian oligarch) shared social media posts that were retweeted by campaign members. They also organized campaign rallies and contacted the Trump team about them. But no U.S. citizen colluded with the Russians at all; the IRA employees concealed their identities.
  • There were meetings on a range of topics between the Trump campaign and various Russian officials and these meetings (including offers of help to the campaign) are not called out as criminal or collusive. 
  • President Trump said he didn't have business with Russia, when he was negotiating a licensing deal for a branded skyscraper (it was never built) through June 2016. My personal take on it is that President Trump did not think he would win, and the project had already been in the works since 2013. 

5. No Obstruction

What Is Obstruction of Justice?

It Doesn't Require A Crime

To the common man or woman (I am not a lawyer), "obstruction of justice" would seem to require a crime. No crime, nothing to obstruct.

It Does Require Intent To Subvert the Legal Process Itself

But this is not the case. Rather, "obstruction of justice" has to do with the actor's intention to subvert the legal process itself:
"18 U.S.C. § 1503 defines 'obstruction of justice' as an act that 'corruptly or by threats or force, or by any threatening letter or communication, influences, obstructs, or impedes, or endeavors to influence, obstruct, or impede, the due administration of justice.'"
Attorney General Bill Barr determined that President Trump's actionswhether or not they were obstructivewere not intended to obstruct justice, and as such the examples provided by Special Counsel Mueller were dismissed. At a press conference held on April 18, 2019, he stated:
"Apart from whether the acts were obstructive, this evidence of non-corrupt motives weighs heavily against any allegation that the President had a corrupt intent to obstruct the investigation."

It Requires Full Knowledge That One's Actions Are Illegal

A group of 12 legal experts consulted by Vox unanimously condemned Barr's judgment. However, it is not clear to me why they were so definitive. Not only are the examples in the report flimsy, they don't establish corrupt intent, which is "doing something with the full knowledge that it is illegal."

The President Is Highly Sophisticated and Legally Savvy

We can say this even as we have heard from the President's former lawyer Michael Cohen (admittedly a liar) that he is so sophisticated that he speaks in "code," and that he has experienced the President directing actions without making any explicit statements.

If the President is this sophisticated, it is implausible that he would be so stupid as to make any statements directing obstruction of justice, particularly when he is innocent.

The President Explicitly Stated That He Was Not Interfering With The Process

President Trump, in the report, is recorded as stating to Attorney General Sessions, in December 2017: "I'm not going to do anything or direct you to do anything. I just want to be treated fairly." 

Mueller's Flimsy Data

A politically biased person will look at any information in such a way as to find guilt. Let's look at what actually happened without that filter.

White House Personnel

National Security Advisor Mike Flynn
  • The issue here is whether President Trump indirectly, through the Transition Team, told Mike Flynn to ask Russia to mute its response to election-interference sanctions, then asked a subordinate to write a memo saying he had not done so. 
  • The bottom line is that the subordinate refused to do it, because she didn't know what Trump had or hadn't done. But her ignorance, as well as her concern about being seen as doing him some kind of favor, does not make the President guilty.
  • The fact of the matter is that we just don't know, and that ignorance is not a substitute for evidence.
  • There is another part of the report that talks about the President's lawyer asking Flynn's lawyer for a "head up" if something came up that could harm the President, and reacting angrily when that request was refused.
Counsel Don McGahn
  • Trump told White House Counsel Donald McGahn to stop Sessions from recusing. Sessions recused anyway. 
  • The President wanted McGahn to deny a personal conversation surrounding his response to the request to remove Mueller. 
  • McGahn took notes in a meeting with the President, and the President asked him why he did that.

Department of Justice

FBI Director James Comey
  • Comey accuses the President of saying that he "required loyalty," a statement that does not sound like Trump talking. 
Attorney General Jeff Sessions
  • President Trump met with Sessions and suggested that if Sessions reversed his recusal and took the investigation back, he’d be a "hero." 
  • President Trump stated: "I'm not going to do anything or direct you to do anything. I just want to be treated fairly." 
  • Sessions noted that he’d never seen anything “improper” during the campaign, but refused to reverse his recusal.
Special Counsel Robert Mueller
  • In May of 2017, President Trump suggested that Mueller had conflicts of interest, and his advisors said those had already been factored in by the Department of Justice and ultimately wouldn’t hold up. Here, the President is expressing a concern that others already had.
  • (If you read and follow #QAnon you could argue that President Trump attempt to get Mueller off the case was really a form of reverse psychology, knowing it would never happen if he asked.)

Intelligence Community - DNI, CIA, NSA

  • In March 2017, knowing that he was not under investigation, President Trump called the Director of National Intelligence and the heads of the CIA and NSA to ask them to say so publicly, since they obviously would know as well. They did not.

Trump Campaign 

Paul Manafort, Campaign Chairman
  • President Trump praised Manafort while he was on trial, even mentioning pardon, and when convicted, called Manafort was “a brave man” who wouldn’t “break.”
  • President Trump also said “flipping” “almost ought to be outlawed.”
Corey Lewandowski, Campaign Manager
  • President Trump implores Corey Lewandowski to send a message to Sessions about how unfair all this is. Lewandowski won't do it and neither will another Trump official, Rick Dearborn. 
Donald Trump, Jr., Advisor
  • There's discussion of the President not wanting to share emails about a meeting with a Russian lawyer (which some have argued reeks of a setup) and of editing Don Jr.'s press (not a statement to law enforcement) about said meeting, then denying it.

Trump Organization

Attorney Michael Cohen

6. Hypocrisy & Double Standards

One of the questions not explored in the report is whether the Russians' activities (including activity ascribed to the Russians, which may have been ordered by non-Russians posing as Russians) actually affected the election results.

This of course is a moot point, because there were many paid actors seeking to influence the election, including the media figures the Hillary campaign pushed narratives to, and the many "media organizations" funded by George Soros, including Media Matters.

In 2006, it was Hillary Clinton herself who sought to rig a foreign election -- the Palestinian elections. At the time, she stated
"'I do not think we should have pushed for an election in the Palestinian territories. I think that was a big mistake. And if we were going to push for an election, then we should have made sure that we did something to determine who was going to win.'”
Interference in foreign elections is something the United States practices with some regularity85 countries and counting. 

We have also noted, above, that Hillary herself blames Comey's last-minute decision to reveal an investigation into the contents of Huma Abedin's computer. That, and 15 other factors, including herself.

7. A No-Integrity Investigation

Anatomy of a Setup

President Trump, the victim of a crime, has called for an investigation. The most important part of this effort will be to find out how the Russia collusion investigation got started in the first place and whether that was legitimate.

Formally, we know that on January 6, 2017, several members of the intelligence community released an "assessment" stating that the Russians interfered in our elections. Immediately following this, three Congressional committees committed to an investigation.

Yet oddly, a month later, then-FBI director James Comey stated that an FBI investigation was already underway. It turns out that effort had been underway for awhile, beginning in July 2016.

What triggered it?

Was it a "moral" inquiry, as far as Comey was concerned?

Why was it kept conveniently hidden so that we only learned about it in March 2017?

Why did it take so long to end - more than 2 years into President Trump's first term?

While a full discussion is outside the scope of this post, more and more information is coming out to suggest that the entire investigation was a setup, with a fake "Russia dossier" (paid for by Hillary Clinton and the Democratic National Committee) used to weaponize the FBI politically.

Not to mention spying on the Trump campaign, ostensibly to catch Russians.

True election interference.

Disinformation Concerning Mueller As A "White Hat"

One idea promoted by #QAnon early on had Mueller as a secret "white hat" who was actually not investigating President Trump, but rather other people who are actually criminals. On October 31, 2017, in one of the earliest messages to the public, Q asked:
"What is Mueller's background? Military?
Was Trump asked to run for President w/ assurances made to prevent tampering?
How is POTUS always 5-steps ahead?
Who is helping POTUS?"
Again, on November 1, Q asked:
"Why did Mueller meet POTUS 1-day prior to FBI announcement if Mueller COULD NOT be offered director due to prev term limits rule?
Why is Pelosi begging for a new special counsel?
What is Pelosi’s net worth?
How was this obtained given salary as career official?
Why is Pelosi’s memory going?
Could it protect against prosecution?
How so?"
On December 19, 2017, Q also intimated that the Special Counsel investigation was soon going to close. Asked by an anonymous researcher whether Jared Kusher is "next on Mueller's list," Q responded: "End is near."

However, in a rare moment of agreement, both the Washington Post and #QAnon debunk this notion several years later. On April 11, 2019, Q called the notion that Mueller is somehow a "good actor" or "ethical hacker" character fake newsa "disinformation push."  

What remains unclear is whether Q himself is responsible for that "disinformation push," perhaps to throw seditious journalists off the scent of the President's true intentions. As Q stated on November 17, 2017 and again on July 24, 2018 (commenting on a Huffington Post article trying to paint Q followers as violent extremists): "Disinformation is necessary."

8. "Other Information Discovered" Needs To Come To Light

A number of individuals are named in the Special Counsel's report as having lied in ways that impaired the investigation: Mike Flynn, Paul Manafort, Michael Cohen, George Papadopolous. And we understand that charges have been brought against the Russians (IRA and GRU) for conspiracy to defraud the US; identity theft; and conspiracy to violate the federal law against computer intrusion.

But what about other players in this game?

On May 17, 2017, Acting Attorney General Rod Rosenstein appointed the Special Counsel to continue the Russian election interference investigation and "any related matters" under 28 C.F.R. § 600.4(a). These "related matters" could include attempts to interfere with or block the Special Counsel's investigation -- and they could also include “new matters that come to light in the course of his or her investigation.”

This may seem like a trivial detail, except that the Special Counsel report we just received has 855 redactions. Not all of them have to do with matters currently under investigation, but based on the markings, some of them clearly do.

Here are two potentially important questions, just to serve as examples:

9. A Colossal, Bloated Waste of Taxpayer Dollars

Time estimates that the Mueller probe will ultimately cost somewhere between $32-$35 million.

What have we received in return for this enormous expense? 

It seems to me that we are merely providing Democrats and others who oppose the President a vehicle for partisan attacks on him, at the expense of the taxpayer.

(On a related note, the government spends a billion dollars per year on advertising; the unfriendly format in which this basic government document was released is nothing less than shocking). 

10. Where Are The Charges For Seditious Conspiracy?

Knowingly working with others to make it look like the President is a Russian pawn clearly falls under the crime of seditious conspiracy:
"If two or more persons in any State or Territory, or in any place subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, conspire to overthrow, put down, or to destroy by force the Government of the United States, or to levy war against them, or to oppose by force the authority thereof, or by force to prevent, hinder, or delay the execution of any law of the United States, or by force to seize, take, or possess any property of the United States contrary to the authority thereof, they shall each be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than twenty years, or both."
What accountability will there be for elected officials, members of the intelligence community, law enforcement officials, representatives of the media, and otherswho knowingly promoted the "Russian collusion" lie, followed by a fake, superimposed "obstruction of justice" narrative?

When will we see true justice?
Posted April 22, 2019 by Dr. Dannielle Blumenthal. All opinions are the author's own. Public domain. Image by Alexas_Fotos from Pixabay.

Search This Blog