October 25th, 2017

Revelations about the Obama administration

A lot of news is coming out now about certain goings-on during Obama’s presidency: for example, the FBI offered to pay for further work on the so-called “Trump dossier.” That’s in addition to the revelations that came yesterday revealing that the DNC and the Clinton campaign were among those who funded it, despite previous denials.

The WaPo has been driving both of these stories. I wonder why. The paper is not ordinarily big on printing things that reflect poorly on either the Obama administration, Clinton, or the DNC, but it seems that these stories do just that. The WaPo writes:

The dossier alleges extensive ties between the president and Russia, but its contents are unverified. It has become the subject of three separate investigations into Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election. Trump has called the document false.

It’s certainly not just Trump who’s called the document false. Even Vox (just to take one example), not known for being particularly Trump-friendly, writes:

Former British spy Christopher Steele did this work for Fusion, and authored what became known as the Steele dossier, which contained salacious (and uncorroborated) political financial, and sexual allegations about Trump and his top associates.

Vox is careful to add this:

Before that point, Fusion GPS had reportedly already done research into Trump, on behalf of a Republican client. But we don’t yet know who that Republican client is.

The WaPo mentioned this Republican too. One wonders whether such a person exists, although it’s certainly possible. However, not only has that person not been named or characterized in any way except as a Republican, but the source for the information has never been named.

Today we also learned this:

While Eric Holder was U.S. attorney general, the Justice Department allowed prosecutors to strike agreements compelling big companies to give money to outside groups not connected to their cases to meet settlement burdens. Republican lawmakers long have decried those payments as a “slush fund” that boosted liberal groups, and the Trump DOJ ended the practice earlier this year.

But internal Justice Department emails released Tuesday by Goodlatte indicated that not only were officials involved in determining what organizations would get the money, but also Justice Department officials may have intervened to make sure the settlements didn’t go to conservative groups.

It strikes me that the more an administration or campaign—any administration or campaign—feels itself immune from investigative reporting of a negative nature by the press, the more and more corrupt it will feel free to be. Of course, it only tends to be the left and/or the Democrats who feel immune to such criticism.

The Obama administration was emboldened to put such a scheme in place. It probably wasn’t just because the press was in Obama’s corner, either. They may have felt—in fact, I think they did feel—that they had established a Democratic dynasty that would be in place for a very long time and would continue to cover it all up. They felt this dynasty was due to a combination of press support, changing demographics, and their own political acumen. This turned out to have been erroneous, but it was believed.

I also think that even now this sort of news falls on a lot of deaf ears, except for the right, in large part because of people’s desire to tune out what they don’t like. How one looks at such news depends at least in part on one’s political bent. If you want to know how the left is reacting to it, go to any leftist blog or webpage and you’ll see the way the denial of any Democratic culpability works. So I think another factor is that they felt that even if the facts came out, the public for the most part wouldn’t care.

Even back in February of 2017 it was fairly well-known that the Trump dossier was a case of Fake News. But it served its purpose, didn’t it? It fueled the post-election Democratic message of Trump and the Russians being in collusion. That not only led to many Democrats believing such a thing, but it also led to the opening of the Mueller investigation of Trump, a fishing expedition which could lead to some way to impeach him (at least, that’s the hope). As Sean Davis wrote:

I’m not sure about the word “entirely” there, but certainly “in large part.”

[ADDENDUM: More examples of the Democratic/liberal/left reaction to the story.]

[ADDENDUM II: And here’s a credible explanation as to why the WaPo told the story: “the real purpose of it seems to be not unveiling a bomb, but defusing one.”]

19 Responses to “Revelations about the Obama administration”

  1. Oldflyer Says:

    My local Rag almost daily features a front page story that is antagonistic to Trump. Today, it was that two GOP Senators were publicly blasting him (Flake and Corker). That is what passes for news.

    Not a word about the blockbuster stories that you cite Neo. Since I live in SoCal I guess they assumed no one would be interested–even though the Inland Empire (love the ostentatiousness) has traditionally been a GOP strong hold. Of course the demographic is changing rapidly.

    I suspect that nothing much will come of any of this; and a significant percentage of the country will not even know; and won’t care if they do.

  2. Cornhead Says:

    This will be ignored but it is bigger than Watergate. The short version is that if Hillary would have won, she was an agent of the Russian government and probably others too. It is all in the deleted emails. And the FBI intenentionally mishandled its investigation of her.

    People just ignore the fact that Bill, Hillary and their Foundation were paid millions by foreigners for favors. Bribery. The Clintons are today’s Benedict Arnold.

  3. Griffin Says:

    The coverage of this is text book bias. All of these guys with their ‘old news, we already new this, just politics as usual, nothing to see here move along’ BS would be freaking out in the extreme if this was in anyway damaging to Trump.

    And how it’s headlined on so many sites as the ‘Trump Dossier’ only serves it’s purpose in the larger world.

  4. Dave Says:

    giving a trivial little story that fits their agenda more coverage than it deserves to distract the public’s attention after from the real bombshell story that would hurt the political power they support is another tactic used very often by the fake news media.

    A fake news organization can still be fake news even 100% of the events they report on has taken place. They can still accomplish their propaganda purposes for the political power behind them by making false claims about the implication of each event upon society, making false claims about the motivations in the disguise of opinions and choosing what facts to report and what facts to ignore. CNN went through distance to make people believe that everything they report is true. it is the stories they create behind each event that is questionable.

  5. J.J. Says:

    The Uranium One deal was exposed by Peter Schweizer in his book, “Clinton Cash.” The Fusion GPS connection to the Trump dossier was exposed about the time that Trump fired Comey. This is old news. What’s new is that there is a mole who worked for the FBI who has all the names, dates, e-mails, and more that connects the dots.. The curve ball is that the Obama/Lynch DOJ forced him into a non-disclosure agreement after they had prosecuted some small fish. They did not want his knowledge to become public.

    To read one take on it go here:
    https://theduran.com/breaking-bombshell-russia-uranium-one-reports-has-fbi-connecting-hillary-clinton-to-multiple-levels-of-corruption/

    I don’t believe Attorney General Jeff Sessions is courageous enough to pursue this case to its logical end. This is as big as Teapot Dome or bigger. The Clintons and Obamas wield great power with the MSM and within the federal bureaucracy, and may be able to get all this covered up. We’ll see.

  6. Yancey Ward Says:

    The Washington Post printed the story not because they are diligent in investigating Democrat corruption, but because they were fed the story by the DNC, Clinton, and GPSFusion. It is very clear that the key detail in this story is that the law firm was released from attorney client privilege by the first two actors I listed above. The DNC/Clinton Campaign knew that GPSFusion’s bank records, which are under Congressional subpoena and are probably already in the hands of the DoJ, would lead back to the law firm after which the story would come out anyway. By jumping ahead and giving WaPo the story, the DNC could also get them to publish Tom Perez’s self-serving statement about being a “new” DNC with clean hands.

    Once again, the press like WaPo dishonor themselves even when they report real news- they only did so once they were given the OK to do so by the DNC and Clinton.

  7. Yancey Ward Says:

    It is important to note that the dossier was bought and paid for by the Democrats- the time line makes that abundantly clear. There may or may not have been a Republican donor paying for some of the earlier work, but if there was, I lay odds that it leads back to low energy Jeb!.

  8. Geoffrey Britain Says:

    Cornhead declares that the Clintons are today’s Benedict Arnolds. That’s no less true of Obama and his administration who were knowingly and fully complicit in that corrupt treason.

    But the entire democrat leadership and 95% of the MSM have long been engaged in treason. And half of America support them. Many ignorantly but millions… knowingly.

    At what point does treason demand consequence? Letting the criminally inclined repeatedly escape consequence is a societal cancer that is metasticizing into a fatal malady.

  9. J.J. Says:

    Breaking news: The FBI mole has had his non-disclosure agreement lifted. He can now talk to Congress. This may be explosive. Stay tuned.

  10. AesopFan Says:

    Yancey Ward Says:
    October 25th, 2017 at 6:24 pm
    It is important to note that the dossier was bought and paid for by the Democrats- the time line makes that abundantly clear. There may or may not have been a Republican donor paying for some of the earlier work, but if there was, I lay odds that it leads back to low energy Jeb!.
    * * *
    That the name of the original client for the dossier has never been leaked has a lot of interesting implications. At a time when seemingly every conversation in Washington has a direct pipeline to the media, how has this remained hidden?
    It’s not quite in the same league as Obama’s school transcripts (what did he do to generate that insane level of loyalty?), but it is intriguing.

  11. parker Says:

    This may be the smoking gun that uncover the crimes of the Clintons, Obama, the DNC, and the MSM. Or it will be swept under the rug. We’ll see.Not confident the good guys win.

  12. AesopFan Says:

    J.J. Says:
    October 25th, 2017 at 9:27 pm
    Breaking news: The FBI mole has had his non-disclosure agreement lifted. He can now talk to Congress. This may be explosive. Stay tuned.

    * * *
    Here’s one report.
    http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/fbi-informant-released-from-confidentiality-agreement-now-can-testify-about-russian-nuclear-bribes/article/2638658

    And another interesting cockroach has crawled out of the wall. Or another Gnurr from the Voodvork out.

    https://lawnewz.com/high-profile/breaking-fec-complaint-says-clinton-campaign-dnc-violated-law-over-trump-dossier/

    “According to reports, the Hillary for America campaign paid for the research but routed the payments through Elias’ law firm Perkins Coie and described the purpose of the money as “legal services” on their FEC disclosures. The DNC and the Clinton campaign reported dozens of payments totaling more that $12 million dollars to Perkins Coie over the course of the campaign….
    It is legal under current campaign finance law for the Hillary Clinton campaign to commission an opposition research company to dig up dirt on Donald Trump. What is not legal, according to campaign legal experts, is for the campaign to pay a law firm who then hires other to perform campaign related activities without reporting the purpose of the expenditures.

    If the FEC finds that there was a violation, the DNC and the Clinton campaign could face fines. The fines could be higher if the FEC finds that they intentionally mislead the public.”

    (h/t Ace of Spades HQ)
    http://ace.mu.nu/archives/372209.php

  13. Yancey Ward Says:

    AesopFan,

    I have two theories about why the name has never been leaked. (1) The donor doesn’t really exist and is a story fabricated by the Democrats who were trying a smoke screen to fool people into thinking they had nothing to do with a dossier that fell into their laps in the Summer of 2016; or (2) and I borrow this from a commenter from Ann Althouse’s site who can’t quite remember right now who suggested the Republican donor is real, but for whom almost all donation are to Democrats- he can’t be leaked to the media because then it will be realized the Republican part isn’ t really true.

    However, I still think it is true and I think it was the Bushes with maybe a cutout in between for deniability.

  14. Barry Meislin Says:

    Indeed, all true.

    Especially what GB said, above.

    On the other hand, one must keep in mind that there were NO scandals during the Obama administration.

    After all, the man said it himself….

    File under: When is a scandal not a scandal? (Should be: When are a whole slough of scandals not scandals?)

  15. Cornhead Says:

    On the treason front, Hillary used false accusations from a foreign country in order to win an election. Maybe technically not treason, but bad.

    But the bribery case is much clearer. As the book “Clinton Cash” sets out, Uranium One shareholders paid millions after the sale to the Russian company was approved by the US government. And the payments were made in a semi-secret fashion.

    Greg Jarrett of Fox says Hillary could be charged with 13 crimes.

  16. Cornhead Says:

    To really nail Hillary, the media will need a blue dress. Unless there is a real criminal investigation, I’m not optimistic.

  17. J.J. Says:

    Yancey Ward: “However, I still think it is true and I think it was the Bushes with maybe a cutout in between for deniability.”

    My thinking exactly. As long as the Bushes remain #Anti-Trump, they will not be ratted out.

  18. AesopFan Says:

    Yancey Ward Says:
    October 26th, 2017 at 1:38 am
    * *
    Both valid suppositions, and I like the second one the best. I saw somewhere else today the comment that many people donate to Dems and GOP to cover the bases, although usually more heavily to one than the other, so the alleged donor could be only nominally Republican.
    Whether it was the Bush family or not, I venture no opinion.
    However, even if it was started by one of the primary candidates or their friends, or just an early #NeverTrumper, there is really nothing wrong with financing oppo research; the Russian dossier we have all come to know and loathe apparently grew out of a less malevolent seed.

    http://thefederalist.com/2017/10/25/top-10-things-to-know-about-dossier/

    “There is no evidence that a Republican donor or Republican campaign was ever involved with the Russian dossier. Fusion GPS claimed to reporters (though they did not provide evidence) that a Republican funded separate opposition research on Trump, dealing with his business interests. But as the Washington Post itself reports, the dossier did not exist until after the Democrats hired Fusion GPS:”

  19. Ymar Sakar Says:

    This “4th” estate Americans created as a “free press” is something all right. You all might as well just had DC fund it and call it Propaganda One… it would be closer to accurate.

Leave a Reply

XHTML: You can use these tags: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>



About Me

Previously a lifelong Democrat, born in New York and living in New England, surrounded by liberals on all sides, I've found myself slowly but surely leaving the fold and becoming that dread thing: a neocon.
Read More >>






Monthly Archives



Blogroll

Ace (bold)
AmericanDigest (writer’s digest)
AmericanThinker (thought full)
Anchoress (first things first)
AnnAlthouse (more than law)
AtlasShrugs (fearless)
AugeanStables (historian’s task)
Baldilocks (outspoken)
Barcepundit (theBrainInSpain)
Beldar (Texas lawman)
BelmontClub (deep thoughts)
Betsy’sPage (teach)
Bookworm (writingReader)
Breitbart (big)
ChicagoBoyz (boyz will be)
Contentions (CommentaryBlog)
DanielInVenezuela (against tyranny)
DeanEsmay (conservative liberal)
Donklephant (political chimera)
Dr.Helen (rights of man)
Dr.Sanity (thinking shrink)
DreamsToLightening (Asher)
EdDriscoll (market liberal)
Fausta’sBlog (opinionated)
GayPatriot (self-explanatory)
HadEnoughTherapy? (yep)
HotAir (a roomful)
InFromTheCold (once a spook)
InstaPundit (the hub)
JawaReport (the doctor is Rusty)
LegalInsurrection (law prof)
RedState (conservative)
Maggie’sFarm (centrist commune)
MelaniePhillips (formidable)
MerylYourish (centrist)
MichaelTotten (globetrotter)
MichaelYon (War Zones)
Michelle Malkin (clarion pen)
Michelle Obama's Mirror (reflections)
MudvilleGazette (milblog central)
NoPasaran! (behind French facade)
NormanGeras (principled leftist)
OneCosmos (Gagdad Bob’s blog)
PJMedia (comprehensive)
PointOfNoReturn (Jewish refugees)
Powerline (foursight)
ProteinWisdom (wiseguy)
QandO (neolibertarian)
RachelLucas (in Italy)
RogerL.Simon (PJ guy)
SecondDraft (be the judge)
SeekerBlog (inquiring minds)
SisterToldjah (she said)
Sisu (commentary plus cats)
Spengler (Goldman)
TheDoctorIsIn (indeed)
Tigerhawk (eclectic talk)
VictorDavisHanson (prof)
Vodkapundit (drinker-thinker)
Volokh (lawblog)
Zombie (alive)

Regent Badge