October 28th, 2017

Oh, and that Republican candidate or donor who funded the Trump dossier?

Fake news.

Yes, there was a Republican publication—the Washington Free Beacon—involved in funding some research by Fusion right at the beginning, before Robert Steele or the Russians or the Trump dossier had anything to do with it. But Steele and all the rest was strictly a funded-by-Democrats operation:

Since its launch in February of 2012, the Washington Free Beacon has retained third party firms to conduct research on many individuals and institutions of interest to us and our readers. In that capacity, during the 2016 election cycle we retained Fusion GPS to provide research on multiple candidates in the Republican presidential primary, just as we retained other firms to assist in our research into Hillary Clinton. All of the work that Fusion GPS provided to the Free Beacon was based on public sources, and none of the work product that the Free Beacon received appears in the Steele dossier. The Free Beacon had no knowledge of or connection to the Steele dossier, did not pay for the dossier, and never had contact with, knowledge of, or provided payment for any work performed by Christopher Steele. Nor did we have any knowledge of the relationship between Fusion GPS and the Democratic National Committee, Perkins Coie, and the Clinton campaign.

The MSM had us all guessing which GOP candidate it was, and Jeb Bush was the hands-down leader.

You can’t make this stuff up. Actually, you can. You can make up all sorts of things—and you can try to twist the news of it even now, if you’re the NY Times:

“Conservative Website First Funded Anti-Trump Research by Firm That Later Produced Dossier” is the headline [in the Times\ that should give one pause immediately. The Times identifies the “website” as the Washington Free Beacon, a first rate on-line investigative journal that’s uncovered a lot of information that the Democrats would rather have die in darkness.

WFB is “funded by a major Republican donor” say Haberman and Vogel. No, really? Were we expecting it to be funded by a Democrat donor, perhaps? In this way, the Times tries to implicate “hedge fund billionaire Paul Singer” in the matter of the nasty dossier, though Mr. Singer says he first found out about it when BuzzFeed, a left-leaning website, published it. Hedge fund billionaires are bad when they fund Republicans. The good ones fund the Clintons and the left-wing media.

The Times states that WFB hired Fusion GPS in October 2015 to do opposition research on “several Republican presidential candidates, including Mr. Trump” but terminated the assignment in May 2016, when Trump secured the Republican nomination. The opposition research eventually included “a salacious dossier describing ties between Mr. Trump and the Russian government,” but who commissioned the dossier?

The Times wants you to believe that it’s WFB and/or its nefarious major donor, Mr. Singer. Only an inconvenient truth creeps into this story. In April 2016 the Clinton campaign and the DNC retained Fusion GPS “to research any possible connections between Mr. Trump, his campaign team and Russia.” But that was a month before Fusion GPS was terminated by WFB. Confused yet?

There’s more, but you get the idea. The Times piece is purposely convoluted and the headline purposely misleading—but hey, what else is new?

Meanwhile, if you want some lucid coverage, go to Andrew C. McCarthy.

14 Responses to “Oh, and that Republican candidate or donor who funded the Trump dossier?”

  1. j e Says:

    How many followers of the news are aware that the narrative of the DNC’s emails having been hacked rather than leaked is predicated upon the assessment of CrowdStrike, hired by the DNC, which never permitted the FBI to perform an investigation of the actual servers?

  2. Cap'n Rusty Says:

    As a comment on another site said, by the NYTimes logic, if I go into a McDonald’s at noon and eat a BigMac and leave, and then at 2:30 in the afternoon, a bad guy shoots the cashier, I’m an accomplice to murder.

  3. Ymar Sakar Says:

    So if it hits upon sacred cows like the reputation of the dear leader Trum, it is fake news.

    But if it reinforces personal bias and nationalism, it is credible…

    Come on humans, try harder.

    The MSM had us all guessing which GOP candidate it was, and Jeb Bush was the hands-down leader.

    Not me, people with propaganda defenses are a tiny little bit harder to crack and manipulate than the regular human masses in the USA. Last long time, ala Mini Rocket Man.

  4. Ed Bonderenka Says:

    How could the genpop ever get agitated at the scandals of the Clinton/Dem crowd?
    It’s so convoluted (or portrayed so) that they give up and turn on Dancing With the Stars.

  5. Dave Says:

    The question i have over the whole thing is why it is only bad when trump does it. Dnc, hillary and Obama can do business with putin, compliment putin, defend putin, kiss putin’s ass, take money from putin, sell things to putin, receive intel from putin, make deals with putin, do everything with putin with no problem but it is only bad and potentially illegal when trump does it.

  6. Dave Says:

    Obama and the dnc was colluding with wikileaks and putin to win the 2008 elections, the uranium deal was a payback for putin‘s help against the gop. 8 years later putin decided not to help obama and hillary after being back stabbed by them over various conflicts mainly Ukraine, Syria and many other issues. To cover up their collusion with Russia the obama administration decided to initiate accusations against trump of collusion with Russia with two goals in mind, delegitimise the trump administration and delegitimise any potential accusations of Russian collusion against the obama administration. Whenever there are evidences surfacing showing that obama was colluding they can simply deny them by claiming that its just the conservatives smearing them to distract the public attention from their own investigations. Noticed that Hillary didn’t say she did not do it in the interview, she said the right has no evidence to prove that she did anything illegal.

  7. n.n Says:

    So, the effort to disenfranchise American citizens, was carried out in a menage a trois, including Clinton, Obama, and a Russian bear?

    No Judgment. It’s all congruent (“=”).

  8. Matt_SE Says:

    With the revelation that the FBI was scrutinizing the Uranium One deal and then squelched its own findings in testimony to Congress, thereby allowing the deal to go through, Robert Mueller is now implicated in this web of lies.

    He was running the FBI at the time, and he must’ve approved of the cover up. And now he’s investigating Trump for the same crimes he committed.

    Mueller is hopelessly compromised now, even though I declared he was compromised by his connection to Comey at the outset.

    Of course, it’s very convenient that his office suddenly starts issuing indictments at this very moment. The pressure for his resignation or firing was mounting again.

    No matter.

    If he’s found guilty later (if Trump has the good sense to investigate him), any prosecutions he makes can be overturned.

    And that’s what has to happen now. He has raised the stakes so far that only his own disgrace and destruction will clear the board.

  9. AesopFan Says:

    There’s a very interesting wrinkle in the WaPo scoop – if Byzantium had only had the internet, things would probably look a lot like this…


    The particulars can be summarized briefly. On Tuesday, as we know, the Washington Post published its report on anonymously-sourced allegations that Hillary’s campaign and the DNC paid Fusion GPS to commission the dodgy dossier on Trump in 2016. The go-between was the law firm Perkins Coie, through which Hillary campaign counsel Marc Elias acted to make this oppo research project happen.

    Now we learn that the Soros-funded (!) activist group Campaign Legal Center (CLC) filed a complaint with the FEC on Wednesday, alleging that Hillary and the DNC both violated campaign finance law in connection with their funding of the Fusion GPS “research.” (H/t: Ace of Spades)

    Besides being awful darn quick, the CLC complaint is clearly well researched and polished. It doesn’t look like something that was slapped together on the fly. The time lapse appears to have been something less than 21 hours, in fact: the WaPo story’s filing time, reflected on the website, was 7:21 PM on 24 October, and the time stamp on the CLC complaint, as received at the FEC, is 3:32 PM on 25 October (both times Eastern Daylight).

    No matter what the circumstances, if I saw that, I would consider it highly probable that the CLC brief for the FEC complaint had been prepared in advance.

  10. AesopFan Says:

    There is an interesting question at the end of this article, which has always puzzled me, not only about the Clintons but about anyone supported by hordes of Tenth Assistant Spear Carriers.


    But the lies were always a symptom of a deeper pathology. The Clintons saw themselves as better than the institutions they were supposed to serve, from the White House and the State Department to the Democratic party and even the country. The rules are for other people. That’s why Clinton Inc. collected millions upon millions of dollars from foreign governments, Wall Street, and Hollywood while demonizing their opponents as shills for corporations and wealthy interests. That’s why Hillary flouted the rules for her email server. That’s why Bill flouted the rules for pretty much everything. And at every step, they expected others to protect them, lie for them, clean up after them, and, if necessary, go to jail for them.
    As James McDougal, a former friend and business partner of the Clintons (in the now-ancient Whitewater land deal-turned-scandal) put it, “I think the Clintons are really sort of like tornadoes moving through people’s lives. I’m just one of the people left in the wake of their passing by.”

  11. AesopFan Says:

    One of the amusing facets of this debacle is the Dueling Experts phenomenon, exemplified here by two “professional intel ops” with totally opposite conclusions.


    What We Know Now
    By John Sipher
    Wednesday, September 6, 2017 at 8:01 AM

    [Editor’s Note: In this special Just Security article, highly respected former member of the CIA’s Senior Intelligence Service, John Sipher examines the Steele dossier using methods that an intelligence officer would to try to validate such information. Sipher concludes that the dossier’s information on campaign collusion is generally credible when measured against standard Russian intelligence practices, events subsequent to Steele’s reporting, and information that has become available in the nine months since Steele’s final report. The dossier, in Sipher’s view, is not without fault, including factual inaccuracies. Those errors, however, do not detract from an overarching framework that has proven to be ever more reliable as new revelations about potential Trump campaign collusion with the Kremlin and its affiliates has come to light in the nine months since Steele submitted his final report.]



    Former CIA Officer: ‘Russiagate’ Was Manufactured By The Clinton Campaign

    Executive Director, Council for the National Interest
    4:39 PM 10/25/2017

    As a former intelligence officer who has seen numerous overseas investigations done for clients, I can say with some confidence that the Steele Dossier is a composite of some fact, a lot of speculation, and even occasional fiction. Some indisputable and confirmable information is inevitably used to provide credibility for a lot of speculation and false stories that were intended to sow doubt and confusion. Gossip and rumors are reported as fact, with the whole product being put together in such a fashion as to appear credible to satisfy a client interested in exploitable information rather than the truth. Including some proper names, which the dossier does occasionally, provides credibility and the FBI’s ability to confirm some of the dates and places regarding travel and meetings provided bona fides for the entire document and resulted in the launching of a top-level law enforcement investigation.

    The dossier was designed to dig up “dirt” on Trump and his associates, but, more to the point, it was clearly intended from the start to do so by manufacturing and nurturing a Russian angle.

    GIVEN THE NEW REVELATIONS this week, well past the date of the post by “Just Security”, I’m going with Door Number Two.

  12. J.J. Says:

    Drat! I was pretty sure the GOP money to Fusion GPS came from Jeb’s campaign. Should have known better. Jeb’s too “nice” to do oppo research on his opponents – except for Rubio. Jeb tried to get some dirt on him. Guess Jeb thought Trump was not a real contender.

  13. Ymar Sakar Says:

    Does Trum have the balls to fire Mueller or put HRC in Jail now that he is President?

    He had the balls to call Pyramid Christians crazy. And various JFK assassins still out there like Cruz’s father, or what the Alt Right and Trum called him “Lyin Cruz”. That’s his title, right. A little bit different from Low Energy Jeb and Mini Rocket Man. It’s not even a neg.

  14. Ymar Sakar Says:

    AesopFan Says:
    October 28th, 2017 at 11:06 pm

    Intel analysis? I can do that.

    Or if people really like CIA credentials, find a Mormon LDS CIA operative or a Snowden level agent.

    In investigations, the CIA and military intel recruits hordes of Mormons, as much as they can get. Easy background verification, higher IQ due to Holy Ghost summons, and maybe paranormal powers from prayers.

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.

Monthly Archives


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