An objective person would question why the below reporting was not substantial in main corporate print or televised media. It’s not like the Trump dossier hadn’t commanded lots of media real estate over the past couple of years.
The below Washington Examiner reporting quotes directly from British ex-spy, and author of the Trump dossier, Christopher Steele’s response to a legal interrogatory:
Christopher Steele: Hillary Clinton was preparing to challenge 2016 election results
British ex-spy Christopher Steele, who wrote the Democrat-financed anti-Trump dossier, said in a court case that he was…
>>>In an answer to interrogatories, Mr. Steele wrote: “Fusion’s immediate client was law firm Perkins Coie. It engaged Fusion to obtain information necessary for Perkins Coie LLP to provide legal advice on the potential impact of Russian involvement on the legal validity of the outcome of the 2016 US Presidential election.
“Based on that advice, parties such as the Democratic National Committee and HFACC Inc. (also known as ‘Hillary for America’) could consider steps they would be legally entitled to take to challenge the validity of the outcome of that election.”<<<
Additionally, main media has left an impression on the public that Steele was first hired by a Republican candidate to gather opposition research on Trump and that the Democrats simply took over that investigation. Not true at all! Steele was hired completely separately by the DNC-Clinton law firm Perkins-Coie, LLP to contract Fusion GPS to compile the dossier.
So Why Need For The Dossier?
A Clinton campaign tell-all book entitled, Shattered: Inside Hillary Clinton’s Doomed Campaign, written by Jonathan Allen and Amie Parnes described how the RussiaGate plan was hatched. The architects who concocted RussiaGate were Clinton senior political operatives John Podesta and Robby Mook, each of whom exhibited true Karl Rovian form. From the book:
That strategy had been set within twenty-four hours of her concession speech. Mook and Podesta assembled her communications team at the Brooklyn headquarters to engineer the case that the election wasn’t entirely on the up-and-up. For a couple of hours, with Shake Shack containers littering the room, they went over the script they would pitch to the press and the public. Already, Russian hacking was the centerpiece of the argument.
The RussiaGate narrative was already very well ingrained in the public consciousness due to the previous release of the DNC and Podesta emails by Wikileaks. Main media focus became more on the possibility Russians did a hack and provided the information to Wikileaks rather than on the devastating content of the documents.
Meanwhile, Steele and the head of Fusion GPS, Glenn Simpson (a former FBI man) were in close contact with the Justice Department, specifically Bruce Ohr whose wife was also employed by Fusion.
Then There Was Crowdstrike
The following was from a Facebook Note I wrote on Sunday, July 9, 2017:
Lots of folks forget the entire case for the allegation that the Russians hacked the DNC emails rests ONLY on Crowdstrike reports. The tech firm, hired by the Democrats, produced two reports: a) the first report expressed a moderate degree of confidence the Russians hacked the DNC; b) the second report produced a high degree of confidence.
America’s main media then produced a full-frontal media assault accusing the Russians.
But the primary problem is Crowdstrike’s second report was refuted by the International Institute for Strategic Studies (IISS) which claimed Crowdstrike abused its data and also by the Ukrainian government which stated what Crowdstrike reported was false.
This forced Crowdstrike to weakly retract much of what it reported in its second report. Essentially, the IISS and Ukrainian government’s corrections thoroughly invalidated the second report. (see Voice of America reporting)
But none of America’s mainstream media reported the problems with the second report and it was allowed to stand in full within the public’s consciousness.
Now, I don’t know about you … but this pisses me off!
No entity other than Crowdstrike has examined the DNC server. Neither the FBI or Homeland Security were allowed to forensically examine this server.
1) Why hasn’t Crowdstrike produced evidence of large packets of data being transmitted from the DNC server? Such would have to exist if the DNC servers were hacked!
2) Why does Crowdstrike refuse to testify before congressional investigations? One would think the tech firm would support its findings!
Meanwhile, Wikileaks continues to insist that the DNC material it presented to the public was a consequence of leaks; not a hacking.
Below is an additional Facebook Note relative to Crowdstrike and the Director of National Intelligence Report which based its conclusion — from “moderate degree of confidence” to a “high degree of confidence” — on the second Crowdstrike report which was refuted by both the International Institute for Strategic Studies and the Ukrainian government whose date Crowdstrike relied upon. Crowdstrike subsequently retracted much of its second report, but this retraction never entered the consciousness of mainstream media.
So Much To Learn If You’re Willing To Learn:
Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity were 100% accurate on disputing the intelligence that led the US to War on Iraq:
US Intel Vets Dispute Russia Hacking Claims
As the hysteria about Russia's alleged interference in the U.S. election grows, a key mystery is why U.S. intelligence…
Disobedient Media has been very astute at following the work of Adam Carter and The Forensicator who have challenged many of the myths surrounding Guccifer 2.0: