I do not intend for this post to be a partisan rant; please bear this in mind as you read what follows. I want to address American politicians generally, to explain how we have ended up with such a large number of people elected to serve our country and its people, but who always end up prioritizing their own self-interests. To illustrate this, however, I must highlight recent revelations about the Clinton campaign’s efforts to destroy the character of their opponent, Donald J. Trump.
Last week, I wrote, “No candidate for the presidency in either of these years was “good for America,” but it is what the American people were left with after years of reelecting to high office the likes of Al Gore, John Kerry, George W. Bush, John McCain, Hillary Clinton, and along with them, all of their affiliates and surrogates. The net effect of this is that at some future time, all of these glaring mistakes will lead us to a national crisis, and when that happens, the indisputable loser will be the American people.”
Hillary Clinton’s transition from First Lady of the United States has been nothing short of mind-boggling. She became a New York senator, Secretary of State, and a two-time candidate for the presidency. There is nothing in our previous history that even comes close to this; Hillary Clinton has become the poster-child for such organizations as the National Organization of Women (NOW). Yet, in spite of all her successes, there is nothing that Hillary Clinton covets more than this title: Madam President.
Today our country is more polarized than ever before. Has that time of national crisis already arrived?
Recent news informs us of evidence that during her campaign for the presidency, Hillary Clinton and DNC Chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-FL) paid for an investigation targeting Donald J. Trump, then her opponent for America’s highest office. As a result, a dossier was prepared and delivered to Clinton campaign surrogates. I haven’t seen the dossier, of course, but journalists tell us that it makes salacious allegations involving Mr. Trump’s involvement with prostitutes, and his collusion with the Russian government to affect the outcome of the presidential elections.
In over a year of looking into these matters, there is no evidence to suggest that either allegation is true, but the real significance of the dossier is that the Clinton Campaign was doing exactly what it accused Trump of doing: to wit, colluding with a foreign government to affect the outcome of the 2016 general election.
It is hard to know where this story begins, but even more difficult to imagine where it will end. So far, the Clinton campaign has pursued an expected strategy in “crisis management.” Silence, denial, and obfuscation. It has worked in the past, although I’m not quite sure it will work in the future. But if we hope to understand even part of it, common sense must prevail. Today, we don’t know the answers to dozens of questions, but I have to ask this: does it make sense that Hillary Clinton, arguably one of the most astute characters in national politics, never knew that her campaign spent nearly $10 million for an investigation intending to smear the character of her political opponent?
Years of Bill and Hillary Clinton instruct us that they are both skilled in layering —which is to say, distancing themselves from allegations of corruption, but I believe that no reasonable person can at this point suggest that Hillary Clinton knew nothing of these shenanigans.
We must not overlook the effect of the dossier —not so much on Trump, as he did win the election, but that the document provided outright lies and distortions that were ultimately used by the FBI to secure FISA warrants to investigate the Trump campaign. It was also used by members of congress to attack the Trump presidency, and led to the appointment Robert Mueller as special prosecutor.
These revelations, by the way, do not surprise me; they only reinforce my belief that the US federal government has become politicized; to me, this means that no American can have confidence in our most preeminent institutions, which includes the Congress of the United States, and such important agencies as the FBI. We must ponder the likely consequences to our country when or if its people no longer trust their government.
We know that the individual who hired the firm to investigate Trump was Clinton attorney Marc E. Elias. Here’s what else we know:
- The firm preparing the dossier was Fusion GPS.
- Fusion GPS hired a former British spy to conduct the investigation.
- British agent Christopher Steel, paid Russian sources for information.
- Information provided by Russian agents was scandalous and fictional.
- The 35-page dossier was provided to Democratic members of Congress and the FBI.
- The FBI used the dossier as a road-map to conduct its investigation, including a FISA warrant to tap the Trump campaign’s phones.
So then, who or what is Fusion GPS? Its website tells us only this:
Fusion GPS is based in Washington, DC and provides premium research, strategic intelligence, and due diligence services to corporations, law firms, and investors worldwide.
We offer a cross-disciplinary approach with expertise in media, politics, regulation, national security, and global markets.
Leading the company are two former journalists of the Wall Street Journal, Glenn Simpson, and Peter Frisch. Previous news reports from July 2017 identify Simpson as one of several who helped Mr. Steele compile the Trump Dossier. Fox News Investigative journalist Catherine Herridge provided the information summarized, below:
Fusion GPS is a self-described “strategic intelligence” firm. It is well-known for employing disinformation, misinformation, intimidation, and smear tactics against the targets of their clients.
Venezuelan Alek Boyd provided first-hand testimony, stating that he was targeted by Fusion GPS in 2012 on behalf of a power company. While working as an investigative journalist, Boyd was in the process of demonstrating that the power company had a corrupt relationship with President Hugo Chavez.
British police records reveal that Boyd reported a break-in, with two laptops stolen from his London apartment in November 2014. The stolen computers contained evidence about corruption and scandals in Venezuela compiled over several years. After the break-in, Boyd said his sources were attacked. Boyd believes that Fusion GPS was involved in a defamation campaign against him, which began shortly after the apartment break-in.
Boyd further claims that Fusion GPS employed social media to intimidate him, published photographs of him and his children, and accused him of pedophilia, extortion, and drug trafficking. He also claimed that Fusion GPS threatened harm to his children if he did not back-off his investigation of the power company.
Boyd’s claims have been verified by human rights activist Thor Halvorssen, who also has ties to Venezuela.
If there were any questions about the veracity of Alek Boyd or Thor Halvorssen, Bill Browder offered similar testimony about Fusion GPS. Browder is a businessman who told members of the US Congress that Fusion GPS used smear tactics to discredit him and his late attorney, Sergei Magnitsky. Magnitsky was subsequently tortured and murdered while being held in a Russian jail. What followed this testimony was the so-called Magnitsky Act, which levied US economic sanctions against Russia.
In 2016, Browder filed a complaint against Fusion GPS with the US Department of Justice alleging that Fusion was working on behalf of foreign governments. To my knowledge, the Justice Department has taken no action against Fusion GPS.
American politics have almost from the beginning been low and crass —but this revelation takes the game to an all-time low. The dossier’s accusations are the worst, but this kind of smear campaign has been used previously, and to our national shame, it has been effective.
It is perhaps fair to say that even in spite of all the claims made about Clinton corruption, beginning with the Arkansas land deals years ago to the more recent accusations about pay-for-play arrangements that enriched the so-called Clinton Foundation, there are other noteworthy examples. George Soros’ Open Society Foundation has had a far-reaching impact on our political institutions; there are claims that Soros has funded, among other things, the election of Barack Obama, race riots in Missouri, and numerous progressive organizations designed to influence US foreign and domestic policies. There are also questions about the corruption of President George H. W. Bush involving the use of Kuwaiti money to build his presidential museum; his son, former President George W. Bush is reputed to be involved with the globalist (and some say, anti-American) Trilateral Commission, founded by David Rockefeller.
What kind of people are these who crave power so much that they are willing to do “whatever it takes” to win, to enrich themselves to unbelievable levels of wealth and influence? What kind of people (in the media) are so ideologically driven that they would readily accept without question outlandish accusations, or fail to demonstrate even a casual interest in the origin of salacious allegations?
Forty years ago, it was possible to read imaginary works about the Cold War era by such great writers as Frederick Forsyth; today, truth has become stranger than fiction. For example, would anyone even imagine in 2006 that the Russians would dare to murder by radioactive poison Alexander Litvinenko in a London restaurant?
The case of the Trump dossier is a far cry from Litvinenko’s termination, but there clearly was an intent to assassinate Mr. Trumps’ character. If it is conclusively shown that candidate Hillary Clinton, her campaign, or any of her surrogates hired or employed foreign agents as a means of achieving the presidency, then we should expect anyone associated with such a campaign to face serious federal charges. But this isn’t what Americans are hearing from the DNC talking heads. The argument I heard from a Democratic Congressman last week was this: it doesn’t matter who paid for the dossier if any of the allegations are true.
But it does matter.
It matters because if the American voter is no longer able to make a clear distinction among hopeful politicians based on who they really are —if the foundation of our entire electoral system is based on no more than “all is fair in love and war,” or if the winner of important elections is always the fellow who is willing to stoop to the lowest level, then we have arrived at the beginning of the end of America’s grand experiment in democracy.