March 2, 2020

The “Trump/Russia” collusion hoax goes on, with Jim Acosta, still CNN’s chief White House correspondent, asking Trump at a press conference in India, ”Can you pledge to the American people that you will not accept any foreign assistance in the coming election?” When challenged by Trump, Acosta actually insulted him, saying, “Mr. President, I think our record of delivering the truth is a lot better than yours sometimes...” Trump said from the podium that Acosta ought to be ashamed, and he should be, but he won't, because he has no shame.

California Rep. Devin Nunes, ranking Republican on the House Intelligence Committee, has announced he’s planning to file a federal lawsuit Monday afternoon against the WASHINGTON POST after years of false “Trump/Russia” reporting. Even after no evidence of collusion has been found, the fake news lives on and evolves.

"The mainstream media continues to go about their normal pace of creating narratives and then going out and selling them to the American people, and they hope that we forget,” he told Maria Bartiromo on Fox News Sunday.

Commentary continues below advertisement

Unlike the suit by Trump’s campaign against The New York Times, which was not brought by an individual and therefore might be determined not to have standing, Nunes' is on his own, as WaPo went after him personally. “What [they] did to me...there’s no explanation for it. I never talked to President Trump about Admiral McGuire; I didn’t go to the White House. None of this was true; it was all invented by someone.”

Nunes also has an ongoing suit against CNN --- that's right, Jim Acosta --- over a fake story they ran about his activities in Vienna; he has proof he was not there when they said he was. Similarly, when Nunes, according to WaPo, was supposedly meeting with Trump about Admiral McGuire, he was actually in Tulsa, Oklahoma. He says that if these news outlets want to know where he is, all they have to do is go to his social media.

He’s created a website associated with the Devin Nunes campaign called “that people can go to and join the fight.” He wants to stop the media from being able to poison millions of Americans with fake news.

Recall that the whole “Russia hoax” claim –- which led to sanctions against Russia, the two-year Mueller investigation and a presidential impeachment –- originated with Hillary Clinton (of course) and the supposed hacking of John Podesta’s emails, which were extremely damaging to her at a critical time in her fight against Bernie Sanders for the 2016 nomination. American Greatness has just posted a revised and expanded version of two articles from July of 2018, under the single title “The Monstrous Lie Behind CrowdStrike” by Michael Thau, in which he looks at the DNC’s unsubstantiated claim that Russia hacked their servers as well as their unrelenting determination to keep those servers in the hands of CrowdStrike instead of turning them over to the FBI.

RELATED READING:  McCabe, Comey retained spying program for political espionage

Thau’s article makes a strong case that the Democratic National Committee refused to let investigators look at their “evidence” of Russian infiltration for a very simple reason: there isn’t any.

Of course, President Trump is well aware of this whole business, and it seems obvious that his mere mention of “CrowdStrike” in the call with Ukrainian President Zelensky struck fear into the Democrats and led them even more frantically down the impeachment path. Think about it: if they'd had the goods on the Russkies with actual forensic evidence, they would have gleefully handed it over to the FBI on a silver platter decorated with roses and daffodils. But instead they've drawn a red line, so to speak, and refused to hand it over to anyone.

Robert Mueller’s team went ahead and blamed the Russians anyway.

So why wouldn’t the DNC instruct CrowdStrike to hand over the servers, and why did the FBI just shrug their shoulders and refuse to get tough about this? Even then-FBI Director James Comey testified before Congress three times that the DNC refused the FBI’s “[m]ultiple requests at different levels” to collect forensic evidence.” Simultaneously, the DNC had been hyping the theft of the emails as akin to “an act of war.” This makes no sense, unless they were pulling a "Jussie Smollett."  It also makes no sense that the FBI didn't, well, make a federal case out of it.

A senior FBI official told The Hill in January 2017 that the Bureau “repeatedly stressed to DNC officials the necessity of obtaining direct access to servers and data, only to be rebuffed until well after the initial compromise.” This same source said that “the FBI [had] no choice but to rely upon” CrowdStrike, whose executives refused to discuss the matter under oath.

No choice??

The DNC also rebuffed Department of Homeland Security head Jeh Johnson’s requests and wouldn’t even discuss the matter with him.

I’m no computer expert, but numerous people who are have expressed skepticism about the claim of a Russian hack. One such skeptic who goes by the pseudonym “Adam Carter” has concluded, after working on this story for a few years, that “Guccifer 2.0” was a fake identity created by CrowdStrike as a fake hacker. Though most of Carter’s evidence is technical, Thau says “he’s unquestionably found an inconsistency in the Russian narrative that ought to raise doubts in even the most computer-illiterate congressman’s mind.” This article presents exactly that.

To explain why the DNC might resort to such elaborate fakery, Thau takes us back to March 19, 2016, the day they learned that "hostile actors" had obtained all the emails in the Gmail account of Hillary campaign manager John Podesta. We know this was not an actual hack; he’d fallen for a common “spear-phishing” scam that tricked him into divulging his password (which was --- I kid you not --- “password”). The emails were extremely derogatory towards Hillary and even contradicted the defense they’d publicly made for her use of a private server. When Julian Assange said on June 12 that he’d acquired Hillary’s emails, they must have immediately assumed these were from the same "hack."  Bernie Sanders reacted, too, by meeting with top advisors and resolving a continued fight for the nomination.

The DNC quickly armed itself with the “Russia” narrative and, on June 14 in WaPo, shrieked about Russia stealing Podesta’s emails. (Not surprisingly, all information in the WaPo article had been provided by CrowdStrike and the DNC.) By October 7, when WikiLeaks began releasing the emails, Hillary’s supporters had already been, in Thau’s words, “taught to tune them out by angrily reciting the mantras ‘Putin’ and ‘Russia.’” This became Hillary’s personal defense. “What is really important about WikiLeaks,” she said, “is that the Russian government has engaged in espionage against Americans.”

Thau’s article takes a close look at “Guccifer 2.0” and the carelessness of “clues” left in documents sent to the press and asks excellent, common-sense questions that debunk the claim --- maintained in Mueller’s report and continuing through the 2020 election --- that he was a Russian spy trying to aid Donald Trump. By all means, set aside a block of time to read this.

Leave a Comment

Note: Fields marked with an * are required.

Your Information
Your Comment
BBML accepted!

Comments 1-9 of 9

  • Carolyn Harrold

    03/03/2020 10:06 AM

    Thank you Mr. Huckabee for exposing the fake news sources. My husband is a 23 year Air Force Veteran and we lived in both Europe and Asia. The lack of knowledge on the part of young voters is appalling. Their entire knowledge base is CNN, MSNBC or some of the other biased reporting entities. Please continue to share the truth with us. Thank you or your patriotism.

  • Tim Morrison

    03/03/2020 08:38 AM

    I tried to view the article you linked to "Guccifer 2.0" and from two different locations (different WIFI) received the same thing - "about.blank". I ended up having to use a different internet browser to get it to open the website. Does this seem a little fishy to anyone besides this old-line conspiracy theorist boomer??

  • Helen Corey

    03/03/2020 08:31 AM

    President Trump should not acknowledge Acosta’s presence. If a reporter gets called on and hands Mike over to Acosta, President should call on another person or end press conference. Acosta disgusts me.

  • Robin Lacey-Crouse

    03/03/2020 08:16 AM

    the hyperlink is not working in this article to defend-usa. it pulls up blank. And you can't copy and paste it either. you have to type the whole address out for it to pull up the desired content.

  • Clara Herrin

    03/03/2020 07:58 AM

    Regarding the move back to paper bags...I find it very interesting that many people make fun of the way we did things back in the 40s and 50s. We were able to buy our groceries; put everything in a paper bag; take it all home with us without dropping anything; and then use that bag for our garbage bag under the sink. When it was taken to the landfill and mixed with dirt, it all biodegraded and no one was upset. This 'outrage' over having to use them again is only one way to see how spoiled and thoughtless our society has become. It only proves what I've been telling people for a long time... there are certain things we did way back when that were a lot better for our world than the way we've been doing them now. It proves that big business did, indeed, sell a load of manure to the public and the public swollowed it whole. Paper is always better than plastic. And don't give me the argument that we'll run out of trees. There are a variety of ways to make paper that bypasses trees. Millions of trees are planted every year. I, for one, am glad to see plastic go by the wayside. I'm tired of seeing plastic bags blowing around the countryside, chocking cows and deer and whatever other animal thinks it's food, and clogging drainpipes. It bothers me to think that five hundred years from now some archeologist will dig up an old landfill and find millions of plastic bags pretty much in the same condition they were in when they were new.

  • Dusty

    03/02/2020 01:56 PM

    Gov Amazing that we still get the Russians and that they will influence our election. Trying to find out what did they say and do in 2016? No one has said what it was? I just saw a show done per the BBC called The Capture. Done recently. Interesting per they kind of were making a mockery out of the British intelligence along with our CIA and mentioned Russia and Snowden in the show. Made it appear that they would do most anything both of our intelligence to do their job? Almost like what we have seen per our FBI a small group but had a lot of influence , and our Deep State how many tried to get in who they wanted anyway they could also? Like to know why does it matter if a foreign govt gives money when we give all kinds of countries our tax dollars all the time? We have done business with these foreign countries for years so now it is wrong? HOW? If we are that gullible and stupid to let a Putin or a Chinese leader to influence us then we deserve what we get?

  • Rick Locke

    03/02/2020 01:07 PM

    Just wondering after "Cheerful Chuck" Schumer glared over his glasses perched low on his nose and claimed that President Trump had been caught flat-footed with the coronavirus outbreak, even though there is testing and quarantining at airports around the country. I wonder if he and nasty Nancy feel comfortable with their hard work at making certain that our borders are porous as a sive. Guess they feel that infected people will voluntarily not enter the U.S.A.

  • Barney Flint

    03/02/2020 12:36 PM

    Jim Acosta of CNN, imho needs to be ushered out of the room and not allowed back in ever. His creds should be revoked somehow. I know he has first amendment rights but he spins everything as negative where President Trump is concerned.

  • Michael F. Luhning, Sr.

    03/02/2020 11:58 AM

    Regarding Jim Acosta, I will briefly state, as he deserves nothing more than a very brief reference, is a complete waste of space who may be extremely attractive to Dung Beatles.