Advertisement

Part 2 observed that many of the same people who originated the Russia Hoax also were involved in Trump’s impeachment over his (appropriate) phone call with Ukrainian President Zelenskyy. Paul Manafort, described as “ground zero for all manufactured Trump scandals,” was alleged to have dark dealings as a lobbyist in Ukraine, and we expressed curiosity as to how he, of all people, ended up as Trump’s campaign manager. George Soros, described as probably the most influential man in Ukraine, also ties into the story, through funding for an entity called the Democratic Integrity Project --- that name is so funny --- founded by Dianne Feinstein staffer and (yes) former FBI analyst Dan Jones, who gave Fusion GPS $3.3. million. Dan Jones brought in Hillary campaign chairman John Podesta, and their purported field of endeavor was –- egad –- to study how Russian intel operations were influencing elections.

Recall that during Trump’s impeachment, which would’ve been exposed as a joke if the existence of Hunter’s laptop had been revealed by the FBI, a parade of pro-Soros, pro-”Anti-Corruption” Action Center (AntAC) witnesses was brought in by committee chairman Adam Schiff. That’s about where we left off last week.

One quick update before we get into Part 3: Margot Cleveland has another great piece involving the laptop, this one analyzing the strategy behind the New York Times’ admission –- finally –- that it was real. First, she makes the point that if the laptop is real, that means the scandals are real, not “Russian disinformation” as was falsely maintained by so many, as calculated election interference. Like many, she also sees this admission as an attempt to “get ahead of the story” before it gets much worse. She outlines possible charges, some quite serious. Finally, she dissects the persuasive technique used by the NYT propagandists to downplay the seriousness and gain sympathy for Hunter. This last part, especially, is a must-read.

https://thefederalist.com/2022/03/25/4-big-takeaways-from-nyts-attempt-to-control-the-hunter-biden-narrative/

Back to Ukraine. As we said, when a new Ukrainian prosecutor tried to investigate Soros-funded AntAC, he met resistance from our own U.S. embassy staff. “We ran right into a buzz saw and we got bloodied,” is how one Ukrainian official put it. That buzz saw consisted of the Obama administration, the U.S. State Department, some in the FBI, and, of course, Soros and his Open Society Foundation.

John Solomon uncovered a memo dated around the time Manfort joined Trump’s campaign that contained a chart of people to BE investigated, including “some with ties to Manafort.” It’s thought that this refers to Ukrainian billionaire Dmitry Firtash, who was a business rival of Soros who had already been looked into on a civil charge of money laundering and cleared.

This was also the time when Glenn Simpson was doing oppo research on Trump and Manafort, and the DNC’s Alexandra Chalupa, from Ukraine, was bad-mouthing Manafort in America. She visited the Obama White House 27 times.

AntAC was the perfect vehicle for going after Manafort. But as Dan Bongino points out, if AntAC really had wanted to root out corruption in Ukraine, they might have taken a peek into Burisma’s showering of money on the American Vice President’s son. As Bongino puts it, “...when your benefactor is an enormous investor in the Democratic Party committing to spending millions to try and stop Trump, maybe that investigation isn’t very appealing.”

A Latvian investigative agency, the Office for Prevention of Laundering of Proceeds Derived from Criminal Activity, was actually trying to look into it, and they sent a memo to Ukrainian officials on February 18, 2016, notifying them that a transaction involving Hunter Biden and Burisma had been flagged.

Ukrainian officials failed to respond.

Later, when COVID hit, and hospitals and relief organizations needed all the help they could get, Soros gave $3 million –- not to help with THAT, but to Priorities USA Action, the Democrats’ Super PAC. It was earmarked specifically to fund a series of ads slamming Trump’s response to the virus. Soros had already just given them $2 million in January. Priorities indeed.

Bongino calls the Obama White House “an unofficial club for Ukraine obsessives.” There are other connections between AntAC (thus, Soros), the Obama White House and the FBI. Of these, Daria Kaleniuk, who now heads AntAC, met at the White House on December 9, 2015, with Eric Ciaramella, who would later come to fame as the anonymous “whistleblower” from Trump’s impeachment. At the time, he was a CIA employee working as a Ukraine (yes) specialist on the National Security Council. Later he was replaced in that position by Alexander Vindman, who also ended up testifying at Trump’s impeachment. Ciaramella had also worked with Joe Biden and John Brennan. It’s as I said: the same people just keep turning up again and again!

Since Ciaramella’s identity was kept secret during the impeachment, nothing was ever said about why he’d been moved out of the White House: he’d been accused of “leaking and working against Trump.” (Remember the huge concern with White House leaks during Trump’s early days in office?) That revelation would've done a lot to “impeach” this whistleblower.

As for the call from Trump to Zelenskyy that supposedly sparked the complaint, there was no wrongdoing in it at all. Certainly, no quid pro quo took place, because Zelenskyy got his military aid package and there was no investigation into Burisma and the Bidens, much as it was needed. Also, there was no cover-up, as Trump countered the false characterization of his call by releasing the full transcript himself. Of course, after that, Democrats continued to mischaracterize it and “mind-read” to cast his motives in the worst light they could, as they've always done with Trump about everything he's ever said or done.

Again, the laptop was central to the whole issue. It was evidence of the legitimate need to investigate the Bidens in Ukraine, and the FBI withheld it. Attorney General Bill Barr didn’t mention it, either, even after Biden lied about it, so the media were still able to present the false narrative that it was a Russian plot. Here’s the significance of Barr’s glaring omission.

https://www.theepochtimes.com/how-bill-barrs-silence-impacted-the-outcome-of-an-election_4357067.html

Ciaramella filed a complaint about Trump’s phone call with Intel Community IG Michael Atkinson and also summarized it in unclassified letters to Intelligence Committee chairs Adam Schiff and Richard Burr. He claimed he had “received information from multiple government officials that the President of the United States is using the power of his office to solicit interference from a foreign country in the 2020 U.S. election.”

It seems so strange to read those words now, as we know today that Hillary’s campaign is the one that did this very thing, through the solicitation of information for the Steele “dossier.” It was also pro-Hillary people in our State Department --- oh, and Joe Biden ---who tried to intimidate Ukrainian prosecutors who might have looked too closely at Hunter.

Bongino’s Chapter 8 in FOLLOW THE MONEY reveals even more connections and conflicts, some involving Adam Schiff and IG Atkinson, who defied a Justice Department order when he set events in motion to notify Schiff about the false whistleblower complaint. Highly recommended reading!

UPDATE: In very welcome breaking news, California Rep. Darrell Issa has announced that if (when!) Republicans take back the House this year, he will lead an investigation of the 2020 election-related suppression of the Hunter Biden laptop story.

The Epoch Times has a report --- it's "premium," but we'll have the full story coming up.

https://www.theepochtimes.com/republicans-plan-to-investigate-hunter-biden-laptop-story-issa


YOU MIGHT ALSO LIKE:

The deeper significance of Hunter laptop story, Part 2

The deeper significance of Hunter laptop story, Part 1

Here’s today’s link to Fox News’ continually-updated bulletins on Russia’s invasion of Ukraine:

https://www.foxnews.com/live-news/ukraine-russia-live-updates-03-28-2022

Latest developments: Ukrainian officials claim that Russia plans to split the country in two, like North and South Korea. President Zelenskyy laid out a roadmap for peace, but Russia censored his interview. Ukraine said it’s investigating graphic videos posted on the Internet that allegedly show Ukrainian soldiers shooting Russian POWs in the legs. But Ukraine’s top military commander accused Russia of staging the videos as propaganda.

The big story is once again a reaction to something that fell out of President Biden’s mouth with a clank: A Kremlin spokesman called it “alarming” that Biden said of Putin, "For God's sake, this man cannot remain in power." The 24/7 emergency verbal spill squad at the White House had to rush to “clarify” that Biden was not calling for regime change in Russia, which, as much as anyone might wish for it, is not something Presidents say out loud because they don’t want to spark World War III.

https://redstate.com/bonchie/2022/03/27/joe-bidens-big-gaffe-perfectly-exposes-the-imbecility-of-the-experts-n541772

While Biden’s staffers desperately try to convince us that he “didn’t really mean it” for the 400th time, other liberals in the media are trying to spin it as brave truth-telling, or comparing it to Reagan’s famous quote, “Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall!” Except they can’t decide between claiming that was also a slip of the tongue by Reagan (it wasn’t) or comparing Biden’s unfiltered blurt to Reagan (it’s a very different thing to challenge a leader to tear down a wall and to publicly call for a rival nation’s leader to be overthrown, particularly when that nation has nukes and you don’t know what he’ll do or if his replacement might be even worse.)

Do I personally wish Putin weren’t the leader of Russia? Of course! But would his downfall necessarily result in someone better taking his place? Considering the most likely successors, that’s an open question. The point is, I can talk about that because I’m not the President, but Joe Biden is. Yes, I’m as annoyed about that as you are.

As for all the panicking and spinning about Biden calling for Putin to be overthrown, then all the backtracking about how he didn’t really mean it that way...Okay, let me get this straight:

So Democrats are NOW saying that even if the President thinks Putin is a monster and shouldn’t be in power, he can’t actually come right out and SAY that because it might have enormous negative consequences. Privately, he might deplore Putin, but he has to publicly show respect because calling for him to be overthrown could spark World War III. They’re now embracing Will Rogers’ century-old definition of “diplomacy,” that it’s the art of saying “Nice doggy” until you can pick up a rock.

Here’s my question: when did this standard come back? I heard for four years that if Trump didn’t publicly denounce Putin, if he “made nice” with him at summits, etc., it meant he was a tool of the Russians. If he even admitted that Putin was smart while criticizing him for taking advantage of dumb US policies, it meant he "admired" Putin or was colluding with Russia. But now, we must understand that Presidents can’t just blurt out any random nasty thought about Russia that crosses their minds because their words carry weight.

Funny how it took having a Democrat President who blurts out any random thought that crosses his mind for them to finally realize that.

Trudeau Update

March 25, 2022

Like President Biden’s advisers, Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau probably hopes that the timing of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine distracted the public from his own catastrophic leadership and created a “rally-‘round” effect. But just as Biden’s approval ratings continue to circle the drain…

https://redstate.com/bonchie/2022/03/23/bidens-comeback-turns-into-a-house-of-horrors-and-not-just-for-him-n539782

Trudeau’s attempts to make people forget the unconscionable, dictatorial way he crushed the peaceful truckers protest are crashing like an 18-wheeler on an icy hairpin curve. Trudeau went to Brussels, where he made a speech to the European Parliament, piously condemning Putin for attacking “the values that form the pillars of all democracies,” and adding, “We have a responsibility to make the case to people about why these values matter so much — not just to Ukrainians but to us all.”

https://pjmedia.com/news-and-politics/stacey-lennox/2022/03/24/justin-trudeau-gets-wrecked-after-daring-to-lecture-the-eu-parliament-about-democracy-n1583896

That was too much for some of the Eastern European members who have hard experience with dictators to stomach. Croatian MEP Mislav Kolakusic followed Trudeau and blasted him straight to his face:

“Unfortunately, today, there are those among us who trample on these fundamental values…Canada, once a symbol of the modern world, has become a symbol of civil rights violations under your quasi-liberal boot in recent months. We watched how you trample women with horses, how you block the bank accounts of single parents so that they can’t even pay their children’s education and medicine, that they can’t pay utilities, mortgages for their homes.”

Romanian MEP Cristian Terhes refused even to attend Trudeau’s speech but issued a statement ripping him to shreds. He wrote in part:

“You can’t come and teach democracy lessons to Putin from the European Parliament when you trample with horse hooves your own citizens who are demanding that their fundamental rights be respected.” He called Trudeau a tyrant and a dictator, “like Ceau?escu in Romania” and “no better than Putin.” He declared, “Between the Russian imperialist tyranny, promoted by Putin, and the neo-Marxist tyranny pretending to be progressivism promoted by the likes of Trudeau, in which people are deprived of their rights and freedoms, becoming objects of the state, I do not choose any.”

So, memo to Canadians: I hope you haven’t forgotten what Trudeau and his supporters did, because the rest of the world hasn’t. Particularly not those who know a dictator and enemy of the people’s fundamental rights when they see one.

Before we get to the big breaking news --- and, yes, it really is the coolest story ever --- there’s also related news out of John Durham’s special counsel probe. In his request for an extended deadline for his production of classified discovery in the case against Igor Danchenko (who provided “dossier” information to Christopher Steele), Durham reveals that he plans to produce a large amount of classified material this coming week.

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/justice/john-durham-to-produce-large-volume-of-classified-discovery-in-steele-dossier-source-case

And now, fun times: On March 24, in federal court in Florida, President Trump, represented by the Ticktin Law Group of Florida and Habba Madaio & Associates LLP of New Jersey, sued former presidential candidate Hillary Clinton, the DNC and “dossier” author Christopher Steele, along with approximately 30 others involved in the Russia Hoax, for carrying out a plot to “weave a false narrative” that Trump was colluding with Russian actors to win the 2016 election.

https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/21506628-trump-v-clinton

The New York Post was happy to announce it.

https://nypost.com/2022/03/24/trump-sues-hillary-clinton-dnc-over-unthinkable-russia-plot-in-2016-election/

In the document, there’s a long list of names of those being sued, and the cast of characters will be familiar to regular readers of this newsletter, the reporting of John Solomon, and the legal filings of John Durham. We have, in addition to Hillary and Steele, quite a lineup: Michael Sussmann and Marc Elias of Perkins Coie, Debbie Wasserman Schulz, Jake Sullivan, John Podesta, Hillary campaign chairman Robby Mook, Hillary communication adviser Phillipe Reines, Glenn Simpson and Fusion GPS, Rodney Joffe and Neustar, and many others whose names you’ll recognize. The FBI is also well represented, with Spygate Hall-of-Famers such as James Comey, Peter Strzok, Lisa Page, Kevin Clinesmith (who has already pleaded guilty after being charged with falsifying an official document) and Andrew McCabe. Trump also lists some “fictitious and unknown” persons and entities, to be revealed, I suppose, as Durham continues.

“In the run-up to the 2016 Presidential election,” it says, “Hillary Clinton and her cohorts orchestrated an unthinkable plot –- one that shocks the conscience and is an affront to this nation’s democracy.” The plot they created to exploit sensitive data sources to “weave a false narrative” about him was “so outrageous, subversive and incendiary that even the events of Watergate pale in comparison.”

That is true. As Paragraph 9 says, “In short, the Defendants, blinded by political ambition, orchestrated a malicious conspiracy to disseminate patently false and injurious information about Donald J. Trump and his campaign, all in the hopes of destroying his life, political career and rigging the 2016 Presidential election in favor of Hillary Clinton.” The suit goes on to say that when their plan failed and Trump was elected anyway, “the Defendants’ efforts continued unabated, merely shifting their focus to undermining his presidential administration.”

When you have time, perhaps over this weekend, please read through the whole 108-page document --- it makes for highly entertaining and satisfying reading, especially for my readers who are already familiar with the story. (If you know people who haven’t kept up, please share the documentcloud.org link above.) It really kicks in on page 13, with the “Statement of Facts,” which lays out the whole plot step by step. Importantly, it explains the primary motivation for the Hillary campaign, which was summarized by a DNC memo that had been obtained by by an individual using the name Guccifer 2.0, revealing that the DNC, because of Hillary’s own email scandal, needed to “muddy the waters around ethics, transparency, and campaign finance attacks on HRC.”

Leave it to Hillary and the DNC to muddy the waters around ethics and transparency, while they wade right in.

So, how can a public figure who was running for President sue for damages because of what was said about him? The suit makes it clear that “Trump has sustained significant injuries and damages.” To date, he claims that monetary damages to him, his campaign and his organization are in excess of $24 million, not counting “the loss of existing and future business opportunities.” That sounds like a conservative estimate.

“The Plaintiff,” the suit says, “does not claim nor seek any compensation for damage to his reputation, but rather, he seeks damages for the cost of dealing with the legal issues and political issues, which he was required to spend to redress the injurious falsities which were propounded by the Defendants, and all other losses incurred due to the tortious conduct of the Defendants.”

Go to page 60, and –- gotta love this –- you’ll see that Trump is also suing Clinton, the DNC, Sussmann, Elias and Perkins Coie under the RICO statute. “At all relevant times,” the suit says, these defendants “constituted an associated in-fact enterprise” within the meaning of that law, with a clearly delineated, ongoing organizational framework and command structure for carrying out its objectives: the Clinton Campaign and the DNC were at all relevant times mutually controlled by Clinton, who worked in tandem with their joint counsel, Perkins Coie, whose partners, Sussmann and Elias, simultaneously worked as general counsel for the Clinton Campaign and the DNC.”

Trump accuses them of a conspiracy to obstruct justice, saying they “willfully, knowingly, deliberately, and corruptly obstructed, influenced and impeded...the due administration of justice, and/or one or more official proceedings, including, but not limited to, Crossfire Hurricane and/or other investigations by the FBI, the CIA, the IG, and the DOJ.”

The suit goes on to allege a Count II RICO conspiracy, incorporating many more of the defendants, that deals with the time Trump was in office as President. He says that they “knowingly agreed, conspired, and acted in concert for the express purpose of injuring the Plaintiff’s political career and/or impeding his ability to effectively govern through a pattern of racketeering activity.”

The allegations go on and on, through numerous counts of conspiracy to commit malicious prosecution, theft of trade secrets, and violations of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act and Stored Communications Act. Then, on page 95, it concentrates its ire on Hillary herself and the DNC, alleging that “Hillary was fully aware of the plan and hired and instructed the necessary parties to make it happen.”

Trump demands a jury trial “of all issues so triable.”

According to a story in The Epoch Times, the judge assigned to the case is a Clinton nominee, U.S. District Court Judge Donald Middlebrooks. Yes, we join you in wondering how that’s going to work. According to the court docket, U.S. Magistrate Judge Shaniek Maynard may handle some or all of the proceedings. We would think “all.”

We like what Bonchie at RedState.com said: that Trump is “suing everyone and their mother” connected with the Trump-Russia Hoax. Yes, this hoax involved a tremendous number of participants, but that’s one reason why it’s the most stupendous political scandal in our lifetimes. True, we don’t know if he’ll prevail in court, as it’s almost impossible for a public figure to win what essentially is a defamation case, but I have a feeling that’s not the main reason he’s doing this. He’s getting the facts out. This one’s for the history books.

https://redstate.com/bonchie/2022/03/24/donald-trump-sues-everyone-and-their-mother-over-the-infamous-steele-dossier-n540539

Here’s yet another reason why everyone should stop using Twitter and switch to an alternative site that respects freedom of speech. Here are a few options (hint: not Facebook):

https://rigorousthemes.com/blog/best-twitter-alternatives/

Not only did Twitter ban the Babylon Bee over a satirical story that accurately described HHS official Rachel Levine as a biological male, now they’ve suspended the account of the Christian Post for the same reason. Only to make matters worse, they claimed the CP might be in violation of French hate speech laws, and that if they disagreed, they might have to challenge the decision in a French court.

https://www.westernjournal.com/cowards-twitter-hq-cite-foreign-hate-speech-law-punish-american-company/

I didn’t realize that Twitter is a French company. Maybe that would explain why they seem to be totally ignorant of such American traditions as the First Amendment and Section 230 of the Communications Act that protects them from lawsuits only as long as they act as a neutral platform and not a publisher/editor.

As that linked story notes, Twitter has a strange set of standards for what it does and doesn’t allow. Former President Trump is banned for allegedly fomenting violence, but the leaders of Iran who take daily breaks to chant “Death to America” still have Twitter accounts. The President of a nation that perpetuates genocide can stay on Twitter, but they ban comedians who tweet jokes pointing out that that nation perpetuates genocide.

Also, while they censor many conservative sites (including this one) for “disinformation” even though we’re telling the truth, there have been no repercussions for liberals who’ve wildly mischaracterized Florida’s Parental Rights in Education Bill and falsely labeled it as the “Don’t Say Gay Law.” In fact, they’re openly promoting that disinformation.

https://pjmedia.com/columns/paula-bolyard/2022/03/23/heres-what-the-social-media-censors-are-doing-about-the-dont-say-gay-lies-regarding-floridas-anti-groomer-bill-n1583733

Of course, Twitter is hardly alone in its attempts to silence people for speaking obvious truths that counteract leftist narratives. Take a look at how NBC applied more Photoshopping to “trans” swimmer Lia Thomas you’d see on a Vogue magazine cover shot of Kamala Harris.

https://www.westernjournal.com/odd-nbc-news-airbrushes-image-trans-swimmer-lia-thomas/

I would say the assaults on reality by both big media and social media have become trans…parent.