This is probably the best evidence that corrupt purposes were at the heart of the Clinton Foundation as a vehicle for making money for the Clintons themselves. What is the point of trying to bribe someone who no longer holds the levers of power?
For donors, charitable giving was predicated on gaining both access and influence to a powerful person, Hillary Clinton. When she lost her bid for the presidency, benefactors, especially foreign contributors who had previously shown so much interest in Hillary as senator and secretary of state, began to vanish. As the Observer described it, “The Clinton Foundation’s downward trajectory ever since Clinton’s election loss provides further testimony to claims that the organization was built on greed and the lust for power and wealth—not charity.”68
Chapter 5
The Fraudulent Case Against Donald Trump
It is the worst oppression, that is done by colour of justice.
—SIR EDWARD COKE, LORD CHIEF JUSTICE OF ENGLAND AND WALES (THE SECOND PART OF THE INSTITUTE OF LAWS, 1817)
When those who are entrusted to enforce the law, instead, abuse their power to pursue innocent people in the name of justice it is the worst kind of oppression, as Sir Edward Coke observed.
This is what the FBI did in launching its investigation of Donald Trump. There was never any real evidence of wrongdoing by the Republican nominee for president. There was no reasonable suspicion or evidence sustaining probable cause that those in his campaign were collaborating with Russians to influence the 2016 election.
In its purest form, it was a hoax that was manufactured by unscrupulous high-ranking officials within the FBI and the Department of Justice. Their motives were impure, animated by antipathy for Trump. They were determined to tip the scales of justice and, in the process, undermine electoral democracy.
Armed with nearly unfettered authority, they initiated and advanced a criminal investigation for plainly political reasons. Having engineered a way to spare Hillary Clinton of an indictment, they turned their attention to the only person who could halt her march to the White House—Trump. Perhaps in the back of their minds they believed in the old Stalinist creed, “Show me the man and I’ll find you the crime.” Surely, there must be something there, they reasoned. The FBI resolved to find it.
Trump didn’t know it, but he was about to be framed.
Clinton Case Ends as Trump Case Begins
It is likely no coincidence that almost immediately after Clinton was cleared of any criminal charges, the FBI secretly began its investigation of whether the Russian government attempted to interfere with the presidential election and whether associates of Trump were somehow involved.
A year earlier, in July 2015, hackers had gained access to the server at the Democratic National Committee and Democratic leaders, according to the Office of the director of national intelligence (DNI).1 Evidence showed that it was the work of the Main Intelligence Directorate, or GRU, Russia’s military intelligence agency. After many months of investigation, the DNI issued a report entitled the Intelligence Community Assessment (ICA) in January 2017 that placed responsibility directly at the top of the Kremlin:
We assess Russian President Vladimir Putin ordered an influence campaign in 2016 aimed at the U.S. presidential election. Russia’s goals were to undermine public faith in the US democratic process, denigrate Secretary Clinton, and harm her electability and potential presidency. We further assess Putin and the Russian Government developed a clear preference for President-elect Trump.2
The effort to disassemble American elections was an old, but dependable, stratagem. The ICA report points out that such secret activities had been going on for decades dating back to the Cold War when “the Soviet Union used intelligence officers, influence agents, forgeries, and press placements to disparage candidates perceived as hostile to the Kremlin.”3
Therefore, there was nothing in particular that Trump did that precipitated the Russians to try to disrupt the Clinton campaign. He played no role whatsoever, and there was no evidence in the declassified report that he engaged in any clandestine talks with the Russian leadership or other agents of the state.
Instead, Moscow’s objective was to sow discord in the election process wherever possible. This was driven by an historic dislike of democratic institutions in the U.S. political structure and reinforced in the ICA report when it observed, “the Kremlin sought to advance its longstanding desire to undermine the US-led liberal democratic order, the promotion of which Putin and other senior Russian leaders view as a threat to Russia and Putin’s regime.”4
The report did acknowledge that Putin held a “grudge” against Clinton for disparaging comments she once made about him and her “aggressive rhetoric.”5 However, this reference seemed like nothing more than guesswork—both highly speculative and petty. No hard evidence was cited in support. Finally, the report made mention that Putin had indicated a preference for Trump’s willingness to work with Russia, especially on matters of counterterrorism in the fight against ISIS. This was consistent with public statements Trump made during the presidential campaign.
Regardless of Russia’s desires, the ICA report composed of intelligence work by the National Security Agency, the Central Intelligence Agency, and the Federal Bureau of Investigation found no evidence that Moscow’s efforts succeeded in any material way to influence the election. Importantly, despite the entire intelligence gathering by these three agencies over the course of many months, they managed to produce not a shred of evidence of so-called collusion between Russia and the Trump campaign.
However, on its own, the FBI devised a plan to pursue a separate investigation of Trump and his campaign, likely driven by the political aims and animus of top officials at the bureau and like-minded partisans at the Obama administration’s Justice Department. Peter Strzok, who played a key role in absolving Clinton, led the FBI’s investigation into Trump-Russian “collusion,” becoming the deputy assistant director of the Counterintelligence Division. Thus, the agent who expressed such visceral hatred of Trump in text messages to his lover was the same person who reportedly signed the papers opening the investigation of Trump and oversaw every aspect of the case:6
PAGE: And maybe you’re meant to stay where you are because you’re meant to protect the country from that menace. [This is clearly a reference to Trump, since she provides a link to an article about Trump.]
STRZOK: Thanks. And of course I’ll try and approach it that way. I just know it will be tough at times. I can protect our country at many levels, not sure if that helps.
Given Strzok’s anti-Trump rhetoric, it is reasonable to conclude that he may already have taken steps to “protect” the country from what he considered would be a dangerous and harmful Trump presidency.
Shortly thereafter, Strzok executed the documents launching the 2016 investigation into Russia’s meddling in the American presidential election and whether Trump conspired with Russians to advance his candidacy, despite no real evidence to support the probe.7 Thus, it appears that two people with strident political agendas and personal bias, Strzok and Page, may have accomplished twin goals of clearing Clinton and accusing Trump, evidence be damned.
Is this what Strzok and Page meant in their texts when they discussed his role as protector of the republic? It makes sense, since Strzok was instrumental in clearing Clinton by rewriting Comey’s otherwise incriminating findings. Were Strzok and Page also referring to the investigation of Trump that was commenced right after Clinton was absolved? This too makes sense, inasmuch as Strzok signed the papers initiating the bureau’s Trump-Russia probe.
If there is any doubt that Strzok and Page sought to undermine the democratic process, consider this cryptic text, dated August 15, 2016, about their “insurance policy” against the “risk” of a future Trump presidency:
STRZOK: I want to believe the path you threw out for consideration in Andy’s office—that there’s no way he gets elected—but I’m afraid we can’t take that risk. It’s like an insurance po
licy in the unlikely event you die before you’re 40 . . .8
The reference to “Andy” is believed to be deputy FBI director Andrew McCabe. What was the insurance policy discussed in Andy’s office? It may have been the FBI’s investigation of Trump and his associates. Or it might have been the infamous anti-Trump “dossier” that was reportedly used by the FBI and the Justice Department as a basis for a warrant to wiretap and spy on Trump associates. Perhaps it was both. It appears that McCabe was a party to the suspected plot.
When Robert Mueller was later appointed as special counsel to assume control of the FBI’s Trump-Russia case, both Strzok and Page immediately joined his team of lawyers and investigators. Eventually, Mueller was informed of the compromising texts on July 27, 2017. According to Assistant Attorney General Stephen Boyd, Mueller “immediately concluded that Mr. Strzok could no longer participate in the investigation and was removed from the team.”9 Instead of being fired, he was reassigned to a position in the FBI’s human resources department. Page was also removed from the Mueller probe.
Did Mueller or anyone else notify Congress that the Clinton case might have been corrupted by Strzok and Page or that the Trump-Russia investigation had been seriously jeopardized? It appears to have been covered up. Mueller surely knew that if the truth were revealed, it would further discredit his own probe, which had taken on the stench of spoiled fish.
Several congressional committees could smell it and knew something was amiss surrounding the sudden and unexplained departure of Strzok. Answers were demanded. But the Justice Department and the FBI refused to respond or otherwise produce relevant documents that had been subpoenaed by the committees. It was not until December 19, 2017, the night before Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein was set to appear before the House Judiciary Committee, that 375 text messages, out of roughly ten thousand, were finally produced.10 Reporters then obtained them.
Members of the House Judiciary Committee believe it was Strzok who plotted to use the unverified anti-Trump “dossier,” commissioned by the Democratic National Committee and the Clinton campaign, to spy on Trump associates. During a hearing in December 2017, Representative Jim Jordan asked FBI director Christopher Wray whether Strzok presented the “dossier” as evidence to obtain a Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) warrant from a judge to place wiretaps on members of the Trump campaign:
REP. JORDAN: Did Peter Strzok help produce and present the application to the FISA court to secure a warrant to spy on Americans associated with the Trump campaign?
DIRECTOR WRAY: I’m not prepared to discuss anything about a FISA process in this setting.
JORDAN: We’re not talking about what happened in the court, we’re talking about what the FBI took to the court. The application. Was Peter Strzok involved in taking that to the court?
WRAY: I’m not going to discuss anything to do with the FISA court applications.
JORDAN: Remember a couple of things, director, about the dossier. The Democratic National Committee and the Clinton campaign—which we now know were one in the same—paid the law firm, who paid Fusion GPS, who paid Christopher Steele, who then paid Russians to put together a report we call the dossier, filled with all kinds of fake news National Enquirer garbage.
It has been reported that this dossier was all dressed up by the FBI, taken to the FISA court where it was painted as a legitimate intelligence document, that it became the basis for granting a warrant to spy on Americans.
I think Peter Strzok, head of counterintelligence at the FBI, Peter Strzok, the guy who ran the FBI’s Clinton investigation, did all the interviews, Peter Strzok, the guy who was running the Russia investigation at the FBI, Peter Strzok, Mr. Super Agent at the FBI, I think he is the guy that took the application to the FISA court.
And if this happened, if you have the FBI working with the Democrats’ campaign, to take opposition research, dress it all up and turning it into an intelligence document to take it to a FISA court so they can spy on another campaign, if that happened, that is as wrong as it gets.
You could clear it all up, we sent you a letter two days ago. Just release the application, tell us what was in it. Tell us if I’m wrong. But I don’t think I am. I think that is exactly what happened, and people who did that need to be held accountable.11
If it was Strzok who maneuvered to utilize the largely discredited “dossier,” underwritten by Democrats, to investigate Trump and spy on his associates, it would explain his pursuit of an “insurance policy” should Clinton lose the election. He may also have been hiding how the “dossier” was misused. In early 2017, House Intelligence Committee investigators were contacted by an informant advising that “documentary evidence” would show that Strzok was deliberately obstructing the congressional investigation into the “dossier.”12
Why a specialist in counterintelligence would use his work phone to convey toxic messages to a top FBI lawyer who also happened to be his lover is a case study in hubris and foolishness. But the recklessness with which he voiced his visceral hatred for the Republican presidential candidate and adoration for the Democratic candidate did manage to expose political motives for clearing Clinton and targeting Trump that had long been suspected. Against this backdrop, the persistent claims that Trump “colluded” with the Russians during the election can be traced to Strzok and Page.
Steve Rogers, who served in law enforcement for decades and was a senior naval intelligence officer for the FBI National Joint Terrorism Task Force, believes that Strzok and Page conspired to bring down Trump as a candidate and, failing that, sought to bring down his presidency. “They’ve done tremendous damage,” he said. “They’ve taken that wonderful, glittering gold shield that people around the world are proud of and they tarnished it badly.”13
No Legal Basis to Open Trump Investigation
When the FBI launched its investigation into the Trump campaign, it had no legitimate basis for doing so. Like any government agency, the bureau must abide by a set of strict rules that are set forth in a lengthy book entitled, “The Attorney General’s Guidelines for Domestic FBI Operations.”14 The rules contained therein are authorized by statutory law and incorporated into a handbook which agents must study and know. It is called the “Domestic Investigations and Operations Guide” (DIOG).15
Under these guidelines, the agency is permitted “to conduct investigations to detect, obtain information about, and prevent and protect against federal crimes.”16 But it must have some reasonable basis for commencing an investigation after having first identified “a particular crime or threatened crime.”17 It cannot open an investigation into activity that does not or will not constitute a crime.
There are two kinds of investigations, preliminary and full. Under the FBI guidelines, “preliminary investigations may be initiated on the basis of any allegation or information indicative of possible criminal activity . . . but more substantial factual predication is required for full investigations.”18 In other words, the FBI is specifically prohibited from searching for evidence of a crime that does not exist under law. There must be “an articulable factual basis for the investigation” that indicates that a crime has or will take place.19
Importantly, the same rules that circumscribe the FBI’s conduct in criminal investigations also apply to counterintelligence investigations, although the bureau has somewhat wider latitude in opening a counterintelligence case only because the operations of foreign powers fall under a broader rubric of law called espionage. This allows the FBI to scrutinize any clandestine activities by foreign and domestic actors that might jeopardize America’s national security. By its nature, it encompasses greater discretion to collect information and surveil.
However, there must be some reliable intelligence information to warrant the opening of a counterintelligence probe. This, the FBI did not appear to have. Devin Nunes, Chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, reviewed “electronic communication” between the FBI and the Department of Justice. Appearing on Fox Business
Network, he stated that no such intelligence information existed when the counterintelligence probe involving the Trump campaign was initiated. He stated, “We now know that there was no official intelligence that was used to start this investigation.”20
Obviously, the counterintelligence distinction is susceptible to FBI abuse. Former federal prosecutor Andrew McCarthy in writing about the Trump-Russia probe warned, “The government is not supposed to use its foreign-intelligence collection authority as a pretext to building criminal cases.”21 Yet, this appears to be what the FBI did. Under the guise of a baseless counterintelligence probe, it began investigating the Republican candidate for president.
This invites the inevitable question: what crime could Trump and his associates have conceivably committed? Did the FBI abide by the law in making an initial determination of any relevant crime that could have occurred before it opened its investigation of Trump? It appears the bureau did not.
Also, what allegation or information or “articulable” facts did agents like Strzok have in their possession that would lead them to suspect criminal activity was afoot in the Trump campaign by virtue of any direct or tangential contacts it may have had with the Russian government? The answer seems to be that they had little, if any, reliable facts or verified evidence that would support a crime. Yet, the agency dove head first into a probe of Trump without the required legal justification that the law imposes.
Another provision of law is intended to safeguard American citizens, including political candidates for public office, from overzealous FBI agents:
These Guidelines do not authorize investigating or collecting or maintaining information on United States persons solely for the purpose of monitoring activities protected by the First Amendment or the lawful exercise of other rights secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States.22
The Russia Hoax Page 9
