logo
JONATHAN TURLEY: Democrats pulled the greatest political con job ever on Americans. It's finally unraveling

JONATHAN TURLEY: Democrats pulled the greatest political con job ever on Americans. It's finally unraveling

Fox News31-07-2025
This week, Washington was rocked by new releases in the declassification of material related to the origins of the Russian investigation. The material shows further evidence of a secret plan by the Clinton campaign to use the FBI and media to spread a false claim that Donald Trump was a Russian asset. With this material, the public is finally seeing how officials and reporters set into motion what may be the greatest hoax ever perpetrated in American politics.
There never was a Russian collusion conspiracy. This is the emerging story of the real Russian conspiracy to manufacture a false narrative that succeeded in devouring much of the first term of the Trump administration.
What is emerging in these documents is a political illusion carefully constructed by government officials and a willing media. The brilliance of the trick was getting reporters to buy into the illusion; to own it like members of an audience called to the stage by an illusionist.
The effort closely followed the three steps of the classic magic trick: The Pledge, The Turn, and The Prestige.
The trick began with the pledge, the stage where the public is set up by showing ordinary events with the suggestion that it is about to transform into something extraordinary. The key is to make something seem real that is actually not.
The Clinton campaign delivered the pledge by secretly funding the Steele dossier, using Fusion GPS and a former British spy named Christopher Steele, to create a salacious account of Trump being an agent of Russia.
It was Elias who was the general counsel to the Clinton presidential campaign when it funded the infamous Steele dossier and pushed the false Alfa Bank conspiracy. (His fellow Perkins Coie partner, Michael Sussmann, was indicted but acquitted in a criminal trial.)
During the campaign, a few reporters asked about the possible connection to the campaign, but Clinton campaign officials denied any involvement in the Steele Dossier. After the election, journalists discovered that the payments for the Steele dossier were hidden as "legal fees" among the $5.6 million paid to Perkins Coie under Elias.
When New York Times reporter Ken Vogel tried to report the story, he said, Elias "pushed back vigorously, saying 'You (or your sources) are wrong.'" Times reporter Maggie Haberman declared, "Folks involved in funding this lied about it, and with sanctimony, for a year."
Later, John Podesta, Clinton's campaign chairman, appeared before Congress for questioning on the Steele dossier. Podesta emphatically denied any contractual agreement with Fusion GPS. Sitting beside him was Elias, who reportedly said nothing to correct the misleading information given to Congress.
The FEC ultimately sanctioned the Clinton campaign and the Democratic National Committee over the handling of the funding of the dossier through his prior firm.
The next step is the turn when the ordinary becomes something extraordinary. This required the involvement of the government. The Clinton team worked behind the scenes to feed the dossier to the FBI. It would be the criminal investigation that would transform the ordinary accounts, like Carter Page speaking in Moscow, into an elaborate Russian plot. Even though the FBI was warned early on that Page was a CIA asset, not a Russian asset, the Clinton team found eager officials in the Obama administration to assist in the illusion.
The newly disclosed evidence shows how the turn was made. In July 2016, Brennan briefed former President Obama on Hillary Clinton's "plan" to tie then-candidate Trump to Russia as "a means of distracting the public from her use of a private email server." The original Russia investigation — funded by Clinton's campaign — was launched days after this briefing.
Months later, it would be Brennan who overruled his own CIA analysts in his ordering of a second last-minute assessment at the end of the Obama administration in support of the Russian allegations. It would help make the turn with the all-consuming Russian investigation that would follow.
Career analysts were not buying the turn. They objected that the reliance on the Steele dossier "ran counter to fundamental tradecraft principles and ultimately undermined the credibility of a key judgment." One CIA analyst told investigators that "[Brennan] refused to remove it, and when confronted with the dossier's main flaws, [Brennan] responded, 'Yes, but doesn't it ring true?'"
That is the key to the turn; it needs only to be enough to fool the audience.
The final stage is called the Prestige, where the magician faces the toughest part of the trick. As explained in the 2006 movie "The Prestige," the viewer is "looking for the secret... but you won't find it, because, of course, you're not really looking. You don't really want to know. You want to be fooled." However, "making something disappear isn't enough; you have to bring it back."
The difference is that this trick was designed to derail Trump and it worked. In the end, however, the Special Counsel and Inspector General both rejected the Russian collusion claims. The public then reelected Trump. Now, the prestige may be revealed by the CIA.
Reports indicate that the CIA is about to declassify material showing that foreign sources were also in on the trick. The information reportedly indicates that foreign sources were aware of the move to create a Russian collusion scandal and expected that the FBI would play a role in the plan. That was before the bureau launched its controversial Crossfire Hurricane probe. One source said the foreign intelligence predicted the move "with alarming specificity."
The most recently declassified material shows that the Russian actors in 2016 hacked emails from the Open Society Foundations, formerly known as the Soros Foundation. The emails show an even wider circle of activists and allies who were aware of the Clinton conspiracy.
Leonard Bernardo, who was the regional director for Eurasia at the Open Society Foundations, explained that "during the first stage of the campaign, due to lack of direct evidence, it was decided to disseminate the necessary information through the FBI-affiliated…from where the information would then be disseminated through leading U.S. publications."
Bernardo added, "Julie (Clinton Campaign Advisor) says it will be a long-term affair to demonize Putin and Trump. Now it is good for a post-convention bounce. Later, the FBI will put more oil into the fire."
The media (including the Washington Post and New York Times, which won Pulitzer prizes for reporting on the debunked claims) are apoplectic in dismissing these disclosures. The last thing they will do is report on how they helped sell a political hoax. The problem is that they never said it was a trick. They said it was the truth. That is why CIA Director John Ratcliff's big reveals have this town on the edge of its seat.
It appears that everyone was in on the trick: the U.S. government, the media, even foreign governments. The only chumps were the American people. Now they are about to see how it was done.
Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

What's Next For The IRS After Commissioner Billy Long's Departure
What's Next For The IRS After Commissioner Billy Long's Departure

Forbes

time25 minutes ago

  • Forbes

What's Next For The IRS After Commissioner Billy Long's Departure

IRS Commissioner Billy Long has been removed from office less than two months after Congress approved his appointment to the position. With the interim appointment of Scott Bessent, the IRS Commissioner has now seen seven different leaders in 2025. This constant turnover highlights the persistent turmoil that the agency has experienced over the past several years. This article summarizes the turmoil and sheds light on what we can expect from the IRS in the years to come. The Underfunding Of the IRS According to the Congressional Budget Office, the IRS's funding has steadily declined over recent times. In their 2020 report, the CBO highlights that both the funding provided to the IRS and the number of employees employed by the IRS peaked in 2010. For the most part, the IRS's budget had remained steady over this time, with time value of money considerations resulting in budget declines when measured in real dollars. The CBO specifically estimates a 29% decline in real resources for the IRS over these 10 years. President Biden's Inflation Reduction Act of 2022 sought to rectify this shortfall. This legislation allocated $79.4 billion to the IRS to enhance enforcement, operations support, business systems modernization, and taxpayer services, according to the Tax Policy Center. This increased funding had a counterintuitive effect on the deficit as the CBO estimated it would have yielded $186 billion in additional revenues over the next 10 years. Put differently, most spending increases contribute to an increase in the deficit. However, because the gap between what taxpayers should pay and what they actually pay is large enough, the CBO estimated that the increase in funding to the IRS would pay for itself several times over, as taxpayers would pay their fair share. However, many aspects of this funding have since been rescinded through the Fiscal Responsibility Act of 2023 ($1.4 billion) and the Further Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2024 ($20.2 billion). To date, only a small portion of the originally allocated $79.4 billion has been spent, according to the U.S. Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration, which suggests that the IRS spent a mere $13.8 billion as of March 31, 2025. Former Commissioner Billy Long And His Stance On Funding The IRS While Trump selected Long as his nominee to be IRS Commissioner back in 2024, it was not until June 16 that the Senate approved him. During this time, numerous acting IRS Commissioners filled in and took on the role. However, that did not stop people from learning more about this potential nominee and his potential impact on the IRS. For instance, following Trump's nomination of Long, an extended microscope was placed on Long's track record regarding taxes and his vocalized support (or lack thereof) for the IRS. For instance, ProPublica cited his tax experience as exceptionally limited, pointing out that his only qualification centers around being a Certified Tax & Business Advisor, which ProPublica denounces as a dubious and frivolous designation. Other investigations have highlighted Long's track record of attempting to abolish the IRS during his time as a Representative for the state of Missouri, according to Forbes. Notably, this was not a one-time occurrence as Long co-sponsored bills to repeal the income taxes and abolish the IRS in 2011, 2013, 2015, and 2017. For these reasons, Long's confirmation was among the most contentious of Trump's second term, as he was only confirmed along party lines by a vote of 53-44. However, the controversy did not stop there. According to Forbes, in his short term, which lasted a mere 53 days, he vocalized support for starting the tax filing season much later than usual, which immediately raised alarms and led the National Association of Enrolled Agents to issue a statement suggesting that this stance was unlikely to come to fruition. Whether it be his unusual stances going into the position or while serving as IRS commissioner, Long was not long for the role. The Future Of The IRS After Commissioner Long's Firing Following Long's departure, Scott Bessent will now fill in as Acting IRS Commissioner. Bessent currently serves as the U.S. Secretary of the Treasury, meaning that he is unlikely to be permanently in this role. In turn, Trump will seek an IRS Commissioner to serve in a more permanent capacity, and this person will likely be the eighth leader of the IRS in 2025 alone. Given this expected upcoming change, the IRS appears to be at a crossroads. On the one hand, the IRS continues to receive and spend funds as part of the Inflation Reduction Act. In fact, even after the rescinded funds, a total of $57.8 billion is allocated to the agency, with $44 billion remaining. According to the Tax Policy Center, the IRS plans to spend these funds with the hope of modernizing its systems to enforce tax laws. On the other hand, Trump appears to continuously question the integrity and usefulness of the IRS by threatening to dismantle the agency, according to the New York Post, or by proposing and enacting substantial layoffs and exodus of IRS employees and agents, according to Forbes. The Wall Street Journal has even reported that Trump views the IRS as a political agency that has been weaponized to attack opponents. Should these viewpoints persist, it is possible that the GOP will continue to disorient the agency through various channels. For instance, Congress may pass more bills rescinding additional pieces of the $79.4 billion in funding provided under the Inflation Reduction Act. Conversely, Trump may continue to appoint underqualified individuals to serve as IRS Commissioner, which can be particularly impactful if these individuals share his views on defunding the IRS. Lastly, Trump's regime can continue to incentivize and drive away IRS agents and personnel from working for the agency. This diminished workforce would ultimately result in it being less effective in enforcing tax laws, thereby undermining the IRS's importance. Regardless of which path persists, the IRS's future is more dismal under the current administration, and the removal of Commissioner Long from his role is another chapter in what appears to be an exercise of control over the agency.

3 reasons Republicans' redistricting power grab might backfire
3 reasons Republicans' redistricting power grab might backfire

UPI

time25 minutes ago

  • UPI

3 reasons Republicans' redistricting power grab might backfire

Texas state Democratic representatives, shown at a rally in Washington, previously left the state in 2021 to try to prevent the state's Republicans from reaching a quorum and passing new voting restrictions legislation. File Photo by Michael Reynolds/EPA The gerrymandering drama in Texas -- and beyond -- has continued to unfold after Democratic state legislators fled the state. The Democrats want to prevent the Republican-controlled government from enacting a mid-decade gerrymander aimed at giving Republicans several more seats in Congress. The Texas GOP move was pushed by President Donald Trump, who's aiming to ensure he has a GOP-controlled Congress to work with after the 2026 midterm elections. Other Republican states such as Missouri and Ohio may also follow the Texas playbook; and Democratic states such as California and Illinois seem open to responding in kind. But there are a few factors that make this process more complicated than just grabbing a few House seats. They may even make Republicans regret their hardball gerrymandering tactics, if the party ends up with districts that political scientists like me call "dummymandered." Democrats can finally fight back Unlike at the federal level, where Democrats are almost completely shut out of power, Republicans are already facing potentially consequential retaliation for their gerrymandering attempts from Democratic leaders in other states. Democrats in California, led by Gov. Gavin Newsom, are pushing for a special election later this year, in which the voters could vote on new congressional maps in that state, aiming to balance out Democrats' losses in Texas. If successful, these changes would take effect prior to next year's midterm elections. Other large Democratic-controlled states, such as Illinois and New York -- led by Gov. J.B. Pritzker and Gov. Kathy Hochul, respectively -- have also indicated openness to enacting their own new gerrymanders to pick up seats on the Democratic side. New York and California both currently use nonpartisan redistricting commissions to draw their boundaries. But Hochul recently said she is "sick and tired of being pushed around" while other states refuse to adopt redistricting reforms and gerrymander to their full advantage. Hochul said she'd even be open to amending the state constitution to eliminate the nonpartisan redistricting commission. It's unclear whether these blue states will be successful in their efforts to fight fire with fire; but in the meantime, governors like Hochul and Pritzker have welcomed the protesting Democratic legislators from Texas, in many cases arranging for their housing during their self-imposed exile. Dummymandering Another possible problem for either party looking to gain some seats in this process stems from greediness. In responding to Democrats' continued absence from Texas, Gov. Greg Abbott threatened even more drastic gerrymanders. "If they don't start showing up, I may start expanding," Abbott said. "We may make it six or seven or eight new seats we're going to be adding on the Republican side." But Abbott might think twice about this strategy. Parties that gerrymander their states' districts are drawing lines to maximize their own advantage, either in state legislatures or, in this case, congressional delegations. When parties gerrymander districts, they don't usually try to make them all as lopsided as possible for their own side. Instead, they try to make as many districts as possible that they are likely to win. They do this by spreading groups of supportive voters across several districts so they can help the party win more of these districts. But sometimes the effort backfires: In trying to maximize their seats, a party spreads its voters too thin and fails to make some districts safe enough. These vulnerable districts can then flip to the other party in future elections, and the opposing party ends up winning more seats than expected. This phenomenon, commonly referred to as "dummymandering," has happened before. It even happened in Texas, where Republicans lost a large handful of poorly drawn state legislative districts in the Dallas suburbs in 2018, a strong year for Democrats nationwide. With Democrats poised for a strong 2026 midterm election against an unpopular president, this is a lesson Republicans might need to pay attention to. There's not much left to gerrymander One of the main reasons dummymandering happens is that there has been so much gerrymandering that there are few remaining districts competitive enough for a controlling party to pick off for themselves. This important development has unfolded for two big reasons. First, in terms of gerrymandering, the low-hanging fruit is already picked over. States controlled by either Democrats or Republicans have already undertaken pretty egregious gerrymanders during previous regular redistricting processes, particularly following the 2010 and 2020 censuses. Republicans have generally been more adept at the process, particularly in maximizing their seat shares in relatively competitive states such as Wisconsin and North Carolina that they happen to control. But Democrats have also been successful in states such as Maryland, where only one Republican serves out of nine seats, despite the party winning 35% of the presidential vote in 2024. In Massachusetts, where Democrats hold all eight seats, Republicans won 37% of the presidential vote in 2024. There's also the fact that over the past half-century, "gerrymanderable" territory has become more difficult to find regardless of how you draw the boundaries. That's because the voting electorate is more geographically sorted between the parties. This means that Democratic and Republican voters are segregated from each other geographically, with Democrats tending toward big cities and suburbs, and Republicans occupying rural areas. As a result, it's become less geographically possible than ever to draw reasonable-looking districts that split up the other party's voters in order to diminish the opponents' ability to elect one of their own. Regardless of how far either party is willing to go, today's clash over Texas redistricting represents largely uncharted territory. Mid-decade redistricting does sometimes happen, either at the hands of legislatures or the courts, but not usually in such a brazen fashion. And this time, the Texas attempt could spark chaos and a race to the bottom, where every state picks up the challenge and tries to rewrite their electoral maps - not in the usual once-a-decade manner, but whenever they're unsatisfied with the odds in the next election. Charlie Hunt is an associate professor of political science at Boise State University. This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article. The views and opinions in this commentary are solely those of the author.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store