MIKE DAVIS: A tale of two Russiagate heroes
We're only now finding out just how panicked the Democrats really were over the prospect of a Trump White House, but two men have for years been leading the charge to expose the dirtiest political trick in American history. And thankfully, they're still on the case.
Throughout the 2016 campaign, Democrats sought to tie President Trump to President Vladimir Putin of Russia, claiming that Russia wanted Trump to prevail. Democrats also accused President Trump of having colluded with Russia concerning the hacking of Clinton's e-mails that the site WikiLeaks published. These sore losers continued to peddle this nonsense throughout the first Trump presidency, leading to the appointment of Special Counsel Robert Mueller and the devastation of the lives of many Trump officials. Above all others, two people have long spoken out against and exposed this narrative: FBI Director Kash Patel and Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa.
It was perhaps Patel's early work as a public defender that aroused his skepticism of the government's claims about President Trump and his allies, such as Carter Page, a campaign aide. While working as an aide for House Intelligence Select Committee Chairman Devin Nunes, Patel drafted a memorandum pertaining to the origins of the so-called Steele Dossier. This document was authored by Christopher Steele, a deranged former British spy who was virulently anti-Trump. The document peddled the ludicrous theory that Trump colluded with Russia as part of longtime ties to the country and was filled with outlandish and absurd claims.
Steele's conspiracy fantasies led to the destruction of many lives, including Page's. These former Trump officials were accused of, among other things, being traitors by aiding Trump in his conspiracy with Russia. In reality, Steele was paid by the Hillary Clinton presidential campaign through its law firm, Perkins Coie, to cook up this conspiracy. The payments to Steele appeared on Clinton's campaign filings as legal fees; in other words, she misled the Federal Election Commission (FEC) about their true purpose. More importantly, intelligence agencies, including the FBI, misled the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) Court in obtaining warrants against Page and other Trump officials. The judges were not aware of Steele's Trump hatred, nor did they know of the Clinton campaign's involvement. Patel's memo laid bare much of this scandal, and he was the target of scorn upon releasing it. Even though Steele was the conspiratorial lunatic, Patel received that moniker from congressional Democrats and the leftist media, who were all too willing to peddle the Russia hoax.
As a result, significantly due to Patel's memo, Attorney General William Barr appointed John Durham to serve as a special counsel to investigate the origins of the Steele Dossier. Durham's report corroborated Patel, but the four years of President Joe Biden's administration produced little action. For example, Kevin Clinesmith, then an FBI lawyer, falsified an e-mail to attempt to beef up a warrant application against Page; the disgraced attorney later pleaded guilty to a felony in the matter and shamefully only received probation for his actions. In testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee, several officials—including former FBI Director James Comey—conceded that they would not have sought FISA warrants if they knew the information unearthed by Director Patel.
Patel has continued his investigation since assuming control of the FBI. Last month, he revealed that burn bags containing many documents related to the Russia hoax were discovered at the FBI's headquarters.
Grassley has stood alongside Patel as an ardent - but, for a long time - lonely voice against the Russia hoax. Last week, following the ordered declassification by Attorney General Pam Bondi and CIA Director John Ratcliffe, Grassley released the so-called Durham Annex, the previously classified version of his report. According to this document, the Clinton campaign was planning the Trump/Russia allegations since as early as February 2016. The New York Times published a piece last week claiming that these e-mails from Clinton campaign officials and George Soros's foundation were not legitimate but were instead Russian disinformation. No American intelligence agency, however, has made such an assertion; indeed, the CIA expressed no reason to doubt the authenticity of the e-mails contained in Grassley's release.
Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard also recently released a trove of documents that illustrate former President Obama's involvement in this scandal. Career intelligence officials rejected the notion that Russia desired a Trump victory; yet, Obama and then-CIA Director John Brennan conspired to cook up a fresh intelligence assessment making precisely that claim. The newly released documents also made clear that there was no evidence of collusion between Trump and Russia, and the FBI came to the same conclusion by 2017. Still, Mueller conducted a two-year reign of terror that destroyed the lives of many Trump officials. There must be accountability for this abomination. The Clinton campaign received a fine from the FEC, but that sanction does not begin to do justice to those devastated by this conspiracy, most importantly the American people. Democrats' refusal to accept the 2016 election results divided our country over three presidential elections, and severe legal, political and financial consequences must result.
This conspiracy continued all the way through the 2024 election. So-deemed "Special Counsel" Jack Smith and two corrupt prosecutors—District Attorneys Alvin Bragg in Manhattan and Fani Willis in Fulton County, Ga.,—attempted to put President Trump in prison for the rest of his life. Part of this conspiracy included a raid on Trump's home and private club, known as Mar-a-Lago, in the Southern District of Florida. This location, known as a venue, is crucial. Strong evidence suggests that the Biden administration perpetrated the raid to get back documents that President Trump ordered declassified and that are now being exposed under this administration. These documents deal with the conspiracy, known as Crossfire Hurricane, to take out President Trump in 2016. Unscrupulous Democrats at the federal and state level then concocted absurd charges—91 counts in all—against Trump. This lawfare campaign had the goal of depleting his resources and preventing him from winning the 2024 election. The conspirators failed, and justice is coming.
The truth that has come out and is still emerging – as many more documents await declassification and release – has occurred only because of the dogged determination of heroes like Patel and Grassley. Critics scoffed at these patriots, labeling them as unhinged and even enablers of the Trump/Russia conspiracy. The Russian Collusion era was reminiscent of McCarthyism; that is, if anyone dared question the government officials involved in the persecution, these skeptics were then branded as Putin collaborators. In reality, Patel and Grassley made enormous sacrifices, jeopardizing their reputations to expose the horrible truth for America's benefit.
Finally, the light of truth is shining through, and Democrats and their media allies cannot extinguish it. Numerous government officials engaged in a grotesque conspiracy to violate President Trump's civil rights. Because of the actions of the conspirators in Florida, they and their co-conspirators cannot escape accountability with the help of virulently anti-Trump juries in the District of Columbia. The brilliant Jason Reding Quiñones is now the United States Attorney for the Southern District of Florida, and he will leave no stone unturned to hold the guilty accountable. When these perpetrators finally receive the justice they so richly deserve, Patel and Grassley should receive the types of awards that unjustly went to so-called journalists who peddled the hoax that devastated the nation.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
9 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Pritzker, Klobuchar, Gallego flock to NH: Are they considering a run for president 2028?
Sen. Ruben Gallego, D-Arizona, is set to visit New Hampshire Aug. 22, becoming the latest high-profile politician to fuel 2028 presidential race speculation by making a stop in the Granite State. "I'll be on the ground in New Hampshire... taking on the GOP's billionaire agenda and standing up for working families," Gallego, who was elected to the Senate last fall, said in a July 29 post on X. He follows Illinois Gov. JB Pritzker, who in April caught attention for delivering a searing speech in New Hampshire aimed at 'do-nothing' Democrats, and Sen. Amy Klobuchar, D-Minn., who in July campaigned for U.S. Senate candidate Chris Pappas. (Rep. Nancy Mace, R-S.C., also visited New Hampshire in July, but then announced her run for South Carolina governor.) They join about a dozen Democratic politicians who have already begun to make moves seemingly towards a 2028 run. Former U.S. Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg spoke about existential questions facing Democrats and the country at a veterans-focused forum in Iowa in May, and California Gov. Gavin Newsom, Kentucky Gov Andy Beshear, and Rep. Ro Khanna, D-Calif., have all trekked through South Carolina. Gallego's New Hampshire visit comes after he toured the Iowa State Fairgrounds on Aug. 8. He has also already visited states like Pennsylvania and Alaska. Gallego and other hopefuls are still being cagey about their intentions. (Gallego said it was "too early" to talk about 2028 in Iowa.) But they are 'testing the waters,' said Andy Smith, the Director of the University of New Hampshire Survey Center. 'And that doesn't mean the Atlantic,' said Smith. 'They're kind of brushing up their reasons to why they should be president, or should consider a run for president, and then trying those arguments out against people here in the state to go out and win an election.' Smith said that candidates often start visiting New Hampshire up to six years before the election year they're aiming for. Rather than trying to win votes, however, Smith said that the politicians are coming to the state to win the support of the people in the state that run campaigns. In New Hampshire, that would be people like Ray Buckley, the Chair of the New Hampshire Democratic Party. 'They're more likely not to try to make their events open to the public widely, because, frankly, they're not pros at this yet,' Smith said. 'This is also a chance for candidates to come up here and try out their message with some small groups of voters and work on the stuff to make it better.' According to WMUR, Gallego is expected to make a Politics & Eggs address to the New England Council, join a town hall with U.S. Rep. Maggie Goodlander and stop at a fundraiser for U.S. Rep. Chris Pappas, who is running for U.S. Senate. New Hampshire should expect to see many more candidates in the months to come, Smith said. An open primary in 2028, on both sides The shadow campaign is leading up to a race that some political observers believe will be among the Democratic party's most consequential presidential primaries in decades. It comes at a time when the 'party's brand is in the toilet,' Matthew Dallek, a historian and professor of political management at George Washington University, told USA TODAY. The party is facing abysmal approval ratings, and the only way to improve it, said Dallek, is through the next presidential nominee. "The stakes, in that sense, are higher,' Dallek said. 'It's not just the presidency. It's not just the nomination. There's a sense among Democrats that they need to do this, and there's a big debate." With no real front runner on either side, Smith expects many Democratic and Republican candidates to join the fray. It will be a far cry from the 2024 race, when former President Joe Biden, former Vice President Kamala Harris and President Donald Trump froze out most Democratic and Republican candidates. While some have said that Vice President JD Vance appears to be the heir apparent to Trump on the Republican side, Smith cautions that line of thinking. He pointed to Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis, who was doing well in the 2024 polls early on but whose message didn't resonate with New Hampshire voters. 'You got to try yourself out on the road and see what voters actually think of you too, and also what the politicos, the people that have run campaigns, tell you whether or not you got a chance or not,' Smith said. 'Pretty evident when somebody comes up and tries to run campaign that may work for them in a different state or in a different environment, they come up to New Hampshire and try to use the same language that just crashes and burns.' Will NH be first in the nation again? Smith thinks it's likely that New Hampshire's first-in-the-nation primary status will be returned to the state in 2028. In 2024, the Democratic National Committee announced that South Carolina would be the first state to vote instead of New Hampshire to have a more diverse state lead the way. However, New Hampshire refused to break tradition and held an unsanctioned primary (before South Carolina's primary) where President Joe Biden's name was absent from the ballot. But through a write-in effort led by Democrats in the state, Biden won anyways, garnering almost 64% of the vote. Smith said that Biden dropping out of the race later in the year gives New Hampshire Democrats a case to argue that if Biden had run in a real primary in New Hampshire like usual, there may have been a different outcome. Contributing: Phillip M. Bailey This article originally appeared on Portsmouth Herald: Presidential hopefuls flock to NH: Are they eyeing a 2028 run?
Washington Post
10 minutes ago
- Washington Post
Europe pushes hard to sway Trump before Alaska summit with Putin on Ukraine
BRUSSELS — European leaders are seeking to impress upon President Donald Trump one key point before he meets with Russian President Vladimir Putin in Alaska on Friday: The West cannot — must not — negotiate away Ukrainian territory, especially for nothing in return. As Trump floats 'land swaps,' Kyiv's European backers have rejected a Russian proposal to trade Ukrainian land for an undefined truce. And they have issued declarations that 'international borders must not be changed by force.' European leaders are set to press their priorities in a call with Trump on Wednesday, organized by Germany Chancellor Friedrich Merz, which will include Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky. The call is intended to shape Trump's thinking before he sits down with Putin one-on-one in Alaska. The Europeans are insisting that Moscow agree to a ceasefire before negotiations over territory, and that Kyiv needs security guarantees. And, if such negotiations occur, a European counteroffer has pushed the idea that any retreat of Ukrainian forces from Ukrainian-controlled territory should be matched on an inch-for-inch basis by Russia's withdrawal from occupied Ukrainian territory, according to three people briefed on the discussions. European and NATO allies have often failed to sway Trump's thinking, or even to be heard by the U.S. president ahead of big policy decisions, such as to bomb Iranian nuclear facilities. And they are frequently dismayed by Trump's policy moves, for example, his unilateral imposition of tariffs. The Europeans recognize that they can only do so much to influence a president who often veers off-script and likes nothing more than to declare a deal. But on Ukraine recently they have met with some success, for example, by persuading Trump to allow them to transfer U.S. weapons to Ukraine and purchase replacements for themselves. And in recent days, especially after a meeting with Vice President JD Vance in Britain over the weekend, they have found the U.S. administration receptive to some of their red lines. After that meeting, Vance, in a television interview, endorsed at least one European position — that the current line of contact and positioning of Ukrainian and Russian troops should be the starting point of any talks — rejecting a Russian demand that Ukraine first surrender its entire eastern Donbas area. Ahead of Wednesday's call some Europeans expressed guarded optimism, especially with Trump seeming to lower expectations of securing a deal in Alaska. There appears to be 'more of an understanding from the Americans that you can't just go for land swaps which would somehow give a prize to Russia,' said one European Union official, who like others in this article spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss sensitive diplomacy. Still, the official added, 'it's clear that there are sort of discrepancies, and as we've seen it in the U.S. system by now, you have one man who will decide.' But even with Trump making a more concerted effort to consult allies and keep them updated, there has been confusion over whether Putin is even willing to swap territory, officials said. The administration understood that a partial Russian retreat might be possible after U.S. envoy Steve Witkoff returned from meeting with Putin in Moscow last week. However, the Russian offer apparently calls for a Ukrainian surrender of territory that Russian forces don't even control as a precondition for a ceasefire, the people briefed on the talks said. As that mix-up has come untangled, the administration has lowered expectations for the high-stakes Trump-Putin summit, officials said. Wednesday's call with Trump caps a flurry of meetings and statements organized by the Europeans since the Alaska summit was announced, all of which have provided a strong endorsement of Kyiv's position. Wednesday's virtual summit hosted by Germany will include the leaders of France, Britain, Italy, Poland, Finland, the E.U. and NATO. The Europeans will meet first with Zelensky before Trump and Vance are expected to join the call. Trump has also promised to call Zelensky and European leaders right after talking with Putin, to relay whether 'a fair deal' is on the table. 'It's not up to me to make a deal,' he told reporters Monday — seemingly echoing a European refrain that a truce cannot be sealed without them or Ukraine. 'I have many fears and a lot of hope,' Polish Prime Minister Donald Tusk said this week. Tusk said recent comments indicate Trump is increasingly understanding of Ukrainian and European views on the war, but that he was not so sure that would hold. 'I guess everyone's afraid Putin will play Trump's ego again like he has in the past,' said a second European official. 'Who knows, maybe he comes there with another noble-sounding offer or maybe they give [Trump] some state award.' Trump has repeatedly balked after threatening to pressure Russia into a ceasefire. As recently as last week, the president's mounting frustrations with Russia stalling on a ceasefire, and his threats of fresh U.S. sanctions, gave way to his invitation to Putin to meet on U.S. soil. While there has been speculation that Trump may yet try to involve Zelensky in the Alaska talks, European leaders are definitely not invited — giving them little sway over the diplomatic spectacle, even as they have become Ukraine's chief military and financial backer. Most proposals for a truce also envision a role for European nations in enforcing any deal that could reshape the continent's future security. In the scramble to sway Trump, European officials have also stressed that any deal must give Ukraine a bulwark against future attacks, especially because Putin is insisting that Ukraine be barred from joining NATO. NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte has suggested a deal could involve acknowledging de facto Russian control of some of Ukraine's regions, without Kyiv officially ceding them. If Trump's meeting with Putin advances to 'full-scale negotiations,' Rutte said Sunday, territory would 'have to be on the table,' as would security guarantees for Ukraine. Rutte said talks should recognize 'that Ukraine decides on its own future,' with 'no limitations' on its military or on NATO's posture in Eastern Europe. Freezing the current front lines would leave about one-fifth of Ukraine's territory in Russian hands. Ukraine, meanwhile, has little leverage for a land swap, holding a small toehold in Russia's western Kursk region since a faltering offensive last year. 'Europeans can say what they want, but in the end, Ukraine and Russia will have to agree,' said a third European official. 'It's unlikely there's a peace deal now where Putin says, okay, I'm going to withdraw from all of Ukraine.' The chief diplomat for the 27-nation European Union, Kaja Kallas, told the bloc's foreign ministers in recent days that the initial contours of a deal between Washington and Moscow seemed to 'focus on territory only' and that 'the Ukrainians are very worried,' according to a copy of a written note seen by The Washington Post. Kallas warned against a 'fragile ceasefire' that would solidify Russia's gains in more than three years of war. On Monday, Kallas held a four-hour virtual meeting of E.U. foreign ministers to deliberate on Ukraine ahead of the Trump-Putin meeting and on Israel's war in Gaza. The E.U. official said they didn't see 'willingness' from Kyiv or many of its staunch European allies for trading territory within Ukraine, citing distrust with Russia, which is pressing its advances in the east and attacks on Ukrainian cities. 'We have to understand the Ukrainian position, they have a million men who've been fighting for years now, so it's also something that President Zelensky wouldn't be able to have domestically accepted,' the official said. Though polls show war-weary Ukrainians increasingly favor a settlement to end the fighting, it would be tough to sell ceding territory — home to hundreds of thousands of Ukrainians and where forces built up defensive lines over years — for a ceasefire that can't be guaranteed. But even as Europe insists that Ukraine must receive security guarantees, its own ideas of what those guarantees would look like remain fuzzy. Ukraine's chief backers say guarantees should start with pledges of more weapons and training for its army, and that they will reject any Russian demand to limit Ukraine's military. Kyiv's top aspiration — NATO membership — seems far-fetched without U.S. buy-in, and a plan for European troops in Ukraine remains on a back burner. Carl Bildt, a former prime minister of Sweden, said European governments can shape the talks as Ukraine's chief suppliers of arms and cash. 'That blocks the possibility for Trump to make any concessions to Putin on what I think is among the most important of his demands,' to halt the flow of Western weapons to Ukraine, Bildt said. European leaders also still control billions in Russian frozen assets that will factor into negotiations, as well as the battery of sanctions that Russia wants lifted. Camille Grand, a former NATO and French defense official, said there was a disconnect between Europe's financial and political investment in the Ukraine war and its role in the upcoming talks. 'The Europeans today provide the bulk of humanitarian, economic and military aid, and have now accepted to pay for American weapons,' Grand told French public radio, 'while in the negotiations, they can at best hope to influence the American position or to support Ukraine.' Catherine Belton in London contributed to this report.
Axios
11 minutes ago
- Axios
How Trump is making pot a MAGA issue
President Trump is opening the door to reclassifying marijuana, potentially allowing the GOP to claim another health issue that's long been associated with Democrats. Why it matters: The administration has already flipped the political script when it comes to banning food dyes, calling for an end to animal lab testing and embracing psychedelics for mental health. Rescheduling marijuana could be a big step toward establishing an interstate cannabis trade — and turning a policy long sought by congressional Democrats and promoted by the Biden administration into reality. Driving the news: Trump brought up the subject during a recent event with donors at his Bedminster, New Jersey, country club after marijuana companies contributed millions of dollars to his political organizations, the Wall Street Journal first reported. While falling short of legalization, designating pot to have medical value and less dangerous than its Schedule I designation would be a major jolt to cannabis companies that run on thin margins, per Axios' Dan Primack. It would allow them to deduct business expenses on their taxes and also reduce restrictions on cannabis research. The industry has mounted"a very powerful PR effort," Kevin Sabet, founder of Smart Approaches to Marijuana who served in the White House Office of Drug Control Policy under three administrations, told Axios. "They've spent hundreds of millions of dollars in total to influence the president from Florida onward, whether it's inauguration, whether it's million-dollar-plate fundraisers in New Jersey. They are going all out because they want this tax break." Catch up quick: Polling from the Pew Research Center and others have shown increasing support for marijuana legalization across the political spectrum, with 88% favoring medical or recreational use. "Cannabis has become a less partisan [issue] over time, and this has been accelerated by the proliferation of intoxicating hemp products," Beau Kilmer, co-director of the RAND Drug Policy Research Center, told Axios. "Heck, I was just in Indiana where someone could buy THC drinks in grocery stores and bars — I don't even see that here in California." While much of Trump's orbit has been more circumspect about making such a change, Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. is a notable exception, Sabet said. Kennedy supported legalization of marijuana during his presidential campaign and said it could open up more research into risks and benefits, although he has also warned about potential "catastrophic impacts" on users. There's still a big difference between rescheduling a drug and federal legalization, which demonstrates the political winds of change are moving slowly. Multiple state ballot initiatives seeking to legalize recreational pot have failed over the last several years. Trump, like Biden, is a teetotaler, and neither has expressed great enthusiasm for legalization over the years, said Jonathan Caulkins, a professor at Carnegie Mellon University. "The way to think about it is some people wanted Biden to legalize. Biden didn't want to do that, so he said, 'Well, I'll suggest rescheduling, which will make some people think that we've made a big change, but it isn't really,'" Caulkins said. Friction point: The rescheduling of marijuana means the government would be officially recognizing its medicinal uses. That's difficult when the quality and consistency of the botanical version of the drug isn't like more conventional pharmaceuticals, Caulkins said. The move also would transfer cannabis to the purview of the Food and Drug Administration, which could create headaches for the agency. The FDA would be "between a rock and a hard place," Caulkins said. "They either have to ignore their own rules and regulations and say, we're just going to let the cannabis happen without the usual standards for medicine, or we're going to bite the bullet and crack down on a multibillion-dollar industry that's been operating for years now." The big picture: A rescheduling would be further evidence of the MAGA world's ability to take the reins on issues once associated with the progressive movement. "For the left, it's been much more about sort of social justice and righting the wrongs of the drug war," Sabet said. On the other hand: "You have part of the MAGA wing that has embraced this," he said. "It's about business, it's about money." Yes, but: This is already stirring up some disagreement among Trump's base. "I hope this doesn't happen," Turning Point USA founder and key MAGA influencer Charlie Kirk posted on X. "Everything already smells like weed, which is ridiculous. Let's make it harder to ruin public spaces, not easier." Relaxing marijuana rules also is stirring concern among state GOP lawmakers in states like Ohio, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania. Even administration officials such as FDA commissioner Marty Makary have posted warnings about health risks from cannabis use. Reality check: Trump was vague on the timing of any move when he confirmed the WSJ's reporting on Monday, saying: "We're only looking at that. It's early."
