The Durham report, which revealed this week that the FBI investigation into the 2016 Trump campaign was baseless, has served to further discredit the already scandal-plagued bureau.
Even CNN's Jake Tapper felt compelled to admit on his show Monday that the report is "devastating to the FBI, and to a degree it does exonerate Donald Trump."
While Tapper attempted to pin some blame on former President Donald Trump, the CNN host nevertheless managed to draw the ire of Keith Olbermann, a YouTube personality unswayed by facts and ever committed to the debunked Russian-collusion narrative.
Olbermann demanded on Twitter that Tapper resign for noting the FBI's self-inflicted reputational wounds, which even the FBI has acknowledged in softened language to have been "missteps."
In response to Tapper's suggestion that the report is "devastating to the FBI," Olbermann tweeted, "It isn't. Not even close. No charges, just partisan 'conclusions.' And Tapper of the new non-journalist Chris Licht CNN is propagandizing," adding, "Jake Tapper needs to resign."
\u201cCNN's new scandal:\n\n@jaketapper says the Durham Report is "devastating to the FBI"\n\nIt isn't. Not even close. No charges, just partisan "conclusions." And Tapper of the new non-journalistic Chris Licht CNN is propagandizing\n\nJake Tapper needs to resign\u201d— Keith Olbermann\u2199\ufe0f (@Keith Olbermann\u2199\ufe0f) 1684187251
In a rare show of unity and bipartisanship, Twitter users of various backgrounds and political persuasions blasted Olbermann over his viral tweet, which has over 570,000 views.
Investigative reporter Matt Taibbi wrote, "Keith, @JakeTapper is right. And the report isn't just devastating to the FBI, it's devastating to media figures who ran bogus stories that were either leaked by the Bureau, or laundered through it."
Taibbi then cited various instances where Olbermann previously peddled baseless agitprop on his now-defunct GQ show "The Resistance with Keith Olbermann."
Several of the show's episode titles allude to Olbermann's confident assertions of what have been demonstrated to be falsehoods: "Case Closed. Collusion Has Been Proven"; "A Timeline of Treason"; "Trump Will Not Be Cleared"; "Trump is Aiding the Enemy"; and "Trump is Lying About Russia."
Here is one of Olbermann's false reports from 2017:
Case Closed. Collusion Has Been Proven | The Resistance with Keith Olbermann | GQ youtu.be
In a subsequent tweet, Taibbi asked, "Which parts do you think are incorrect, Keith?"
Liberal journalist Eli Lake, who serves as contributing editor at Commentary, wrote, "This is the first resistance in the history of resistance to align itself with a federal police force," referencing Olbermann's former show "The Resistance," whereon he advanced falsehoods discredited in the Durham report and elsewhere.
Lake added, "To call Keith a buffoon is an insult to buffoonery."
One Twitter user wrote to Olbermann, "Your tears of denial are delicious."
Another commentator cut to the bone, writing, "It’s clear… you’re entire identity is tied to your Trump views these last 5 years."
The Durham report, which Olbermann does not consider to be "devastating," stressed that the Department of Justice and the FBI "failed to uphold their mission of strict fidelity to the law" when launching the probe into the Trump campaign.
Durham said the FBI utilized “raw, unanalyzed, and uncorroborated intelligence" to open the investigation into the Trump campaign but did not follow the same standard when approaching alleged election interference in relation to Hillary Clinton's presidential campaign.
Durham also found that the FBI “did not and could not corroborate any of the substantive allegations” made in the infamous Steele dossier of lurid accusations against then-candidate Donald Trump, and "neither U.S. nor the Intelligence Community appears to have possessed any actual evidence of collusion in their holdings at the commencement of the Crossfire Hurricane investigation."
Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!
The Pulitzer Prize board honored New York Times and Washington Post reporters with a cash prize and its once-esteemed award in 2018 for peddling the thoroughly debunked Trump-Russia collusion narrative, which proved politically expedient for the liberal reporters' ideological comrades in Washington at the time.
In light of the damning Durham report, critics now reckon the awards to be albatrosses around the necks of those who dutifully worked to mislead the nation — put there by an organization apparently indifferent to the storm gathered as a consequence.
Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) has joined those now urging that the Pulitzer Prize awarded to the staff at both papers be "taken back."
Graham told Fox News' "America's Newsroom" Tuesday that "we have a situation where the FBI ran every stop sign available, kept pushing a warrant against an American citizen based on a Steele dossier that was a piece of fiction. The information was supplied the FBI by two Russian agents. It was used to get a warrant against an American citizen to turn his life upside down and create a cloud of the Trump presidency and try to deny him the presidency."
With the full understanding provided in the Durham report that the investigation was from the get-go a stitch-up predicated upon a false claim, originally approved and advanced by failed presidential candidate Hillary Clinton, Graham stressed that three things should happen:
First, Attorney General Merrick Garland "should pick up the phone and call all those that were harmed by this and say, 'Even though it didn't happen on my watch, I'll apologize to you. This is not the Department of Justice that I want you to believe in,'" said Graham.
Second, FBI Director Christopher Wray should "get on the phone and apologize to the people that had their lives ruined by the FBI."
Third, "the Pulitzer Prize given to the Washington Post and New York Times should be taken back because the entire episode was politically motivated crap. That's not something you should get a Pulitzer Prize for," added Graham.
Graham doubled down on this third suggestion Wednesday, tweeting, "Awarding the Washington Post and New York Times Pulitzer Prizes for reporting political fiction as fact regarding President Trump shows that these prizes are awarded not based on the product of your work, but the subject you go after. They should rescind the prize."
The awards in question went to the staffs of the New York Times and the Washington Post for what the Pulitzer Prize Board characterized as "deeply sourced, relentlessly reported coverage in the public interest that dramatically furthered the nation’s understanding of Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election and its connections to the Trump campaign, the President-elect’s transition team and his eventual administration."
The Daily Mail reported that the Jeff Bezos-owned Washington Post remains unrepentant.
"The Post stands by its reporting," said Jennifer Lee, a spokeswoman for the paper, citing a 2022 review by the Pulitzer board that claimed no aspect of the awarded stories "were discredited by facts that emerged subsequent to the conferral of the prizes."
This statement appears to indicate that false reports may be deserving of awards, just so long as the truth comes out after the receipt of the prize.
While the Washington Post evidently stands by past false narratives, the New York Times appears keen to downplay newly revealed truths.
In its Monday story on the Durham report, the Times claimed, "Mr. Durham’s 306-page report revealed little substantial new information about the inquiry," suggesting that Durham's hunt "for evidence to support Mr. Barr’s theory that intelligence abuses lurked in the origins of the Russia inquiry" had proven fruitless.
It added, "The special counsel’s final report nevertheless did not produce blockbuster revelations of politically motivated misconduct, as Donald J. Trump and his allies had suggested it would."
TheBlaze reported in 2019 that then-President Trump said the Pulitzer committee should revoke a joint Pulitzer Prize from both newspapers "for their coverage (100% NEGATIVE and FAKE!) of Collusion with Russia."
\u201cSo funny that The New York Times & The Washington Post got a Pulitzer Prize for their coverage (100% NEGATIVE and FAKE!) of Collusion with Russia - And there was No Collusion! So, they were either duped or corrupt? In any event, their prizes should be taken away by the Committee!\u201d— Donald J. Trump (@Donald J. Trump) 1553901917
In response to Trump's suggestion, the New York Times wrote in a March 29, 2019, tweet, "We're proud of our Pulitzer-prize winning reporting on Russian meddling in the 2016 U.S. election. Every @nytimes article cited has proven accurate."
Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) took to Twitter Monday to comment on the Durham report, writing, "Disgraceful. Obama-Biden officials and the corrupt corporate media pushed these piles of lies for years. Accountability now— starting with WaPo and The New York Times returning their Pulitzer Prizes for breathlessly spreading these ‘Russia, Russia, Russia’ lies."
Rep. Byron Donalds (R-Fla.) posed the question, "Ready to give your Pulitzer back now?"
\u201cReady to give your Pulitzer back now?\u201d— Congressman Byron Donalds (@Congressman Byron Donalds) 1684186374
Sean Spicer, who served as press secretary and White House communications director under President Donald Trump, quipped, "How will the Washington Post send back its Pulitzer? USP, FedEx, UPS."
Former Georgia state Rep. Vernon Jones (R) wrote, "For three years the liberal media portrayed the now-infamous Steele dossier — the original basis for the Trump- Russian collusion claims — as true, and the New York Times and Washington Post received Pulitzer Prizes for a story that not only has been debunked but shown to be the product of Hillary’s Clinton’s presidential campaign."
The Georgia Republican suggested that it's time for the papers to issue apologies.
Graham Reacts to the Durham Report youtu.be
Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!
The accusations of former President Donald Trump having a relationship with Russia that was provided by a Hillary Clinton campaign lawyer was "not technically possible," special counsel John Durham wrote in a court filing posted Friday.
Less than two months before the 2016 presidential election, Clinton lawyer Michael Sussmann presented "purported data and 'white papers' that allegedly demonstrated a covert communications channel" between the Trump Organization and the Kremlin-tied Alfa Bank to then-FBI General Counsel James Baker. In February 2017, Sussman reportedly furnished an "updated set of allegations" about Trump working with Russia to the CIA.
Durham outlined Sussmann's involvement with the discredited anti-Trump dossier authored by ex-British Intelligence agent Christopher Steele. Sussmann allegedly met with Steele in the summer of 2016 at the law offices of Perkins Coie, where he informed Steele about the Alfa Bank allegations.
Durham noted that "the dossier's author was hired" by Fusion GPS to "dig up dirt on Trump for an unnamed U.S. client."
The Democratic National Committee and the Clinton campaign reportedly funded the anti-Trump dossier through Perkins Coie.
"The fact that FBI headquarters received on the same date both sets of information involving the same political campaign (Clinton campaign), the same law firm [Perkins Coie] and the same investigative firm [Fusion GPS] makes Steele’s involvement in these matters relevant," Durham wrote.
Sussmann is accused of lying to the FBI because he told "the general counsel that he was not providing the allegations to the FBI on behalf of any client," according to the indictment. Sussmann allegedly presented the damning accusations against Trump on behalf of the Hillary Clinton campaign.
Durham claimed that Sussmann "represented and worked for the Clinton campaign in connection with its broader opposition research efforts" and "took steps to integrate" the Russian bank allegations "into those opposition research efforts" by Fusion GPS.
Fox News reported, "Durham argued that the evidence is 'highly probative' because it establishes that Sussmann 'represented and worked for the Clinton campaign with its broader opposition research efforts.'"
Sussman has pleaded not guilty and has sought for the case to be dismissed, but a judge denied the request. Sussmann is scheduled to go to trial on May 16.
Durham wrote in Friday's court filing, "While the FBI did not reach an ultimate conclusion regarding the data's accuracy or whether it might have been in whole or in part genuine, spoofed, altered, or fabricated, [the CIA] concluded in early 2017 that the Russian Bank 1 data and Russian Phone Provider 1 data was not 'technically plausible,' did not 'withstand technical scrutiny,' 'contained gaps,' 'conflicted with [itself]' and was 'user-created and not machine/tool generated.'"
However, Durham added, "The Special Counsel’s Office has not reached a definitive conclusion in this regard."
Durham also noted that "separate and apart from whether the data was actually unreliable or provided a motive" for Sussmann to lie.
"Evidence concerning the steps the FBI and Agency-2 took to investigate these matters is critical to establishing materiality because it will enable the jury to evaluate those steps, which, in turn, will inform their conclusions about whether the defendant’s alleged false statements were material and could tend to influence or impair government functions," Durham explained.
Durham wrote, "At a minimum, however, the Government does expect to adduce evidence at trial reflecting (i) the fact that the FBI and Agency-2 concluded that the Russian Bank-1 allegations were untrue and unsupported and (ii) the primary bases for these conclusions, including the particular investigative and analytical steps taken by these agencies."
The Federal Election Commission has fined Hillary Clinton's 2016 presidential campaign and the Democratic National Committee for violating federal law by lying in reports about its funding of the since-discredited Steele Dossier, a newly issued memo showed.
The Coolidge-Reagan Foundation first filed a complaint with the elections commission in 2018, requesting that the Clinton campaign and the DNC be held accountable for various violations of the Federal Election Campaign Act with regard to their funding of the dossier, which was used to launch an investigation into then-candidate Donald Trump, but which was later determined to be fake.
In a memo sent Tuesday, the FEC informed the foundation that following a review, it agreed with the allegations. The Washington Examiner was the first to report on the news.
"After conducting an investigation in this matter, the Commission found probable cause to believe that the DNC Services Corp./Democratic National Committee and Virginia McGregor in her official capacity as treasurer violated [52 U.S. Code § 30104] and [11 Code of Federal Regulations 104.3]," the memo stated.
"The Commission further found probable cause to believe that Hillary for America and Elizabeth Jones in her official capacity as treasurer violated [52 U.S. Code § 30104] and [11 Code of Federal Regulations 104.3]," it continued.
The reported violations had to do with various provisions of federal law regarding reporting requirements. In response to the violations, the FEC levied fines against Clinton’s treasurer and the DNC’s treasurer of $8,000 and $105,000, respectively.
The memo also noted that on Feb. 17, the FEC received signed conciliation agreements from the DNC and the Clinton campaign.
The infamous dossier, once used to launch the FBI's Trump-Russia probe, became the subject of widespread scrutiny in the year's following Trump's election to the presidency.
Besides revelations that its contents were fabricated, the scandalous document was heavily scrutinized for its questionable sources — which ultimately turned out to be Hillary Clinton's campaign and her counterparts in the DNC.
In the memo, the FEC found that the Clinton campaign and the DNC violated strict reporting laws when they claimed a combined $1,024,407 payment to law firm Perkins Coie LLP for Fusion GPS’s information on the dossier was for legal reasons, and not opposition research.
The two political bodies defended their reporting, arguing the payments were technically made to the law firm, which in turn paid for the opposition research. But the FEC found the reasoning lacking and determined the law had been clearly violated.
Court records on the case are expected to be made public in the next month.
Dan Backer, who brought the complaint on behalf of the Coolidge-Reagan Foundation, a nonprofit that focuses on free speech and the First Amendment, celebrated the FEC's decision.
Backer told the Washington Examiner, "This may well be the first time that Hillary Clinton — one of the most evidently corrupt politicians in American history — has actually been held legally accountable, and I'm proud to have forced the FEC to do their job for once. The Coolidge Reagan Foundation proved that with pluck and grit, Americans who stand with integrity can stand up to the Clinton machine and other corrupt political elites."
The FEC noted that neither the Clinton campaign nor the DNC conceded to lying in the reports but decided not to contest the findings.
"Solely for the purpose of settling this matter expeditiously and to avoid further legal costs, respondent does not concede, but will not further contest the commission's finding of probable cause to believe," each said, according to the memo.
The Hillary Clinton campaign lawyer at the center of special counsel John Durham's latest court filing demanded late Monday that certain portions of that filing be scrubbed from the court record.
In a court motion, lawyers for Michael Sussmann claimed that Durham's filing is meant to "politicize this case, inflame media coverage, and taint the jury pool."
"Unfortunately, the Special Counsel has done more than simply file a document identifying potential conflicts of interest," Sussmann's attorneys argued. "Rather, the Special Counsel has again made a filing in this case that unnecessarily includes prejudicial—and false—allegations that are irrelevant to his Motion and to the charged offense, and are plainly intended to politicize this case, inflame media coverage, and taint the jury pool."
The attorneys further argued that Durham's filing used "inflammatory and prejudicial rhetoric."
Sussmann's legal team, therefore, demanded the court "strike the Factual Background portion of the Special Counsel’s motion pursuant to the Court’s inherent power to ‘fashion an appropriate sanction for conduct which abuses the judicial process.'"
Sussmann was indicted last year after Durham's investigation, which focuses on the origins of the Trump-Russia investigation, discovered that Sussmann lied to the FBI in September 2016 about a "secret channel of communications between the Trump Organization and a Russian bank."
The Clinton campaign seized on the allegations in the days leading up to the 2016 presidential election, claiming that Donald Trump used a secret server in Trump Tower to communicate with the Kremlin-linked Alfa Bank. Those allegations were proved false.
But a new filing by Durham alleged that lawyers connected to the Clinton campaign paid a technology company to access servers in Trump Tower to fabricate a "narrative" linking Trump to Russia, thereby substantiating allegations that Trump was colluding with Russia. The information was included in the "factual background" portion of the filing, which Sussmann's lawyers want scrubbed from the court record.
Durham alleges that Sussmann worked with a tech executive, a law firm retained on behalf of the Clinton campaign, and other cyber researchers to prepare information that he would later turn over to then-FBI General Counsel James Baker in September 2016.
When meeting with Baker, Sussmann allegedly said that he was not working on behalf of any particular client. However, Durham alleges that Sussmann billed the Clinton campaign for the meeting. Sussmann's lawyers deny that Sussmann met with the FBI on behalf of Clinton's campaign.
Sussmann has pleaded not guilty.
According to a report just filed by Special Counsel John Durham, lawyers for Hillary Clinton’s 2016 presidential campaign paid a technology company to “infiltrate” servers belonging to Trump Tower and the White House in order to fabricate a narrative connecting Donald Trump to Russia.
Durham’s filing focuses on potential conflicts of interest related to the representation of Michael Sussman, a former lawyer for the Clinton campaign. Sussman has been charged with making a false statement to a federal agent. He has pleaded not guilty.
The indictment against Sussman alleges that he told then-FBI General Counsel James Baker, less than two months before the 2016 presidential election, that he was not working “for any client” when he requested a meeting in which he provided the FBI with “purported data and ‘white papers’ that allegedly demonstrated a covert communications channel” between the Trump Organization and the Kremlin connected Alfa Bank.
In a section of Durham’s filing titled “Factual background,” it is revealed that Sussman “had assembled and conveyed the allegations to the FBI on behalf of at least two specific clients, including a technology executive (Tech Executive 1) at a U.S.-based internet company (Internet Company 1) and the Clinton campaign.”
Durham’s filing says Sussman’s “billing records reflect” that he “repeatedly billed the Clinton campaign for his work on the Russian Bank-1 allegations.”
Sussman and Tech Executive 1 had met and communicated with a law partner who served as General Counsel on the Clinton campaign. Fox News reports that this lawyer is Marc Elias.
Per Durham, in 2016, Tech Executive 1 worked with Sussman, an American investigative law firm, several cyber researchers and employees at multiple internet companies to “assemble the purported data and white papers.”
The filing states, “In connection with these efforts, Tech Executive-1 exploited his access to non-public and/or proprietary Internet data. Tech Executive-1 also enlisted the assistance of researchers at a U.S.-based university who were receiving and analyzing large amounts of Internet data in connection with a pending federal government cybersecurity research contract.”
“Tech Executive-1 tasked these researchers to mine Internet data to establish ‘an inference’ and ‘narrative’ tying then-candidate Trump to Russia,” Durham states, “In doing so, Tech Executive-1 indicated that he was seeking to please certain ‘VIPs,’ referring to individuals at Law Firm-1 and the Clinton Campaign.”
Fox News reports that at Sussman’s trial, Durham will establish that among the ill begotten data foraged by Tech Executive-1 and his associates is the domain name systems (DNS) internet traffic pertaining to “(i) a particular healthcare provider, (ii) Trump Tower, (iii) Donald Trump’s Central Park West apartment building, and (iv) the Executive Office of the President of the United States (EOP).”
The former chief investigator of the Trump-Russia probe for the House Intelligence Committee, Kash Patel, said the filing “definitively shows that the Hillary Clinton campaign directly funded and ordered its lawyers at Perkins Cole to orchestrate a criminal enterprise to fabricate a connection between President Trump and Russia.”
Chris Licht tried to bring CNN back to the political center. He was fired because the media are expected to enforce ideological conformity, rather than provide honest news to a large audience.
www.theblaze.com
freebeacon.com