Hare kwaadaardigheid Hillary Clinton is nogmaals fiks door de mand gevallen, naar nu nogmaals blijkt heeft haar campagneteam Christopher Steele*, een voormalig MI6 agent, betaald om Trump onderuit te halen….. Eerder schreef Parry al over deze zaak, die door de reguliere media echter voor een fiks deel werd genegeerd, of weggestopt.**

In een andere zaak betreffende het zogenaamde ‘Russia-gate’ verhaal, werd eerder al bekend gemaakt dat de mails die uitlekten uit Clintons campagneteam, niet door de Russen zijn gelekt, maar door minstens één lid van haar campagneteam, die ontevreden was over de uiterst smerige manier waarop Clinton de andere democratische kandidaat, Bernie Sanders, zijn kans op nominatie voor het presidentschap heeft ontnomen.

Deze man Seth Rich*** werd later vermoord gevonden, hij zou zijn vermoord bij een roofoverval op straat, vreemd genoeg werd er niets van hem gestolen, zelfs niet door hem gedragen opzichtige sieraden………. Uiteraard wordt dit afgedaan als een samenzweringstheorie, terwijl er bewijzen genoeg liggen, waaruit opgemaakt kan worden dat dit op z’n zachtst gezegd wel een erg vreemde roofmoord was…….. Al gaf Obama later toe, dat het campagneteam (DNC) van Clinton de bewuste documenten zelf expres heeft gelekt naar Wikileaks…… Natuurlijk moet je niet vergeten, dat de Democratische Partij alle belang bij heeft, dat de moord op Rich niet terug te leiden moet zijn naar het democratische campagneteam, dit zou de partij een ongelofelijk aantal leden en potentiële kiezers kosten…..

Lees het volgende prima artikel van Robert Parry, waaruit je maar één conclusie kan trekken, Hillary Clinton moet op de hoogte zijn geweest van de aankoop van het valse Steele dossier over Trump, waarvoor naar schatting 1 miljoen dollar werd betaald…….. Daaruit kan je ten overvloede de volgende conclusie nog eens trekken: het hele ‘Russiagate’ verhaal is één grote leugen!!

What
Did Hillary Clinton Know and When Did She Know It?

October
26, 2017 at 6:24 am

Written
by Robert
Parry

With
the disclosure that Hillary Clinton’s campaign helped pay for the
original Russia-gate allegations against Donald Trump, a new question
arises: what did Clinton know and when did she know it?

(CN) — The
revelation that Hillary Clinton’s campaign and the Democratic
National Committee helped pay for the notorious “Steele Dossier”
of hearsay claims about Donald Trump’s relations with Russia is not
surprising but is noteworthy given how long the mystery about the
funding was allowed to linger

Another
mild surprise is that the Clinton campaign would have had a direct
hand in the financing rather than maintaining an arm’s length
relationship to the dossier by having some “friend of the campaign”
make the payments and giving Clinton more deniability.

Instead,
the campaign appears to have relied on its lawyer, Marc E. Elias of
Perkins Coie, and a confidentiality agreement to provide some
insulation between Clinton and the dossier’s startling claims which
presumably helped inform Clinton’s charge in the final presidential
debate that Trump was Russian President Vladimir Putin’s “puppet.”
Indeed, how much Clinton personally knew about the dossier and its
financing remains an intriguing question for investigators.

Ultimately,
the facts about who commissioned the dossier were forced out by a
congressional Republican subpoena seeking the bank records of Fusion
GPS, the opposition research firm that hired former British
intelligence operative Christopher Steele to compile the opposition
research, known as “oppo,” against Trump.

As
part of the legal wrangling over that subpoena, the Clinton/DNC law
firm, Perkins Coie, wrote a letter releasing Fusion GPS from its
confidentiality agreement.

After
that letter, The Washington Post reported on
Tuesday night that the Clinton campaign and the DNC had helped fund
the Steele effort with attorney Elias retaining Fusion GPS in April
2016 and with Fusion GPS then hiring Steele.

The
Post reported that “people familiar with the matter” disclosed
that outline of the arrangement but still would not divulge how much
the Clinton campaign and the DNC paid to Fusion GPS. One source told
me that the total amount came to about $1 million.

‘Trash
for Cash’

An
irony about Hillary Clinton’s role in funding allegations about
Trump’s connection to the Russians, including claims that he
cavorted with prostitutes in a five-star Moscow hotel while Russian
intelligence operatives secretly filmed him, is that the Clinton camp
bristled when Bill Clinton was the subject of Republican “oppo”
that surfaced salacious charges against him. The Clintons dismissed
such accusations as “cash for trash.”

Nevertheless,
just as conspiratorial accusations about the Clintons gave rise to
the Whitewater investigation and a rash of other alleged “scandals,”
which bedeviled Bill Clinton’s presidency, the Steele Dossier —
also known as the “Dirty Dossier” — provided a map that
investigators have followed for the ongoing Russia-gate investigation
into President Trump.

Much
like those Clinton allegations, Steele’s accusations have had a
dubious track record for accuracy, with U.S. government investigators
unable to corroborate some key claims but, I’m told, believing that
some are true nonetheless.

In
the 1990s, even though the core allegations of wrongdoing about the
Clintons and their Whitewater land deal collapsed, the drawn-out
investigation eventually unearthed Bill Clinton’s sexual
relationship with White House intern Monica Lewinsky and led to his
impeachment in the House although he was acquitted in a Senate trial.

Some
Democrats have openly hoped for the impeachment of President Trump,
too, and they have hitched many of those hopes to the Russia-gate
bandwagon.

There
is also no doubt about the significance of the Steele Dossier in
spurring the Russia-gate scandal forward.

When
Rep. Adam Schiff, the ranking Democratic member of the House
Intelligence Committee, offered what amounted to a
prosecutor’s opening
statement in
March, his seamless 15-minute narrative of the Trump campaign’s
alleged collaboration with Russia followed the trail blazed by
Steele, who had worked for Britain’s MI-6 in Russia and tapped into
ex-colleagues and unnamed sources inside Russia, including supposedly
leadership figures in the Kremlin.

Steele’s
Methods

Since
Steele could not reenter Russia himself, he based his reports on
multiple hearsay from these anonymous Russians who claim to have
heard some information from their government contacts before passing
it on to Steele’s associates who then gave it to Steele who
compiled this mix of rumors and alleged inside dope into “raw”
intelligence reports.

Besides
the anonymous sourcing and the sources’ financial incentives to dig
up dirt, Steele’s reports had other problems, including the
inability of FBI investigators to confirm key elements, such as the
claim that several years ago Russian intelligence operatives secretly
videotaped Trump having prostitutes urinate on him while he lay in
the same bed at Moscow’s Ritz-Carlton used by President Obama and
First Lady Michelle Obama.

That
tantalizing tidbit was included in Steele’s opening report to his
new clients, dated June 20, 2016. Apparently, it proved irresistible
in whetting the appetite of Clinton insiders. Also in that first
report were the basic outlines of Russia-gate.

But
Steele’s June report also reflected the telephone-tag aspects of
these allegations: “Speaking to a trusted compatriot in June 2016
sources A and B, a senior Russian Foreign Ministry figure and a
former top level Russian intelligence officer still active inside the
Kremlin respectively, the Russian authorities had been cultivating
and supporting US Republican presidential candidate, Donald TRUMP for
a least 5 years.

“Source
B asserted that the TRUMP operation was both supported and directed
by Russian President Vladimir PUTIN. Its aim was to sow discord and
disunity both within the US itself, but more especially within the
Transatlantic alliance which was viewed as inimical to Russia’s
interests. … In terms of specifics, Source A confided that the
Kremlin had been feeding TRUMP and his team valuable intelligence on
his opponents, including Democratic presidential candidate Hillary
CLINTON, for several years.

“The
Kremlin’s cultivation operation on TRUMP also had comprised
offering him various lucrative real estate development business deals
in Russia, especially in relation to the ongoing 2018 World Cup
soccer tournament. However, so far, for reasons unknown, TRUMP had
not taken up any of these.”

Besides
the anonymous and hearsay quality of the allegations, there are
obvious logical problems, especially the point that five years before
the 2016 campaign, virtually no one would have thought that Trump had
any chance of becoming President of the United States.

There
also may have been a more mundane reason why Trump’s hotel deal
fell through. A source familiar with those negotiations told me that
Trump had hoped to get a half interest in the $2 billion project but
that Russian-Israeli investor Mikhail Fridman, a founder of Russia’s
Alfa Bank, balked because Trump was unwilling to commit a significant
investment beyond the branding value of the Trump name.

Yet,
one would assume that if the supposedly all-powerful Putin wanted to
give a $1 billion or so payoff to his golden boy, Donald Trump, whom
Putin anticipated would become President in five years, the deal
would have happened, but it didn’t.

Despite
the dubious quality of Steele’s second- and third-hand information,
the June 2016 report appears to have impressed Team Clinton. And once
the bait was taken, Steele continued to produce his conspiracy-laden
reports, totaling at least 17 through Dec. 13, 2016.

Framing
the Investigation

The
reports not only captivated the Clinton political operatives but
influenced the assessments of President Obama’s appointees in the
U.S. intelligence community regarding alleged Russian “meddling”
in the presidential election.

Still,
a careful analysis of Steele’s reports would have discovered not
only apparent factual inaccuracies, such as putting Trump lawyer
Michael Cohen at a meeting with a Russian official in Prague (when
Cohen says he’s never been to Prague),
but also the sort of broad conspiracy-mongering that the mainstream
U.S. news media usually loves to ridicule.

For
instance, Steele’s reports pin a range of U.S. political attitudes
on Russian manipulation rather than the notion that Americans can
reach reasonable conclusions on their own. In one report dated Sept.
14, 2016, Steele claimed that an unnamed senior official in Putin’s
Presidential Administration (or PA) explained how Putin used the
alleged Russian influence operation to generate opposition to Obama’s
Pacific trade deals.

Steele
wrote that Putin’s intention was “pushing candidate CLINTON away
from President OBAMA’s policies. The best example of this was that
both candidates [Clinton and Trump] now openly opposed the draft
trade agreements, TPP and TTIP, which were assessed by Moscow as
detrimental to Russian interests.”

In
other words, the Russians supposedly intervened in the U.S.
presidential campaign to turn the leading candidates against Obama’s
trade deals. But how credible is that? Are we to believe that
American politicians – running the gamut from Senators Bernie
Sanders and Elizabeth Warren through former Secretary of State
Hillary Clinton to President Donald Trump – have all been tricked
by the Kremlin to oppose those controversial trade deals, which are
also broadly unpopular with the American people who are sick and
tired of trade agreements that cost them jobs?

Of
course, the disclosure that the Clinton campaign and the DNC helped
pay for Steele’s opposition research doesn’t necessarily
discredit the information, but it does suggest a possible financial
incentive for Steele and his collaborators to sex-up the reports to
keep Clinton’s camp coming back for more.

Investigative
reporter Robert Parry broke many of the Iran-Contra stories for The
Associated Press and Newsweek in the 1980s. You can buy his latest
book, America’s
Stolen Narrative, either
in print
here or
as an e-book (from Amazon and barnesandnoble.com).