Commentary On Mook's Outing Of Hillary
People are starting to come to grips with the importance of Hillary campaign manager Robbie Mook’s fingering of Hillary—that she was the one who authorized the Alfa Bank Hoax. There’s a lot to be said, and some people are already saying it. One is Jonathan Turley, and another is Devin Nunes. Nunes gave a very lucid interview to Fox News that happens to work very well with Turley’s equally lucid article at The Hill. If you read Turley first, then listen to Nunes’ explanation of the significance of it all, you’ll get a very good overview of why this revelation will end up being very important—whether or not Sussmann is convicted. Unfortunately, the Fox interview is on Rumble, which I can’t embed here. When the time comes I’ll link to CTH.
To start with Turley, here’s his Twitter thread which promotes the article. Turley begins by noting what has also struck others—the fact that Mook gave Hillary up, almost in passing. As he says in the article, “It was Washington’s worst-kept but least-acknowledged secret,” and it came out in spite of a series of somewhat questionable rulings by Judge Cooper that seemed to be tying Durham’s hands :
Clinton has long held a Voldemort-like status as “She who must not be named” in scandals. Yet, her former aide Robby Mook told a jury that Clinton personally approved a plan to spread the Alfa bank claims.
How the Sussmann trial revealed Hillary Clinton’s role in the Alfa Bank scandalClinton has long held a Voldemort-like status as “She who must not be named” in scandals.https://thehill.com/opinion/judiciary/3496659-how-the-sussmann-trial-revealed-hillary-clintons-role-in-the-alfa-bank-scandal/
...Mook violated the unspoken Democratic rule for scandals in Washington: thou shalt not mention the Clintons. Ironically, it was Sussmann (and his lawyers) who ended up outing Clinton.
...Months after approving the Alpha Bank strategy, Clinton called in December 2016 to censor opponents whom she accused of spreading falsehoods to try to influence elections. She declared that “it’s now clear that so-called ‘fake news’ can have real-world consequences.”
...Of course, Sussmann could still face the real consequence of conviction given the strength of the evidence against him. Yet, there will likely not be consequences — let alone a “reckoning” — for Hillary Clinton.
In the article Turley provides additional detail and analysis, but perhaps his most important contribution has to do with the way that these revelations reveal a Clinton tactic that was repeated in other contexts—leaking hoax stories to the press, then amplifying the press reporting as confirmation of the hoaxes. Devin Nunes notes the irony in the fact that the same press is sitting in at the trial—this modus operandi is certainly not news to them! But, here’s Turley on that aspect:
There is a strikingly familiar pattern in both the Steele dossier — which became the basis for the Russia collusion investigation — and the Alfa Bank tale. Campaign associates developed both claims while actively seeking to conceal their connections from the public and the government, including reportedly denying the funding of the Steele dossier and concealing that funding as legal costs.
The campaign then pushed these unfounded claims to the media and the FBI. Indeed, prosecutors this week contended that Sussmann continued to push the Alfa Bank claims [this time to the CIA] after Trump was elected, in an apparent effort to fuel the Russia collusion claims being breathlessly reported in the media at the time.
When Clinton allegedly approved this effort, at least some people connected to her campaign were aware that the Alfa Bank theory was never viewed as credible by researchers tasked with supporting it. ...
Despite a record of Clinton associates pushing unfounded allegations to the FBI on both the Steele dossier and Alfa Bank, Mook and another witness, Clinton campaign general counsel Marc Elias, insisted they preferred to use the media for such efforts. The campaign found a conduit in one liberal magazine, for example, whose story was then cited as a “bombshell” report, as if the campaign had had nothing to do with it.
For her part, Clinton not only approved using the Alpha Bank claim but helped to portray it as an established fact, tweeting: “Computer scientists have apparently uncovered a covert server linking the Trump Organization to a Russian-based bank.”
That claim was then further amplified by one of her campaign advisers, Jake Sullivan, who now serves as President Biden’s national security adviser. Sullivan declared at the time: “This could be the most direct link yet between Donald Trump and Moscow. Computer scientists have uncovered a covert server linking the Trump Organization to a Russian-based bank.” Sullivan added that he could “only assume federal authorities will now explore this direct connection between Trump and Russia as part of their existing probe into Russia’s meddling in our elections.”
Gotta luv that “could be”. But he knew it wasn’t.
Techno Fog expands on the similarities to the other Clinton hoaxes, at the end of a much longer article. Two things to keep in mind. We’ve heard Durham’s indictments described as “talking” indictments—they present a broader, contextualizing narrative that goes beyond the bare bones of the charge(s) brought (in the Sussmann case, a single false statement). The judge’s rulings, noted above, seemed intended to limit Durham’s ability to present that broader narrative to the jury, but when Sussmann’s lawyers called Mook it all came out. And so Techno Fog says, this trial is about much more than simply Sussmann’s false statement. What it’s about is the Clinton corruption of everything they touch—Nunes speaks eloquently to that point:
Sussmann trial day 4
Some final thoughts: while this trial is about Sussmann’s false statements to the FBI, it’s also more than that.
This is Special Counsel John Durham telling the public the story of the Clinton opposition research machine, and how the campaign, through their lawyers and contractors (Fusion GPS), developed and spread lies to the media to influence the election. It’s the story of Clinton Campaign lawyers to using the FBI to further that strategy of deception.
With that in mind, do not forget the Igor Danchenko case. Is it the case that Charles Dolan, a Hillary Clinton friend and supporter, was coincidentally feeding false information to Christopher Steele’s primary sub source?
Techno Fog, as any sensible person, obviously doubts that it was coincidental. It’s standard Clinton MO, as Turley also recognizes. Obviously Techno Fog is hoping for major revelations to come from the Danchenko case, as well.
Now, to understand the next point Techno Fog makes, regarding Aussie “diplomat” Alexander Downer, recall that Downer had previously been a very substantial donor to Clinton—to the tune of $25,000:
And on that thread, what are the odds that another Clinton ally - Alexander Downer - took his “info” to the FBI? Downer’s tip was referenced in the opening of the Alfa Bank-Trump investigation, seen below. (Note that the FBI misrepresents both the Downer tip and Mifsud’s purported statement to George Papadopolous.)
Are we to believe the Clinton Campaign and it’s agents had nothing to do with Dolan and Downer? When it comes to the broader Trump/Russia matter, there are too many Clinton links to ignore. Let’s hope that Durham is unraveling that thread.
With that background, turn to Devin Nunes at CTH—it’s totally worth your time:
Only time will tell whether Durham is working up to a major conspiracy case. Last October Turley referred to Durham’s style as “either painfully methodical or positively glacial as a prosecutor.” We shall see.