Margot Cleveland's Excellent Brookings Article

This past week we put out two posts that focused on Russia Hoax figures who have strong connections to the left wing Brookings Institution, but also—at least circumstantially—to the Clinton Dossier. Brookings, of course, has been home to many Clintonistas over the years, and writers such as Jonathan Turley and Eric Felten (among others) have been drawn to analyze the web of associations among such as Chris Steele, Igor Danchenko, Chuck Dolan, Strobe Talbott, and Fiona Hill. In particular, Steele’s testimony in a London defamation trial has proven to be a gold mine in that regard. We reviewed these analyses in these posts:

Turley On A Roll Today

Briefly Noted: Why Fiona Hill May Be In Trouble

Margot Cleveland weighed in today at The Federalist with a fine examination of these associations, which I believe deepens our understanding. In the second of my previous posts I took issue—non-dogmatically—with the idea that Fiona Hill, despite being mentioned specifically in the Danchenko indictment, is somehow a side issue or distraction. While I highly recommend Cleveland’s entire article

Why Special Counsel John Durham Subpoenaed The Brookings Institution

Brookings was ground zero for the Russia collusion hoax, with many key staff embroiled in the damaging lie that Donald Trump colluded with Vladimir Putin to steal the 2016 election.

I want to draw attention to new information that helps explain Durham’s interest in Hill, and why it’s rumored that Talbott has lawyered up.

Cleveland begins by reminding us that Durham subpoenaed records from Brookings back in April of this year. It’s important to understand that subpoenas are not the same as search warrants. A search warrant has to cite specific evidence that is being sought, as well as probable cause for believing that the specified evidence is currently at a specific location. It’s not a license to go on a speculative fishing expedition in the hope of turning up as yet undetermined evidence, and must be authorized by a judge. A GJ subpoena, on the other hand, can demand the production of broad swaths of documentation on the sole grounds of possible relevance. A subpoena can be challenged on those grounds, but investigators for the GJ are afforded broad discretion.

I’m going to try to slightly rearrange some key facts that Cleveland presents, putting them—as far as is possible—in chronological order as they occurred.

First, consider the role of Victoria Nuland, who was an Assistant Secretary of State in 2016, with strong connections to Clinton. While many remember Nuland in connection with Steele’s peddling of the Clinton Dossier to a subordinate of Nuland, Kathleen Kavalec, in the fall of 2016, Nuland played a key role early in July. It was Nuland who approved the travel of FBI agent Michael Gaeta from his Rome post to London over the 4th of July holiday, to interview Chris Steele about the Dossier, as it then existed. That would normally have been handled by the FBI’s London office, which is why Nuland had to approve Gaeta’s travel. Steele recalled that in his testimony, but goes a bit further in his characterization of the cooperation of State and the FBI:

Steele likewise testified that he understood the FBI and State Department had been discussing the information “from the get-go,” and that before he met with the FBI in London in early July, the agent had to “clear his lines with Victoria Nuland.

And, in fact, Nuland has testified that she saw the Dossier material for the first time in “mid-July”—shortly after Gaeta obtained it. Why? Why would that material be provided to Nuland, rather than being closely held for the FBI’s evaluation? This where the circumstantial connections come in. Cleveland notes:

Steele’s testimony in the U.K. defamation case revealed further connections to the Brookings Institution, with Steele claiming either Susan Rice, who was Barack Obama’s national security advisor at the time, or Victoria Nuland, Obama’s assistant secretary of state, had briefed Talbott on the work Steele was doing. In his testimony, Steele noted Rice and Nuland had been Talbott’s colleagues at Brookings.

Next, there’s the matter of Jake Sullivan—currently Zhou’s National Security Adviser. We’ve previously seen Sullivan as one of the most enthusiastic purveyors of the Alfa Bank Hoax to a compliant media.  In that role he figures prominently in the Michael Sussmann indictment. Which raises the question: Since Sussmann kept Sullivan apprised of the Alfa Bank Hoax, why wouldn’t Sussmann also keep Sullivan informed regarding the Clinton Dossier? After all, Sussmann was a top Clinton adviser and, by some accounts, may be have proposed the Alfa Bank Hoax to begin with. Sussmann was deeply involved in both hoaxes, so what could be more natural? Oh, and Sullivan was also still involved at Brookings at that time. In fact, from the summer of 2015 through December of 2016 Sullivan had been working with Fiona Hill on a Brookings task force—the same Fiona Hill who brought the three main “sources” of the Dossier together: Danchenko, Steele, and Dolan. So, Hill, Danchenko, and Sullivan, all at Brookings and reporting to Talbott—who Steele says had knowledge of the Dossier. Sullivan and Danchenko known to be involved in anti-Trump hoaxes, and Fiona scurrying among them all:

The Sussmann indictment charged the Perkins Coie attorney with lying to FBI General Counsel Baker. Sussmann had briefed Clinton’s foreign policy advisor [Sullivan] on the Alfa Bank story. Shortly after, Sullivan began pushing that false story broadly throughout the press. While Sullivan helped the Clinton campaign, he was also serving as a member of the “Order from Chaos Task Force,” of the Brookings Institution.

Beginning in summer 2015 and through December 2016, Sullivan and other task force members met over seven sessions to conduct “a deep dive on U.S. foreign policy,” Brookings president Talbott explained in the acknowledgment portion of the final report issued in February 2017. Among others, Talbott noted the task force’s appreciation for the time and efforts of Hill.

The next point in the time line is very suggestive. Nuland got a glimpse of the Dossier in mid-July. That brings us up to August, just as the FBI’s Crossfire Hurricane investigation was gearing up and when, we learn, Strobe Talbott also knew about the Dossier—or, in any event, knew that Steele was working on an “anti-Trump project”:

… testimony by Steele in the defamation case filed against him in the United Kingdom by Aleksej Gubarev, a Russian tech executive, established that the president of the Brookings Institution at the time, Strobe Talbott, called Steele “out of the blue in August 2016,” asking about Steele’s anti-Trump project.

Who told Talbott about Steele’s anti-Trump project? Somebody associated with Brookings, in all likelihood—Nuland or Hill?

Now, as we saw, in her Congressional testimony Hill went out of her way to bring up the Clinton Dossier and to deny any knowledge of it—in spite of being in close touch with those most closely connected to the Dossier:

Asked whether she was “aware of any interaction between Mr. Steele and Ukrainians,” Hill did not say “to the best of my recollection” or “I don’t remember specifically,” or even a simple “no.” Instead she expanded her answer to deny not only any knowledge of Steele and Ukrainians but to deny any knowledge of anything Steele-related: “I have no knowledge whatsoever of how he developed that dossier. None. I just want to state that.”

Again, this is also circumstantial, but Cleveland tells us that Hill met with Steele in October, 2016. Two things about that timing are important. In October Steele was employed pretty much full time in 1) peddling the Dossier to any journalist who would listen—and many did; and 2) meeting with officials from the FBI (Lisa Page, Peter Strzok) and DoJ (Bruce Ohr, Andrew Weissmann, Zainab Ahmad—the last two of who were prominent members of Team Mueller) to discuss the Dossier in the context of the planning for the Carter Page FISA application:

Hill also communicated with Steele about his work on the dossier, meeting with him in October 2016 while she still worked for the Brookings Institution.

That brings us right up to the actual submission of the FISA application, and then the election. Talbott received a copy of the Dossier from Steele, at Talbott’s request, just days before the election:

Clinton’s top friend at the Brookings Institution would speak with Steele again. The lead lawyer in the U.K. defamation case against Steele stated that Steele “telephone[d] Mr. Talbott on 2nd or 3rd November 2016, and Mr. Talbott asks for copies of the memoranda to discuss with John Kerry and other officials at the State Department.” Fusion GPS later provided a copy of the dossier to Talbott.

But then Trump wins! Woops—the plotters start scrambling. Steele contacts Talbott suggesting that they basically get their stories about the Dossier straight. That’s one more indication that Talbott was more than just “in the know”:

… after Trump’s surprise 2016 defeat of Hillary Clinton, according to the lawyer taking on Steele, Steele wrote to the Brookings president [Talbott] on November 12, 2016 about the dossier: “Dear Strobe, I know this is not straight forward but we need to discuss the package we delivered to you the other week, and the sooner the better. What you thought of it, what you did with it, how we (both) should handle it and the issues it highlights going forward, etc.

Talbott at this point is a co-conspirator. No wonder he’s said to be lawyered up.

Some of this could be said to be coincidence. I’m pretty sure that Durham is the kind of guy who needs to be convinced of the coincidental nature of things like these. And Fiona Hill seems to be at the center of all these coincidences. Her and Brookings.