The real story of Fusion GPS is beginning to emerge

I’ve never bought this notion that the Russians hacked the DNC servers. To me, the story carries about as much weight as the Trump dossier. As we dig deeper into this bizarre story, we find the two are indubitably intertwined. 

The now-debunked dossier accuses Russian businessman Aleksej Gubarev of hacking into the DNC computers. Gubarev is suing BuzzFeed News for publishing the dossier. In such a lawsuit, the defense is allowed to provide documentation to defend itself. Surely Gubarev wouldn’t be suing if the civil lawsuit risked exposing him to criminal charges.

Fusion GPS, the company Hillary Clinton hired to compile the dossier, is suing to try and stop a subpoena from Gubarev’s lawyers seeking everything they have related to the dossier. Think about this for a moment. If the dossier were really legit there’s no way Fusion would be suing to stop documentation that would confirm its legitimacy. Quite the contrary. They would be providing all the evidence they have to the press to make their case against Trump.

The most powerful argument against the veracity of the Russian hacking story is the fact that no U.S. intelligence agency has ever inspected the DNC servers. Is that not incredible? James Comey said they were taking the word of a company called CrowdStrike. CrowdStrike is company that protects clients from data breaches. The mission statement on their website states, “We don’t have a mission statement—we are on a mission to protect our customers from breaches.” Their most high-profile client was the DNC. It’s unlikely they would be bragging that their only mission is to stop data breaches when they couldn’t stop the data breach at the DNC. In fact, it’s unlikely they would still be in business if that were really the case.

I believe the whole Russia hacking story was a cover-up for the real story that this was an inside job from a disgruntled Bernie Sanders supporter. The fact that the dossier that supposedly uncovered the Russian breach has now been largely discredited adds credence to that theory. In fact, there’s no evidence at all that the Russians hacked the DNC other than what we’re being told by CrowdStrike, a company founded and run by Hillary supporters.

What’s even scarier is the FBI may have used the Trump dossier to obtain a FISA warrant to spy on Carter Page, a man described as a Trump advisor. If the dossier is what FBI agent Peter Strzok described as an “insurance policy” in case Trump got elected president, we have a disturbing conspiracy that goes way beyond campaign dirty tricks.

And if the Russians didn’t really hack into the DNC servers is there even a Trump/Russian collusion story to investigate? No. The breached servers is the pretense used by the FBI and now the Mueller team to investigate Russian collusion. Otherwise, they have nothing. That means that the entire affair is predicated on information taken from a piece of paid-for campaign propaganda from Hillary Clinton that is demonstrably false.

Strzok was the point man on the Trump dossier at the FBI. He was also the guy who facilitated Hillary being let off the hook for the illegal computer server scandal. And he was the man who entrapped Michael Flynn. He’s also a fierce political partisan who had such animus against Donald Trump that he just might do anything to bring him down. And he conveniently found himself in a position on the Mueller team to do just that. But only if we take the basic premise of hacking as fact. Which we can’t.

Phil Valentine is the host of the award-winning, nationally syndicated talk radio show, The Phil Valentine Show.

Unraveling the conspiracy at the FBI

I wrote in this space two weeks ago that what we were witnessing was nothing short of an attempted coup. Some thought that was simply hyperbole. Now we’re seeing the ugly underbelly of the entrenched bureaucracy in Washington, DC.

Peter Strzok, the now disgraced FBI agent who seemed to be trying to cook the presidential election last year, has been outed for the political hack he is. How he’s still employed with the Bureau is anyone’s guess. He sent a text message to his mistress, an FBI lawyer, regarding a comment she apparently made in Deputy Director Andrew McCabe’s office claiming there was no way Trump could win the election. “I want to believe the path you threw out for consideration in Andy’s office—that there’s no way he gets elected—but I’m afraid we can’t take that risk. It’s like an insurance policy in the unlikely event you die before you’re 40.”

What the “insurance policy” was is the subject of much speculation, but it seems obvious it’s the Trump dossier the FBI got from Fusion GPS, a company hired by Hillary Clinton and the Democrats to dig up dirt on Trump. Colluding with Democrats to bring down a sitting president is nothing short of a coup.

Strzok will tell you he was only doing what’s best for the country. That’s what they all say. Watergate was all about a break-in to ensure George McGovern didn’t become president—for the good of the country. Governments are toppled in the name of what’s good for the country. What’s not good for the country is a handful of rogue FBI employees toppling the duly elected president “for the good of the country.”

This calls into question the entire Mueller investigation. It’s all predicated on work done by the FBI, an FBI we now know had a political agenda. We’ll have to see where this leads us, but it appears Mr. Strzok and possibly others at the FBI may be guilty of treason and sedition. Those are serious charges but these are serious actions. If people inside the FBI were conspiring to remove Trump from office then what else would one call it? And we know Mr. Strzok was a Hillary partisan in charge of investigating her e-mail scandal. He changed James Comey’s now-famous statement regarding Hillary’s actions from “grossly negligent” to “extremely careless.” As you’ll recall, Comey let Hillary off the hook.

It was Peter Strzok who interviewed Hillary and her aides, Huma Abedin and Cheryl Mills. We know Mills and Abedin lied to the FBI, something that got Mike Flynn in a lot of hot water. Mills and Abedin skated. Why weren’t they prosecuted like Flynn?

The irony is the FBI launched an investigation to discover if the Russians colluded with Trump to influence the election when it was they who were doing the colluding and influencing. It was the proverbial fox guarding the henhouse. And what’s also ironic is the investigation that so many on the left have been cheering may very well be the investigation that brings down the Clinton machine within the FBI. It may also bring down Hillary herself.

Once we fully understand the lengths to which Hillary supporters inside the FBI went to get her elected, the appetite of the American people may very well change. It was Hillary who was colluding with a foreign agent to change the outcome of the election. Christopher Steele is a British citizen. Paying a foreign entity for opposition research in an election is against the law. It’s time the American people were told the truth.

Phil Valentine is the host of the award-winning, nationally syndicated talk radio show, The Phil Valentine Show.

Let the Benghazi fireworks begin

I can hardly wait until tomorrow (5/8/13).  That's when all hell is set to break loose in the House Oversight and Government Reform committee chaired by Rep. Darrell Issa (R-CA).  Mr. Issa has invited President Obama's number two guy in Libya at the time of the terrorist attack last September in Benghazi.  Of course, according the White House mouthpiece Jay Carney that was so long ago.  Sorry, Jay, but the loss of four of our citizens is still fresh on our minds and people want answers.

We're sure to get them from Greg Hicks, a 22-year foreign service diplomat who said his "jaw hit the floor" the morning he watch UN Ambassador Susan Rice make the Sunday talk show circuit with the concocted story that some video no one had ever heard of caused a demonstration at the consulate in Benghazi to become violent.  Hicks says everyone involved knew it was a terrorist attack "from the get-go."  Hicks told investigators - and will presumably tell Issa's committee - that Ambassador Chris Stevens, who lost his life along with three others in the terrorist attack, reported to him, 'Greg, we are under attack.'

Hicks said, "I've never been as embarrassed in my life, in my career, as I was on that day," referring to Susan Rice's fabricated story shortly after the Benghazi terrorist attacks.

History tells us that most of the great political scandals become scandalous not because of the original act but because of the cover up.  After tomorrow there will be no doubt left that there was a cover up.  The only questioning remaining will be what were they covering up?

My theory is they had scaled down security in Libya to appease the newly-minted Muslim Brotherhood regime and Obama was wanting to demonstrate our good will.  Having been educated part of his young life in a Muslim madrasa I think Obama is bending over backwards to demonstrate that not all Muslims are terrorists.  That's all well and good but in the process he leaves us vulnerable to those who are.

This seems to be a common thread on the left.  Remember after the Boston bombings how NPR was cautioning its listeners not to jump to any conclusions about the brothers' religion?  Even after the younger brother was captured hiding out in a boat CNN was wondering aloud as to what could possibly have been their motivation.

Not all Muslims are terrorists but most of the terrorists these days are Muslim.  It's just common sense that we'd be paying a little more attention to them than anyone else.

I believe what happened in Benghazi was political correctness at its very worst.  This administration wanted so much to prove that stereotyping Muslims is wrong that they allowed our consulate to let its guard down.  I also believe the so-called annex was the true target of the attack.  Whether real or imagined, the terrorists believed the CIA was using it as a black site.  That's why operatives there were told to stand down when they first heard gunfire several blocks away at the consulate.  They ignored orders and ran to the rescue only to have the terrorists follow them back to the annex and lay waste to the site.

Another interesting aspect of this story is Hillary Clinton's involvement.  At least one person is scheduled to testify that Hillary circumvented the State Departments own counterterrorism unit to keep it out of the decision-making chain.  Hillary's people have vehemently denied this but one has to wonder if Hillary will continue to take the heat if, in fact, she was covering for the administration.

I'm not ready to use the "impeach" word yet but I will remind you that in Watergate no one died.