Corn’s story was the basis of the fever dream that would possess anti-Trump forces for more than two years. It covered rumors instead of substance; it portrayed unreliable people as models of morality; it included hedges about whether or not the whole thing was true; and it hinted that where there was smoke, there must be fire. Corn quoted directly from Steele’s “dossier” that portrayed Trump as a Russian asset who was being controlled through “blackmail” and also associated him with the hacking of the DNC and the Clinton campaign email server. The FBI was in “shock and horror” at what had been uncovered, according to Corn. There was concern that the election was being “undermined” and “delegitimized.”104 Any American who read the story and believed it would surely cast his or her vote for someone other than Trump. It was a devastating indictment. Never mind that it was untrue. Near the end of the article—almost as an afterthought—Corn penned a rather feeble disclaimer: “There’s no way to tell whether the FBI has confirmed or debunked any of the allegations contained in the former spy’s memos.”105 Thus, after maligning Trump as a probable traitor with depraved intent, Corn belatedly inserted the caveat that it might all be a lie. It was the quintessential journalistic hit job.
Corn didn’t stop there. He also provided a copy of Steele’s dossier to the FBI’s general counsel, James Baker, who dutifully distributed it to the agents and officials investigating Trump-Russia “collusion.”106 The extent to which the two men discussed the document and the FBI’s investigation is not fully known because Baker, under criminal investigation by the DOJ for potential violation of FBI regulations, was directed by his lawyer not to answer such questions.107 However, by the time they met, the Bureau was receiving multiple copies of every successive memo invented by the former British spy. The distribution chain was the definition of overkill. But Simpson and Steele were taking no chances. They planned to inundate the FBI, the DOJ, and the media with the spurious accusations that Trump was in bed with Putin to manipulate the presidential election results.
Corn and Isikoff, it should be noted, subsequently teamed up to coauthor a book, Russian Roulette: The Inside Story of Putin’s War on America and the Election of Donald Trump, that was inspired by their initial reporting. They described it as “the story of political skullduggery unprecedented in American history.”108 Weaving together a circumstantial argument that implied that Trump and/or his campaign was involved in Russian efforts to throw the election his way, Corn and Isikoff seemed to take credit for the “collusion” scandal that, in the end, proved unfounded and inauthentic. No matter; the book became a number-one New York Times best seller. The Times, which was itself wholly committed to the “collusion” delusion, lauded it as “the most thorough and riveting account so far.”109 Ironically, Isikoff’s previous best seller with Corn, Hubris: The Inside Story of Spin, Scandal, and the Selling of the Iraq War, had exposed the faulty and fraudulent intelligence leading to the Iraq War. If only they’d brought the same skepticism to this project.
Nine months after Russian Roulette was published, Isikoff told an interviewer that “Steele was clearly onto something.” But then, in a cathartic moment, he grudgingly admitted that when “you actually get into the details of the Steele dossier, the specific allegations, we have not seen the evidence to support them, and, in fact, there’s good grounds to think that some of the more sensational allegations will never be proven and are likely false.”110 His remarks made headlines. So in a follow-up tweet, he performed a perfect reverse somersault by declaring that Trump had “aided and abetted Moscow’s attack on American democracy.”111 Three months later, Special Counsel Robert Mueller delivered his report concluding that “the investigation did not establish that members of the Trump Campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities.”112
John Brennan, the Instigator of the Hoax
President Obama’s CIA director, John Brennan, was instrumental in proliferating the “dossier.” But even before the Clinton campaign and Democrats funded Simpson and Steele’s project to smear Trump with the “collusion” hoax, the seeds of the narrative were germinated by none other than Brennan.
A close confidant of President Obama and a strident supporter of Clinton’s candidacy, Brennan was determined to do what he could to place a bull’s-eye on the back of her political rival. His reasons were both political and personal: if Clinton succeeded Obama, Brennan stood an excellent chance of maintaining the reins of power as the United States’ chief spook at the CIA. He had been close to President Bill Clinton, delivering daily intelligence briefings. He was a lifelong liberal who admitted that he had once voted for the Communist Party. Anyone like Trump who espoused conservative policies was viewed by Brennan as a villain.
It is impossible to overestimate the immense power that resides in the hands of a CIA director. His actions are cloaked in stealth and secrecy. He hides behind legal protections afforded to clandestine operators who are supposed to be acting for the benefit of Americans and against foreign enemies that are dedicated to causing mischief and harm. Technically, he is subordinate to the director of national intelligence; during Brennan’s tenure, the DNI was James Clapper. In reality, the CIA director operates quite independently and is answerable to no one, except the president who appointed him or her. Sometimes even the president is kept in the dark. Against that enigmatic backdrop, Brennan’s machinations in the “collusion” hoax are difficult to unspool.
There is evidence that Brennan began formulating the Trump-Russia odyssey sometime in the latter part of 2015, long before the Clinton campaign and Democrats commissioned the “dossier” from Steele. According to the British publication The Guardian, “Britain’s spy agencies played a crucial role in alerting their counterparts in Washington to contacts between members of Donald Trump’s campaign team and Russian intelligence operatives.”113 Though this may sound ominous, the purported Russian “contacts” by associates of the campaign appear to have been either innocuous or nonexistent. No evidence of an election conspiracy or coordination was picked up by what was described as “routine surveillance” of Russians.114 If that sketchy information was, indeed, flagged by foreign intelligence, Brennan would have been the natural recipient in the United States.
The CIA is prohibited by law from monitoring or spying on its own citizens.115 Brennan certainly obtained information from somewhere, and the vaunted intelligence service of the United States’ closest European ally seems logical. The CIA director boasted about how he had been the first to alert the FBI about “collusion” when he testified before the House Intelligence Committee in May 2017:
I was aware of intelligence and information about contacts between Russian officials and U.S. persons that raised concerns in my mind about whether or not those individuals were cooperating with the Russians, either in a witting or unwitting fashion, and it served as the basis for the FBI investigation to determine whether such collusion—cooperation occurred.116
Brennan was just getting started. As he exerted uncommon pressure on the FBI to pursue a counterintelligence probe on Trump, he resolved to help spread the false allegations to Congress and the media. Simpson and Steele were already hounding reporters with their “dossier” when Brennan took a trip to Capitol Hill to tell top members of Congress of his “information indicating that Russia was working to help elect Donald J. Trump president.”117 Brennan argued that Trump was in on the conspiracy. He politicized phony intelligence and instigated the fraudulent case against Clinton’s opponent.
Among the House and Senate members whom Brennan briefed were the so-called “Gang of Eight.”118 These are the leaders of both parties, as well as the chairmen and ranking members of the respective intelligence committees. Brennan held separate meetings with each of them, detailing the uncorroborated information on “collusion” that was based largely on the phony “dossier.” Although Brennan testified before lawmakers in May 2017 that he had been unaware of Steele’s document and/or its contents until
after the election, that was patently untrue.119 Brennan also denied, under oath, that the “dossier” had been a part of the intelligence review of Russian interference in the election and therefore could not have influenced the published report. That was also untrue, as evidenced by documents later uncovered.120 Lying to Congress is a crime.
Brennan’s next move was truly Machiavellian. Armed with the “dossier” itself or, at the very least, its allegations, he briefed Senate majority leader Harry Reid (D-NV) on August 25.121 The plan was for Reid to send a letter to Comey demanding an investigation. The correspondence would be leaked to the media, giving journalists an excuse to publish stories about Trump-Russian “collusion.” Reid crafted the letter, which all but indicted Trump. Two days later, on August 27, Reid dispatched his correspondence to Comey accusing Trump of being an “agent of Russia and the Kremlin” in an effort to “undermine our free and fair elections.”122 The accusations were straight out of Steele’s “dossier”—almost word for word. Trump was accused of participating in the hacking of Democratic emails and a Trump adviser was accused of being bribed to effectuate future Trump policies toward Russia. It was all nonsense, but that didn’t matter. Obviously, Brennan had delivered the contents of Steele’s salacious document to Reid, and it was being put to destructive use. Naturally, Reid demanded an investigation, although he and Brennan certainly knew that one had already been officially opened. The letter and its allegations were all for show. The media needed a hook to justify running the story.
Like Pavlov’s dogs, journalists capitulated. The New York Times and the Washington Post reacted as predicted, publishing articles suggesting that Trump was a Russian asset. Other news organizations jumped on board and reported much the same. On August 29, the Times connected Trump advisers to “Russian leadership.”123 In an August 30 column, Josh Rogan of the Post employed the word “collusion” in the lead sentence of his piece.124 That seems to have been the genesis of a term that was laden with criminal overtones and a descriptive pejorative that would become the fountainhead of the Russian hoax. Hillary Clinton seized on Reid’s letter and publicly demanded that Trump be investigated. Her supporters cheered the fake news.
It is difficult to know just how many millions of Americans accepted that propaganda, but it did not gain the result that Brennan and Reid desired. The Republican nominee did not sink in the polls. A second “sub rosa” attack would have to be engineered. It happened on October 30, when Reid fired off another letter to Comey that repeated his accusation of “explosive information about close ties and coordination between Donald Trump . . . and the Russian government.”125 As before, it was immediately leaked to the media, which were now working full-time to debilitate Trump’s chances in the election that was just days away. The Washington Post, which had coined the invidious term “collusion,” repeated the word in a story the next day.126 So did other news outlets as they papered the nation with Reid’s incendiary letter and fabricated accusations. From there the word seemed to take on a life all its own. For the next two years and beyond, it would be misused and misunderstood in a deliberate effort to falsely accuse Trump of crimes he did not commit. The media, which never bothered to examine the legal meaning of “collusion,” embraced it as their cudgel to bludgeon Trump in the press and on the airwaves.
As befitting common crooks who get caught and turn on each other, Brennan and Reid later gave conflicting accounts of what they’d done. Brennan claimed he had urged Reid not to send Comey his letters, while Reid claimed he had acted as Brennan wanted.127 Neither one of them has an ounce of credibility, so it’s difficult to know which one is lying. Reid has a notable and remorseless history of spreading a lie to damage a Republican candidate for president.128 Brennan was trained in deception, duplicity, and chicanery. He has a long and distinguished record of dishonesty that has been well chronicled over the years.129 Input the words “Brennan lies” into any conventional search engine on the internet, and your computer will explode. Having repeatedly demonstrated that he cannot be trusted with classified or top secret information, the former spook constituted a one-man national security risk.
We expect CIA directors to be nonpartisan and apolitical. Brennan was not. We expect CIA directors to be circumspect, knowledgable, and concerned about the reputation of their organization. Brennan was not. We expect CIA directors to be focused on genuine national security threats and getting to the bottom of things. Brennan was not. He misused classified information and disseminated false intelligence. Instead of collecting and analyzing intelligence to protect Americans from harm, Brennan misappropriated it to harm them, including Trump. He weaponized his powers for political reasons and personal gain. In August 2018, Trump announced that Brennan’s security clearance would be revoked, but it never happened.130 It was too late; the CIA director had already wrought enormous damage.
“Maverick” John McCain and David Kramer Give the “Dossier” Republican Cred
Senator John McCain (R-AZ) seemed to revel in his moniker, “Maverick.” Like the lead character in the movie Top Gun, he was a rebel and a nonconformist who chaffed at party doctrine and often embraced unorthodox positions for a Republican. He saw himself as independent minded. Others viewed him as disruptive, reckless, and inept. As the GOP nominee for president in 2008, he had run a miserable losing campaign that was notable mostly for his chronic mistakes and misjudgments. Newsweek called it “aimless and chaotic,” wondering in a headline if it was the “worst ever” campaign.131 That was a generous assessment.
It was no wonder that McCain loathed Trump. The two men had traded insults for years, but in July 2015, while campaigning in Iowa, Trump had raised the level of rancor by disparaging McCain’s status as a war hero.132 The Arizona senator was livid and never seemed to set aside the invective that Trump had hurled at him. Two years later, McCain groused to a 60 Minutes interviewer that the president had failed to apologize.133 The incident helps explain why the senator may have been more than eager to seek retribution when the opportunity presented itself immediately after the presidential election in November 2016.
Simpson and Steele had been industrious and relentless in proliferating their “dossier.” They had given it to the media, the FBI, the DOJ, the State Department, the CIA, and other intelligence agencies, as well as the British government. Sir Andrew Wood, who had served as the United Kingdom’s ambassador to Russia and had ties to Steele’s company, Orbis Business Intelligence, had been briefed on the document’s contents.134 He would become a key player. It was Wood who decided to tip off David Kramer, McCain’s longtime associate, while they attended a security conference together in Halifax, Nova Scotia. So alarmed (or excited) was Kramer that he scheduled an impromptu summit. Wood, Kramer, and McCain met privately on or about November 19, 2016, whereupon the ambassador began spinning the tall tale of how Trump was in league with Putin and the Russian government. The incontrovertible evidence was contained in memos by Steele. Preposterous as the story was, McCain was anxious to exploit it against his nemesis. Kramer was dispatched to London to meet with Steele, and his document was thereafter obtained.135
Once McCain had his hands on the “dossier,” the dissemination process commenced. The senator met with Comey on December 9 and gave the document to the director.136 McCain would later deny having done that, only to eventually recant. Of course, the FBI already possessed the “dossier,” having received it from various sources in periodic installments over the previous five months. Simultaneously, Kramer began a comprehensive campaign to blanket the media with the false but provocative allegations. He met with or spoke to a dozen reporters, including from CNN, ABC News, The Guardian, NPR, McClatchy, Mother Jones, the Washington Post, and the Wall Street Journal.137 Yet no one was informed that the “dossier” had been financed by Hillary Clinton’s campaign and Democrats. Conveniently, Steele’s disqualifying anti-Trump bias and subsequent termination by the FBI for leaking and lying were also concealed. It did not seem to matter to anyone that the document
was suspect on its face, as was the motivation of its creators, Simpson and Steele. It was all conveniently overlooked. Or studiously buried.
McCain’s role was necessary and vital. By virtue of his senior status as a US senator and a Republican to boot, he lent the document the kind of credibility and stature that Simpson and Steele had long craved. The Democratic origins of the “dossier” could be obscured if a respected official from the same party as Trump stamped it with a hearty endorsement. It had to be taken seriously, they reasoned, since it was now countenanced by the esteemed John McCain. The senator’s abiding antipathy toward the new president was dexterously overlooked or forgiven.
Among the journalists to whom Kramer delivered the “dossier” was Ken Bensinger, a reporter for BuzzFeed News. In his deposition, Kramer told a ridiculous story of stepping out of the journalist’s office for a period of time and leaving the “dossier” behind, not realizing that Bensinger would photograph it with his iPhone.138 Right. Kramer later confessed that that account was untrue and that he had, in fact, given the reporter a copy. Kramer admitted to another false statement he had made to Steele.139 Hence, Kramer is a completely unreliable witness, except for the fact that he obtained the “dossier” and gave it to journalists. BuzzFeed published the document for the first time on January 10, 2017, just ten days before Trump would be inaugurated. CNN aired its story about it the same day. It had been leaked to the network by the director of national intelligence, James Clapper, who proceeded to condemn leaks in his television appearances.
Witch Hunt Page 9