Seven years later, we learn from
Special Counsel John Durham’s report what was obvious seven minutes into this nonsense: The Russian hoax story was a childish prank. The puerile document was created by political opponents of Donald Trump. Duh — and double duh. Those who perpetuated it helped avert peace abroad and destroy tranquility at home. Divide countries, divide the public, and engender paranoid hate; that’s one heck of a prank.
In 2016 this Hilary Clinton paid-for schlock piece of fabulist political fantasy was discussed in a White House briefing. Were these a confederacy of dunces, devils, or serious intelligence analysts? You be the judge. And ask yourself what was the collective IQ in that meeting as CIA Director John Brennan breathlessly went over Hilary’s hoax documents with President Obama, Vice President Biden, Attorney General Loretta Lynch, and FBI Director James Comey ooing and ahhing. Confirmation bias? Lack of critical thinking? Lack of judgment? Or just any stick to beat a dog named Trump with?
On August 3, 20I6, within days of receiving the Clinton Plan intelligence, Director Brennan met with the President, Vice President and other senior Administration officials, including but not limited to the Attorney General (who participated remotely) and the FBI Director, in the White House Situation Room to discuss Russian election interference efforts. According to Brennan’s handwritten notes and his recollections from the meeting, he briefed on relevant intelligence known to date on Russian election interference, including the Clinton Plan intelligence [the Dossier]. Specifically, Director Brennan’s declassified handwritten notes reflect that he briefed the meeting’s participants regarding the “alleged approval by Hillary Clinton on 26 July of a proposal from one of her [campaign] advisors to vilify Donald Trump by stirring up a scandal claiming interference by the Russian security services.
What are Americans supposed to make of a group of adults who would take this story that was politically too good to be true seriously? Hint, hint: in news and intelligence work, too good to be true is usually just another name for false. A rookie newspaper editor in a small city paper would have laughed the whole thing out of the room.
But, alas, there is a pretty wide consensus in the news business that the Washington press corps is the worst in the business. In Washington, it is more about them than about who, what, where, why, and when reporting. The politicians come and go, but they stay; they matter. The class nerds turned power-drunk Roman emperors are running this show. Thumbs up, and your career lives. Thumbs down, and these keyboard gladiators are free to destroy the good name of the man silly enough to color outside the approved lines. By the time they are done with you, there will be little enough for the lions to eat.
How else do you explain a Pulitzer Prize to the
Washington Post and the
New York Times for its stories premised on the Russian hoax being a true roadmap to a scoop?