Six Degrees From Brookings: How a Liberal Think Tank Keeps Coming Up in the Russian Collusion Investigation

The latest indictment by Special Counsel John Durham has created a stir in Washington as the investigation into the Russian collusion scandal exposed new connections to the Clinton campaign.  The indictment of  Igor Danchenko exposes additional close advisers to Hillary Clinton who allegedly pushed discredited and salacious allegations in the Steele dossier. However, one of the most interesting new elements was the role of a liberal think tank, the Brookings Institution, in the alleged effort to create a false scandal of collusion. Indeed, Brookings appears so often in accounts related to the Russian collusion scandal that it could be Washington’s alternative to the Kevin Bacon parlor game. It appears that many of these figures are within six degrees of Brookings.

The fact is that Washington remains a small town for the ruling elite where degrees of separation can be quite small as figures move in and out of government. Moreover, think tanks are often the parking lots for party loyalists as they wait (and work) for new Administrations. The Federalist Society and Heritage Foundation play a similar role for conservative figures.

However, even in Washington’s inbred environment, the layers of connections to Brookings is remarkable in the Durham indictments and accounts of the effort to create a Russian collusion scandal. The effort was hardly a secret before anyone knew the name of the former British spy Christopher Steele. On July 28, former CIA Director John Brennan briefed then President Obama on Hillary Clinton’s alleged “plan” to tie Donald Trump to Russia as “a means of distracting the public from her use of a private email server.” Notes from the meeting state the plan to invent a collusion narrative was “allegedly approved by Hillary Clinton a proposal from one of her foreign policy advisers to vilify Donald Trump by stirring up a scandal claiming interference by the Russian security service.” That was three days before the Russian investigation was initiated.

Durham is detailing how this plan was carried out and many of those referenced are within not six but two degrees of separation from Brookings.

Brookings played a large role in pushing the Russian collusion narrative, hiring a variety of experts who then populated media outlets like MSNBC and CNN stating confidently that Trump was clearly incriminated in a series of dubious criminal acts. While no such crimes were ever charged, let alone prosecuted, Brookings maintained a deep bench of enabling experts like Susan Hennessey (now a national security adviser in the Biden Administration), Ben Wittes (who defended James Comey in his leaking of FBI memos) and Norm Eisen (who then become counsel in the Trump impeachment effort). This included the Brookings site, LawFare, which ran a steady stream of columns on how Trump could be charged for crimes ranging from obstruction to bribery.

However, that type of media cross-pollination is common. What is most surprising is how the indictment seems to map out roads that keep leading back to Brookings.

The latest indicted figure, Danchenko, worked at Brookings. He proved to be the key unnamed source for Christopher Steele and later admitted to the FBI that the information attributed to him was not just “unsubstantiated” but, after being reworked by Steele, was unrecognizable from the original gossip or speculation.

It appears that Danchenko was introduced to former British spy Christopher Steele by Brookings employee Fiona Hill. If that name seems familiar, Hill secured a position on President Trump’s National Security Council and later became a key witness against him in the first Trump impeachment over the Ukraine scandal.

Steele also testified in London that his friend and then Brookings President Strobe Talbott was involved in briefings and inquiries on the development of the dossier. Talbott is also a former Clinton administration diplomat and Clinton friend who served in a high-ranking position under Hillary Clinton. (Another figure, Cody Shearer, who has been mentioned in accounts developing and spreading his own collusion claims, was the brother of Talbott’s late wife).

When Steele was called to the State Department for a briefing on his dossier, Talbot sat next to Assistant Secretary of State Victoria Nuland, who is currently at Brookings. The role of figures at Brookings in the dossier is still developing but all roads seem to lead back to the think tank.

Even when it became clear that false statements made in the secret FISA applications targeted Trump associate Carter Page, the secret court selected David Kris, who wrote for Brookings’ LawFare despite his prior denial that the FBI misled the court and criticism of Trump).

Brookings has long been viewed as effectively the research arm for Democratic figures and liberal causes. Yet, even in the Baconesque world of Washington insiders, it is rare to see a think tank connected on so many levels to a criminal investigation. Like much in our politics, these connections will mean different things to different people. For conservatives, Brookings looks like the mothership for this scandal with associates coordinating meetings and roles in the metastasization of the scandal.  For liberals, the connections simply show the influence of the liberal think tank and any highlighting of the think tank is gaslighting a new “Trilateral Commission” narrative.

With the exception of Danchenko, there is no evidence that any of these Brookings-related individuals have committed criminal acts or are suspected of such acts by Durham. However, these connections have already factored in the investigation and are likely to be addressed in any final Special Counsel report. Brookings Institution’s influence on the Russian collusion scandal will likely remain central to Durham’s unravelling of how the FBI was duped into the Russian investigation and the role of Clinton operatives in that effort. Notably, on September 9, 2015, Hillary Clinton appeared at Brookings and stressed there are “a lot of long-time friends and colleagues who perch here at Brookings including Strobe.” The question is whether that perch will become increasingly precarious as Durham continues his investigation.

104 thoughts on “Six Degrees From Brookings: How a Liberal Think Tank Keeps Coming Up in the Russian Collusion Investigation”

  1. Professor Turley, you are a brave man. I can’t believe that the far left loons aren’t camped out at your house, and haven’t drummed you out of academia.

    1. True. Likewise for John Durham

      It appears the key witness for prosecution in Kyle Rittenhouse saga admitted today he pointed gun, advanced first against Rittenhouse. This Rittenhouse acted in self-defense

      “It wasn’t until you pointed your gun at him, advanced on him, with your gun – now your hand’s down, pointed at him – that he fired, right?” the defense asked witness Gaige Grosskreutz. To which he replied:




      This case should be over

    2. some of the far left loons on this comment board are surely thinking of doing that.

  2. Turley should write a piece about Brookings Institution during the Watergate era. Apparently Nixon’s plumbers wanted to commit arson by burning down Brookings in downtown DC and wanted to purchase a fire engine. The plan was to set a real fire and then have fake firefighters go in and scoop up documents. Then White House lawyer, John Dean, warned Nixon that if someone accidentally got killed during this felony arson crime, Nixon himself could go to prison. So Nixon never bought his fire engine.

    1. The Brookings thing is just one aspect. Never forget Barack Obama and his henchmen John Brennan and Eric Holder. They actually did burn it down.

  3. Turley says:

    “The question is whether that perch will become increasing precarious as Durham continues his investigation.”

    My question is why shouldn’t the Left dismiss the Durham investigation as a “witch-hunt” just like Trumpists dismissed the Mueller investigation? Same alleged corrupted FBI employed by both, same “Deep State.”

    Trumpists can hardly fault the Left for using the playbook that they themselves created.

      1. George says:

        “Just the facts, ma’am.”

        Facts are immaterial to liars.

    1. Jeff, you want to see some fireworks, wait until a democrat wants a recount, or starts yelling fix even before the vote is in. Or if a democratic state installs their own “voter integrity” laws. Or set up their own party officials to decide the count that came in, then change it to their liking. Or strip rural voters of their rights to vote. Put voter polling places far from where they live. Close down Secretary of State offices in mostly white areas so they have to drive miles to register to vote. After all it is the playbook that they themselves created.

      1. Gospel of Matthew:

        “Then said Jesus unto him, Put up again thy sword into his place: for all they that take the sword shall perish with the sword.”

        The Trumpists will get their just desserts.

        1. JS:

          That’s rich. Here’s a better one:

          “Mark you this, Bassanio,
          The devil can cite Scripture for his purpose.
          An evil soul producing holy witness
          Is like a villain with a smiling cheek,
          A goodly apple rotten at the heart.
          O, what a goodly outside falsehood hath!”

          ~William Shakespeare, The Merchant of Venice, Act 1, Sc. 3

          1. Shylock warned:

            “If a Jew wrong a Christian, what is his humility? Revenge. If a Christian wrong a Jew, what should his sufferance be by Christian example? Why, revenge. The villainy you teach me I will execute, and it shall go hard but I will better the instruction.”

            One of these days, as Fishwings rightly points out, you lying Trumpists will reap what you have sown. Count on it….

            1. One of these days, as Fishwings rightly points out, you lying Trumpists will reap what you have sown. Count on it….

              Proving once again that FishWings still can’t get anything right.

              Everyone will reap what they’ve sown, in this life or the next. Count on it…

              1. Olly says:

                “Everyone will reap what they’ve sown, in this life or the next. Count on it…”

                The next? How can a grown man of your intelligence believe in fairy tales? No wonder you are able to swallow the Big Lie.

                1. Unless you’re expecting to live this life forever, your life will end with nothing after it, or something after it. What you’re guaranteed to reap is exactly what you’ve sown. Good luck.

                  1. Olly says:

                    “Unless you’re expecting to live this life forever, your life will end with nothing after it, or something after it.”

                    You had better hope it is NOTHING; otherwise, I will harass you Trumpists in Hell for an eternity….

                    1. You had better hope it is NOTHING; otherwise, I will harass you Trumpists in Hell for an eternity….

                      Nope. I have faith it is something and your harassment is expected. Bring it.

                    2. “Nope. I have faith it is something and your harassment is expected. Bring it.”

                      Now that I think about it, I hope you are right, but I know you are wrong.

                2. JS:

                  “The next? How can a grown man of your intelligence believe in fairy tales? No wonder you are able to swallow the Big Lie.”

                  Well, men from Thomas Aquinas to George Washington to President Obama professed a belief in the supernatural. Olly’s in good company.

                  And as Pascal noted about your position, JS, …”God is, or He is not.” But to which side shall we incline? Reason can decide nothing here. There is an infinite chaos which separated us. A game is being played at the extremity of this infinite distance where heads or tails will turn up. What will you wager? According to reason, you can do neither the one thing nor the other; according to reason, you can defend neither of the propositions.”

                  So maybe you’re willing to risk eternal damnation and hellfire to be right but Olly only risks nothingness if he’s wrong. I think Olly’s is the “rational” choice. Oh on the wager front, I’m willing to wager that Aquinas, Washington and Obama are grown men of intelligence at least equal to yours and yet still somehow swallowed what you deem “the Big Lie.”

                  1. Mespo says:

                    “Aquinas, Washington and Obama are grown men of intelligence at least equal to yours and yet still somehow swallowed what you deem “the Big Lie.”

                    Placing Obama in the same league with Aquinas and Washington? That comparison is not going to sit well with many Trumpists! Wow!

                    The Big Lie I was referring to was the second one, that is, the election was stolen which is an article of Faith of Trumpism.

                    1. JS:

                      Nice deflection but that’s is why I included him in a diverse group. And not because they compare intellectually. No one listed matches Aquinas but just so you see that the belief is widespread among folks of superior intellect. Obama is certainly a smart man but then again so was Alger Hiss.

                    2. Mespo claims:

                      “Obama is certainly a smart man but then again so was Alger Hiss.”

                      Trumpists, did you read that? Mespo- one of your own- claims Obama was “CERTAINLY A SMART MAN.”

                      Does he speak for all of you?

                  2. Good post Mespo. Silberman’s ego won’t permit him to see his wager is the irrational option. This is why he’s fixated on the “Big Lie” in his hand while ignoring “Biggest Lie” Durham is laying on the table.

                    1. Olly says:

                      “This is why he’s fixated on the “Big Lie” in his hand while ignoring “Biggest Lie” Durham is laying on the table.”

                      I am elated you take for granted that there is a Big Lie, but that it will be surpassed by Durham’s Bigger Lie.

                      We shall see or as the Russians say, “Posmotrim.”

        2. Jeff,

          Why in the heck would an Islamic Jihadist like yourself worry the least of the plight a single Jew, after all only around 10% survived the exodus from Egypt?

    2. JeffSilberman, did you miss the part where Mueller said under oath to Congress that he had never heard of Fusion GPS. How in the hell after 40 million dollars and years of investigation did he not know about Fusion GPS. Wow, that Mueller investigation was really on the ball. In all honesty how can you say that the Mueller investigation was not a “Witch Hunt”. Have you not read that The Washington Post, The New York Times, Politico, and The Intelligentsia Magazine are now saying that they got their Steele Dossier stories all wrong. When laid before you you still can not see the truth. I’m assuming that because you can write maybe yo also can read. Perhaps I am mistaken. Some men hear what they want to hear and disregard the rest.

      1. Hullbobby says:

        “Jeff, one glaring problem with your analysis is that Mueller found that there was NO COLLUSION…remember?”

        You are a Trumpist liar.



    Arrest illustrates how the Steele dossier was a political dirty trick orchestrated by Hillary Clinton
    By Andrew C. McCarthy

    Special counsel John Durham’s indictment of Igor Danchenko, the principal source for the bogus Steele dossier used by the FBI as a basis for the Trump-Russia investigation, further illustrates that Durham has his sights set on the Clinton campaign. Danchenko has been charged with five counts of lying to the FBI in interviews during 2017, as the bureau struggled in futility to verify outlandish allegations that Donald Trump and his campaign were clandestine agents of the Kremlin. Those allegations were compiled in the so-called Steele dossier, which the FBI relied on in obtaining surveillance warrants from a secret federal court.
    The dossier was generated by the Clinton campaign. Its principal author was former British spy Christopher Steele. Steele’s main source was Danchenko, a Russian native based in the United States who worked at the Brookings Institution — a Washington think tank whose former president, Strobe Talbott, is a college friend of Bill Clinton’s who worked in the Clinton State Department. At Brookings, Danchenko worked with Fiona Hill, later a member of President Trump’s National Security Council (and a key witness in the first Trump impeachment over the unrelated Ukraine controversy). It was through Hill that Danchenko became acquainted with Steele, who ran a London-based intelligence firm upon leaving MI-6, the British spy service. Durham’s indictment alleges that Danchenko lied about two major points. First, he fabricated the claim that the president of the Russian-American Chamber of Commerce informed him that, during the 2016 presidential campaign, Trump was involved in a well-developed “conspiracy of cooperation” with the regime of Russian President Vladimir Putin. In reality, the indictment says, this conversation never happened. The chamber president is not identified by name in the indictment. After the Steele dossier became public, however, there was intense speculation that the chamber’s founder, Sergey Millian, was a Steele dossier source. As I recounted in my book on Russiagate, “Ball of Collusion,” Millian denied being a source and trashed the dossier as “fake news created by sick minds.” Danchenko is also alleged to have concealed that one of his sources for the information he provided to Steele was a longtime Democratic Party operative who was close to the Clintons — having worked on both of Bill Clinton’s successful presidential campaigns and Hillary Clinton’s unsuccessful 2008 presidential campaign. This source was revealed on Thursday to be Chuck Dolan, a public relations executive who had Russian contacts, and referred to as “PR Executive-1” in the indictment. The FBI interviewed Danchenko because it was desperately trying to corroborate the Steele dossier claims. One question that Durham must be pressing is: What took the bureau so long? The Obama Justice Department brought the FBI’s sworn claims to the secret federal Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court in October 2016. Though the FBI is supposed to verify its allegations before going to court, it apparently did not interview Danchenko, the main source for the dossier, until January 2017 — by which time it was obtaining its second 90-day spy warrant. It appears that Durham theorizes that the Trump-Russia collusion narrative was a political attack manufactured by the Clinton campaign. Relying on Danchenko, Steele compiled the reports for Glenn Simpson, co-founder of intelligence firm Fusion-GPS, which specializes in digging up political dirt. Fusion-GPS was retained for the Trump project by Perkins-Coie, the Clinton campaign’s law firm. In September, Durham indicted former Perkins-Coie attorney Michael Sussmann for making a false statement to the FBI while peddling Trump-Russia allegations that the bureau eventually found unsubstantiated. Durham alleges that Sussmann concealed that he was working for the Clinton campaign and a tech executive who was hoping for an important government job if Clinton was elected. Durham’s charging instruments suggest that the Clinton campaign used its agents to peddle the Trump-Russia rumors to the government and the media, then used the fact that Trump was being investigated as part of its campaign messaging.

  5. I would be hard pressed to find anyone outside of woke universities that didn’t believe Hillary was covering her own behind. That old Democratic party you thought you knew and loved has been dead for nigh on 30 years. doesn’t mean the RNC was automatically any better, though I think it is now, but voters, you have been fleeced for a good long while now. This matters less in the White House than it does in the Congress and locally. This is why I love Professor Turley: the CONSTITUTION, and the framework for our government actually gives the power to the states and to the people in those states. This is something the Dems have been attempting circumvent, if they couldn’t outright destroy, for many years, but absolutely on steroids for the past several. Any of us old enough to remember the cold war as an actual experience know that this is pretty much life or death, do or die for our way of life. Younger people fail to realize that it is the system that their forebears created for them that allow them to voice their dissidence and generally act like idiots without repercussions in the first place. Yes, our rights are inalienable, and that includes spoiled brats, but to those brats – you have to live in a place that recognizes that fact in the first place. Heaven help your weak souls if you ever don’t.

    Russian collusion was a joke, and it was the privilege of people living in a cooshy privileged country to create this maelstrom at all.

    1. This is why I love Professor Turley: the CONSTITUTION, and the framework for our government actually gives the power to the states and to the people in those states

      What separates leftists from Conservatives? THIS!

  6. They have tried to tell us that Trump was a Russian stooge. They say that Trump has committed crimes but after many years no indictments have been forth coming. Conveniently they forget that Bill Clinton was paid $500,000 for a speech he gave in Russia and soon thereafter Hillary came out against sanctions on Russia. Now we know that the head of the CIA knew and said so under sworn testimony that Hillary was instrumental in the creation of the RussiaGate conspiracy to distract from her illegal unsecured server containing top secret documents. In her coverup she used a Russian living in America and a guy who was the head of The Russian Chamber of Commerce to feed the Steele Dossier to the oh so willing media. One last point. I mostly agree with Professor Turley but when he tells us that the FBI was duped it doesn’t jibe with the fact that they already knew in 2017 that the dossier was garbage but they kept their mouths shut as the media fanned the RussiaGate lie. The presentation of the FBI as poor fooled choir boys just doesn’t fly. Other than that a great piece of exposure by the good Professor.

    1. I mostly agree with Professor Turley but when he tells us that the FBI was duped it doesn’t jibe with the fact that they already knew in 2017 that the dossier was garbage

      NOBODY was duped. A sharp 5th grader that paid attention, knew facts never supported the fairytale of President Trump aiding and abetting Russia in anything, in anyway. This was a lie from the very beginning.

      Let us all drill down on this fact. President Obama Chief Law enforcement officer of the United States, was fully briefed on the scam being run by the FBI, Intel community, State Dept, and the DoJ. I will include on the list, SCOTUS. Chief Justice Roberts knows about the phone FISA warrants (renewed 3 times) and he is fully aware FISA 702 lookups are abused at the rate of 80% of the lookups are illegal.

      1. Iowan2 says:

        “NOBODY was duped. A sharp 5th grader that paid attention, knew facts never supported the fairytale of President Trump aiding and abetting Russia in anything, in anyway. This was a lie from the very beginning.”

        Unlike lying Trumpists, Turley NEVER called the Mueller Investigation a “witch-hunt.” Nor does he believe in the Trumpist lie that there was/is a “Deep State.” He was a critic of Trump pardoning all those convicted due to the Mueller investigation. He characterized 1/6 as a “desecration” of the Capitol and called for a Congressional censure of Trump for his “reckless” speech- his description, not mine. Often Turley pointed out Trump’s dishonesty.

        Turley has never been and never will be a lying Trumpist. He is nothing like you, Iowan, remember that.

        1. JeffSilberman, The New York Times, The Washington Post and Politico Magazine now tell us that the Steele Dossier was the witch hunt that set the Mueller investigation in motion. Are you now trying to tell us that these left leaning publications are also lying. This is your answer to everything that doesn’t correspond to the imaginings in your head. LYING I TELL YOU LYING exclaims JeffSilberman when only months ago these news agencies were the Holy Grail found in JeffSilbermans discourse. Once it’s stuck up there in Jeff’s noggin there’s no prying it loose.

        2. As Iowan pointed out
          As was clear long before Durham
          The doj/fbi knew all the allegations were garbage before mueller was appointed

          Appointing mueller sc would be like trump in 2025 appointing an sc to look into dvs fradulent ballot counting in AZ

          While the AZ audit found a high probability of large scale fraud by numerous means
          It absolutely confirmed the dvs ballot count in AZ

          The mueller appointment and investigation was without foundation
          It was illegal

          And it is certain that the doj fbi muellers team as well as all those involved in this fraud knew it

          Remember nearly everything Durham is exposing was known to doj/fbi in Jan 2017

          The mueller investigation is the equivalent of Nixon succeeding in convincing the DOJ/FBI to investigate democrats for watergate

          1. The Mueller Probe was not a witch hunt, it was a coverup.

            The official mission was to determine whether and how Russia interfered with the election.

            Danchenko had a counterintelligence file at the FBI. They’d suspected him of being a Russian spy back in 2009 when he was at Brookings with Fiona Hill and Eric Voldemort. The file was closed after Danchenko moved back to Russia in late 2010.

            Mueller did not pursue this lead, despite the possibility that Danchenko interfered with the election, in Hillary’s favor, on behalf of the Russian government. In fact, Mueller took pains to keep Danchenko’s name out of his report.

            Mueller also declined an interview with Julian Assange, who repeatedly insisted that he didn’t get the DNC emails from the Russians. Assange also claimed to have corroborating evidence of this. Certainly “whether” implies “or not”? Certainly “how” implies “and how they didn’t”?

            And insanely, neither the Crossfire Hurricane team, nor Mueller, subpoenaed the DNC server. Instead, they relied on a “heavily redacted” draft report by Crowdstrike, a cybersecurity firm commissioned by the DNC. Under oath, Shawn Henry of Crowdstrike admitted that they found no concrete evidence that the server had even been hacked, let alone by whom. He said it was “set up to be hacked”, but that’s true of anyone who has a phishing email in their spam-box.

            The metadata on the DNC email files were more consistent with a manual transfer onto an external hard drive, not an upload to the internet. Which might explain a certain reward offered by Assange after a certain individual’s untimely demise.

            Mueller’s team went out of their way to not pursue any leads that might lead to Hillary and the DNC.

            The unspoken mission of the probe was, in my opinion, a post hoc justification of the Crossfire Hurricane investigation, and a tying up of loose ends that might implicate Hillary and the DNC. It was a mop-job, nothing more.

    2. Don’t forget the millions the Russians gave to illary to launder through her Clinton Global Initiative — or the millions she raked in buy selling Uranium 1

  7. Brennan knew before the Russia hoax was kicked off that it was concocted by the Clintons.
    Yet he repeatedly said publicly that Trump was a traitor for his collusion with Russia.

    Why is this trash not in prison instead of a high paid media personality?

    1. Brennan is unfortunately not criminally culpable for his words as a private citizen.

      He is however morally culpable and no one should ever trust him or his cabal again.

      Unfortunately today being a democrat appears to require being obotomized and incapable of holding people who lie accountable.

      1. Was Brennan ever called before congress? If he lied under oath, he could indeed be charged.

  8. It’s another day dealing with secret agents & chaos. Best place to look is in the White House. Working on the side of good doesn’t pay well enough.


  10. Protest at school board meetings and you get labeled as domestic terrorists under the watchful eye of the FBI. Run a scheme to undermine a presidential campaign and when that fails, extend that scheme into a coup attempt and you’ll have the support of the IC/DOJ/FBI and the Democratic party.

    Brookings is a wolf in sheep’s clothing with access to all levels of government.

    1. “Wolf in sheep’s clothing” is an excellent description of Brookings’ former head and the Clintons’ 50-year buddy, Strobe Talbott. Bill and Hill even went to East Hampton (Long Island) NY to visit him this past summer with current SOS Antony Blinken nearby. The clue for me is asking the question, “How many people pushing the Russian Collusion narrative actually speak Russian. Not sure about Christopher Steele, but very sure re: Talbott and Fiona. Makes me think the whole plan was hatched by them. I remember well Hillary’s smirk during the 2016 debate with Donald Trump when she let fly the idea.

  11. While the links to Brookings are interesting, they are peripheral. The central question is whether Durham will indict senior leadership of the CIA, FBI, DOJ and/or Special Counsel’s office for their roles in pursuing an investigation of claims that from the beginning were dubious, contradicted by exculpatory evidence, never corroborated and soon contradicted by the principal source. So far, aside from the indictment of Clinesmith, who was handed to Durham by Horowitz, the indictments have portrayed the FBI and others as dupes, misled by a conspiracy promoted by the Clinton campaign. Although former DNI John Ratcliffe said over the weekend that, based on the documents he provided Durham, he believes that indictments of senior officials are coming, I remain skeptical.

    On a separate matter, can anyone publish a link to the motion for emergency stay of the vaccine mandate filed by Texas in the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals? I have been unable to find it.

        1. The Fifth Circuit is moving so rapidly on this petition that a Permanent Injunction may be had before the petitions filed in other Circuits our consolidated and assigned a Circuit by lottery. For those wishing a swift end to this rule, the New Orleans panel assigned here couldn’t be better and the Fifth Circuit in general has been skeptical of OHSA emergency orders. Five of the six emergency orders have been struck down and the Fifth Circuit is responsible for four of the five. This venue should get this quickly on its way to SCOTUS.

    1. There is no doubt those in the Doj/fbi
      Are liars
      Are biased
      Have abused power

      But have they committed actual crimes ?

      Absolutely they should be held accountable
      But they wont

  12. JFC, Jonathan, give it rest. We all know that Trump is a serial liar, cheat and all around jerk.

    1. Wally: While that is true, the rule of law (and simple ethics) requires that we, you know, not break the law or ethics. As with the 1st Amendment, rights (and ethics, values) only work for all when they are applied equally and fairly. If T was so bad to start with (not saying he wasn’t), why not go after him on the obvious and truthful aspects? In any case, after the 2008 economic debacle, and the Obama/DNC awful handling of it, 2016 was always going to be counter-establishment. Bernie would have been the people’s choice for a new direction, had the DNC not submarined his candidacy (lots of evidence of election shenanigans, per usual). That left the only one option for upsurging polulism: the counter-establishment on the Right… enter T. He was the in no small part the strategy of the Clintonistas, who saw him as Donald Chump and never thought they could lose.

    2. I keep looking at this level of brainwashing and denial and wondering how such a thing is possible, and I keep coming up empty. You do know that Trump is no longer POTUS and that he has no sway over anything whatsoever, right? Everything that you are seeing today comes courtesy of those other folks you voted for. Everything. if you are so privileged that it doesn’t touch you personally, then why the heck do you care? This is precisely what leads us to believe you are paid to sow (ineffectual, nice try), and her pretty much in an attempt to muck things up. say something intelligent based on the actual experience of being a human in the world, and perhaps we’ll listen.

      1. I keep looking at this level of brainwashing and denial and wondering how such a thing is possible, and I keep coming up empty.

        James, it’s called ideological subversion or active measures. This interview with Yuri Bezmenov explains not only how such a thing is possible, it’s also irreversible for the individual(s) affected by it.

          1. I used to do the same before I closed my accounts. I now share it via email and ask them to spread it far and wide.

    3. Fine, but also irrelevant. That is, if you hope to live in a society of laws.

      Or is it your view that when a politician is so obviously and extremely and disgustingly an “all around jerk” that you – guardian of public morals – don’t believe he should even be allowed to hold office… then the Federal Bureau of Investigation is no longer obligated to follow the law when it comes to, say, wiretapping the guy? Are you advocating that? No legal protection for “liars and cheats”? Are you saying the law is only for people who don’t disgust you? The law is for people you like and approve of? Law for respectable people only, so easily identifiable by what “We all know”? Is that it?

      Maybe you don’t even think about what you post. That would be better than believing you think the protections of the law are only for people who meet your cultural and ethical standards.

  13. ….. even in Washington’s inbred environment,…..…….

    …that type of media cross-pollination is common….

    ….Hillary Clinton appeared at Brookings and stressed there are “a lot of long-time friends and colleagues who perch here at Brookings…

    After reading about “inbreeding”, “cross-pollination”, and Clintons sharing of “perches”, I am not sure if I should take a shower to wash myself from all of the tawdry filth or light a cigarette


  14. Hold the phone here folks!

    Several Days BEFORE the FBI kicks off the Russia Collusion Investigation….Brennan briefs Obama about the Hillary Clinton scheme to falsely accuse Trump et al for colluding with the Russians.

    Then the FBI KNOWINGLY uses the Steele Dossier that was clearly known to the FBI to be patently bogus and a product of the Hillary Clinton approved scheme to falsely accuse Trump of colluding with the Russians, uses that same Dossier as the primary basis for obtaining FOUR successive FISA Court Warrants to SPY on Carter Page, a US Citizen and known CIA Source.

    Clinesmith altered a CIA Email that confirmed Page was a CIA Source to deny that being true and was the first person Indicted and who pleaded Guilty to a very minor charge and garnered a very limited sentence.

    So far the impression provided by reading tea leaves is the FBI is being shown as having been duped by Sussmann and Danchenko.

    We are told the FBI did not attempt to verify Danchenko’s statements to the FBI and that Civilian Lawyers did….and confirmed the claims made by Danchenko were bogus after they interviewed his sources.

    Perhaps the FBI did not care to do that as they knew from the start they were bogus and if they did an investigation it would kill their use of the Steele Dossier (which they knew was part of the Clinton Scheme) to get the FISA Warrants.

    If you believe the FBI is not nose deep into this conspiracy to undermine the Trump Campaign and later…..subvert the Trump Presidency….then you must believe in Purple Unicorns and Pixie Dust.

    The real question is will Durham take this investigation to the logical conclusion…..based upon direct evidence….and Indict every individual who played a direct role in this.

    My money tells me that he will not, can not, and better not because if he tries he best employ a Food Taster and a very good Security Detail he can trust, and have his affairs in order as he is going up against the Clinton Mafia and the FBI.

    Above all he best avoid Parks.

    1. I’m skeptical about the end result too, Ralph Chappell. But if we cannot achieve a just result with all of the facts that have already become known, what hope do we have that we will ever have a government worthy of our trust?

  15. R. Emmett Tyrell’s longtime characterization of the Clinton machine as a “Crime family” did not even begin to describe the level of corruption we now see. Seems like a good fit for RICO prosecution but that would never happen.

    Country might have been saved a world of agony if B Clinton had been removed when
    Impeached ca. 1998.

  16. The truth will out. Will the dossier and the Russia scandal ever surpass Watergate? Probably not, but it’s starting to look like it’s gaining steam

  17. Media (and Turley) repeatedly referred to Brookings as center left.

    Anybody who ever listened to Brookings people speak would immediately drop the “center” part of the description.

    Maybe “Lefty coup plotters” is a better description.

Comments are closed.