Media, Politics

Wait! Washington Post’s Bump Makes the Last Pitch for Russian Collusion
Screenshot (C-Span)

Shortly before the release of the Durham report, I wrote about the concern that we have a de facto state media in the United States. The column explored the pattern of false claims replicated across media platforms in the last four years. Then the Report was released and the media seemed intent to prove the point. However, even in this determined group, the Washington Post (which won the Pulitzer Prize for reporting on the Russian collusion) set a new level of denial with a column by Philip Bump.

Bump has long been controversial for his role in pushing some of the false claims discussed in prior columns. Some of those are worth noting briefly because they share common elements to his most recent column.

For example, Bump was one of those who made the false claims that Attorney General Bill Barr cleared Lafayette Park for a photo op for Trump. He also claimed that Barr lied in his denial of the use of tear gas by federal agents. Bump wrote the Washington Post column titled “Attorney General Bill Barr’s Dishonest Defense of Clearing of Lafayette Square.” Not only did the Post refer to the “debunked claim” that no tear gas was used by the federal government, but goes on to state:

“It is the job of the media to tell the truth. The truth is that Barr’s arguments about the events of last Monday collapse under scrutiny and that his flat assertion that there was no link between clearing the square and Trump’s photo op should be treated with the same skepticism that his claims about the use of tear gas earns.”

It turns out that both assertions were true. Bump and others were pushing a conspiracy theory and exhibited little interest in confirming the facts. (I testified in Congress not long after the clearing of the area and stated that the conspiracy theory was already contradicted by the available evidence).

Indeed, the falsity of the photo op claim was evident within a day of the clearing. When various investigations disproved his earlier allegations, Bump wrote a rather bizarre spin on the controversy where he grudgingly acknowledged the evidence supporting Barr on the park clearing while entirely ignoring his prior accusations on the the tear gas controversy.

Bump also slammed Trump for claiming that his campaign was spied on by the FBI under the Obama Administration. (Trump used the term “wiretapping” which is a rather dated term for surveillance). Bump again guffawed at the suggestion. Later it was shown that the surveillance did target both the campaign and campaign associates.

Bump also pushed the Russian collusion story and slammed the New York Post for its now proven Hunter Biden laptop story. He was also there for the Democrats when he wrote a column titled “Why the Trump Tower meeting may have violated the law — and the Steele dossier likely didn’t.” Of course, nothing came from the Trump Tower meeting because there was no cognizable crime. 

In 2021, when media organizations were finally admitting that the laptop was authentic, Bump was still declaring that it was a “conspiracy theory.” Despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary, Bump continued to suggest that “the laptop was seeded by Russian intelligence.”

Bump often seems content that most readers will not go much beyond the headline. For example, when Trump slammed the top 20 most dangerous cities as being Democratic-run, Bump announced it was false in a column titled “Trump keeps claiming that the most dangerous cities in America are all run by Democrats. They aren’t.” However, his statistics showed that on a per capita data, none of the 20 most violent cities were run by Republicans. On a straight crime rate comparison, only one city was run by a Republican (Jacksonville, Fla.). Seventeen of the 20 cities  were run by Democrats (two had independent mayors).

Anticipating the obvious response, Bump wrote that “Trump would no doubt shrug at that detail… that his assertion was only slightly wrong.” Well, yeah. The effort of the column was to avoid the underlying point on criminal justice policies to show that the number might be off by a couple cities. It literally focuses on a single tree to avoid seeing (and addressing) the forest. It would still be roughly 95% but that slight difference is the focus of the column rather than the claimed connection of crime rates to criminal justice agendas.

Given that history, many of us were waiting for Bump’s spin after years of pushing these collusion claims. He did not disappoint.

Yesterday, the New York Post ran a column by me that was used as the theme for the cover.

Bump again declared two parts of the column to be false and again proceeded to prove that they were not.

Bump declares:

‘The report details how the Russian collusion conspiracy was invented by Clinton operatives and put into the now-infamous Steele dossier, funded by the Clinton campaign,’ Turley writes, incorrectly. At another point, he writes that “President Barack Obama and his national security team were briefed on how ‘a trusted foreign source’ revealed ‘a Clinton campaign plan to vilify Trump by tying him to Vladimir Putin so as to divert attention from her own concerns relating to her use of a private email server.’ It then happened a few days later.” That is also incorrect.”

Let’s start with the second claim. Bump says that it is untrue that Obama was briefed on the Clinton campaign plan. Notably, in the long time line that follows, Bump never shows how the statement is false. Indeed, he admits that “Russian intelligence obtained by the U.S. government indicates that Clinton’s campaign decided to ‘vilify Donald Trump by stirring up a scandal claiming interference by the Russian security service.’”

Note Bump does not deny the briefing occurred. Indeed, the line is based on the Durham report and the briefing was previously reported by media. Rather, he later reveals that he is just objecting because the Clinton people would not confirm the intelligence report. He writes:

“That allegation remains unconfirmed to this day despite Durham questioning Clinton staffers about it. Clinton herself told Durham that the claim — sourced to Russia, which Durham describes as a “trusted foreign source” — “looked like Russian disinformation to me; they’re very good at it, you know.”

So Bump is citing Clinton whose campaign funded the dossier, hid the funding in its legal budget, denied its role to reporters, and actively pushed not one but two false claims with the FBI.

Bump then adds, bizarrely, that “it’s strange to argue both that the Clinton campaign explicitly sought to dig up dirt linking Trump to Russia, leading to Steele’s work in June, and that it wasn’t until late July that they decided to make this a core strategy. The latter undermines the former.” I will leave that to you to figure out.

Now on to the main event. Bump says it is false that “The report details how the Russian collusion conspiracy was invented by Clinton operatives and put into the now-infamous Steele dossier, funded by the Clinton campaign.”

Once again, when you get to his proof, it is not there. He does not defend the actual allegations in the dossier that Durham demolishes in his Report. He only suggests that others may have invented or pushed their own conspiracy theories a couple weeks earlier.

Bump curiously starts the relevant timeline in June 2016 and emphasizes that the Clinton campaign did not make the collusion effort a “core strategy” until July. That formal decision is used rather than the earlier dates when Fusion was hired and the research funded by the campaign. Durham details how Fusion approached Steele in May 2016 to do the work.

Bump details how figures like Clinton campaign manager Robby Mook were raising Russian concerns as proof that the Russian collusion allegations were not just the work of the campaign.

Citing the Clinton campaign manager as evidence that others were raising the concerns is hardly compelling. It also does not alter the fact that the campaign’s dossier manufactured false allegations that were then fed to the government and media.

In reality, there were earlier concerns by the government with regard to Carter Page being targeted by the Russians. However, Durham notes that those concerns in March 2016 over Page were not because they believed that he was an asset. Rather American intelligence “was concerned about the Russians reaching out to Page” and found that Page was not “receptive to the recruitment efforts.”

What Bump does not address are the findings in both the Inspector General and Durham reports that the Clinton campaign actively pushed the false claims into the FBI and into the media. The dossier would be used in the FISA court and former FBI Director James Comey would even continue to reference the false “tee-tape” claim from the report in 2018. The dossier would also be cited for years as “corroborated” and reliable by the media as well as Democratic members of Congress.

What is clear is that Clinton efforts were sufficiently pronounced by July 2016 that former CIA Director John Brennan briefed former President Obama on Hillary Clinton’s alleged “plan” to tie then-candidate Donald Trump to Russia as “a means of distracting the public from her use of a private email server.” The Russian investigation was launched days after this briefing.

Pointing out that there were others raising Russian contacts in the weeks before does not alter the role of the Clinton campaign in fostering the false collusion and Alfa Bank allegations as a political hit job. Bump also does not address how the campaign hid the funding and lied to reporters about its role.

However, Bump saved the best for last. After telling readers that there was nothing to see here, he further assured them that

“there’s an alternative way to consider the Russia probe: that Russia hoped Trump would win, that Trump was happy to have their help and that federal counterintelligence officials saw that as problematic.

This appears to be what actually happened.”

Call it Russian Collusion 2.0. In other words, as with his take on the Hunter Biden laptop, Bump is still arguing that it was the Russians after all.

There is another possibility.

As Bump wrote when he was falsely accusing Barr, “it is the job of the media to tell the truth.” This would be a good time to start.

173 thoughts on “Wait! Washington Post’s Bump Makes the Last Pitch for Russian Collusion”

  1. Another author on VOX further explains why Turley’s arguments don’t fly.

    “ Why Durham fixated on a “possible Clinton campaign plan” about Trump and Russia

    The intelligence that Durham fixated on remains classified, so specific details aren’t present in his public report. But the New York Times described it earlier this year — they were memos “written by Russian intelligence analysts and discussing purported conversations involving American victims of Russian hacking.” A Dutch agency hacked Russian government servers and obtained these memos, and provided them to the CIA.

    Per the Times, these memos were “dubious sources,” making “demonstrably inconsistent, inaccurate, or exaggerated claims,” with some US analysts thinking they contained deliberate disinformation.

    One of the memos claimed that Hillary Clinton approved a plan to stir up a scandal blaming Trump for the Russian hacks of Democratic emails. Brennan mentioned this intelligence during a broader White House briefing on Russian interference with top officials (including Obama, Biden, and FBI Director James Comey) in August 2016.

    But no one seems to have viewed this intelligence as particularly important or convincing, or to have done much about it.

    Durham argues that this was a damning failure. “Taken at face value,” he writes, this intelligence “was arguably highly relevant and exculpatory” toward Trump. He also argues that the lack of interest in it made a stark contrast to how investigators treated the dubious reports from the Steele dossier.

    https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/the-failure-of-the-durham-report/ar-AA1bgQ3Z?cvid=a3ffea64fa3d4c56bd81deb8659b6e62&ei=10

    A lot of experts more knowledgeable than Turley including Marcy wheeler who are far more detailed in their analysis are able to poke holes in Turley’s argument quite easily.

    1. Svelaz thinks that Hilary wasn’t the power behind the false Russian Collusion story and that she won the 2016 election (deny elections much?) and that Biden isn’t corrupt. This is the analytical skills of Svelaz, a guy that comments 200 times on every column. If you don’t believe me watch how he comments 200 times today on this one story.

      Jake Tapper doesn’t even agree with Svelaz, but you can trust him because he knows more than Turley, Durham, Barr and any other cogent honest lawyer. BTW, Bill Barr dislikes Trump very much, Jake Tapper hates Trump and yet both people say that Clinton’s attack was worse than Watergate. Well, Tapper hasn’t said so yet, but I bet he thinks so.

      PS. Where is Carl Bernstein, the one trick pony that said 100 times that what Trump did was worse than Watergate when in actuality what Clinton did was far worse.

      1. Hullbobby, Clinton wasn’t the power behind the Russian collusion story. She didn’t create it. Durham is fixated on a theory that once it’s picked apart it does not support his conclusions.

        A lot of people on the blog are too naive, dense, or just can’t grasp the complexity of the whole sordid affair that instead of trying to understand it they just take whatever they’re being told. They don’t like complicated things. It’s too much to process and that alone is enough of an excuse to claim it’s a “hoax”. Because it’s seems too complicated to be true.

        Even Turley seems to have fallen victim to this lazy kind of thinking.

        1. Hullbobby, Clinton wasn’t the power behind the Russian collusion story. She didn’t create it.

          Svelaz, you need to get a dictionary, get the definitions of all the words in these two sentences. Because what you wrote is not reality. You must suffer from a severely limited vocabulary and often use words that make no sense in context.

          1. Iowan2. Nope. She took advantage of an issue that was already there. She didn’t have to do much. All she had to do was what Trump AND Turley always do. Insinuate that there is something there. Like Trump and Turley they also used circumstantial evidence and unfortunately for Trump his own stupid affection for Putin and the fact that he was already doing a lot of business with the Russians. The Trump tower meeting and hid campaign manager all were involved with Russians wanting to offer trump dirt on Hillary which many here supported the idea that there was nothing wrong with that. Now there was no….collusion? Lol!

            Why did Manafort share polling data with Russians who had connections to the FSB? Or why did Trumps sons accept a meeting with the Russians who were offering dirt on Hillary Clinton? The Russians DID hack her emails and those of the DNC. It was still an attempt to influence the election. Turley and most of those here have suddenly developed a convenient case of amnesia. Weird.

        2. Svelaz – It is clear that the Clinton campaign hired Fusion to get dirt on Trump, and Fusion hired Steele to get dirt on Trump, and the “dossier” resulted. The Clinton campaign then fed this crap to the FBI which swallowed it whole. Thus, how can you say that “Clinton wasn’t the power behind the Russian collusion story”?

      2. Hullbobby,

        I’ve never said Hillary won. Putting words into my mouth only shows your need to lie is more important than anything else.

        Jake Tapper is entitled to his own opinion. But there are others far more knowledgable than Tapper or Turley who are analyzing Durham’s report in more detail than Turley can. His argument falls apart the moment you dive into the details of the whole thing. Durham was sloppy and left out a lot of details that clearly would undermine his conclusions. He even admits certain things that Turley wrongly asserts as false.

        It’s obvious Turley is just providing easy fodder for his more easily led and gullible readers who he knows won’t question the details because they are too complicated to try to understand. He’s feeding you BS so the topic stays in your ‘rage zone’ as long as possible. In essence you’re Turley’s dupe LOL!!!!

    2. A lot of experts more knowledgeable than Turley including Marcy wheeler

      Marcy Wheeler has been more wrong than right. Her TDS taints her conclusions.

        2. Wheeler was shown not to be credible in earlier disputes. You have a tendency to forget your losses though you stopped using her name afterward. That was one of the smarter things you did.

        3. You use Wheeler to support all the slurs and accusations against Trump. Durham is just the latest proof that the media knowingly disseminated the lies provided to them by Agents of multiple Govt agencies.
          Wheeler is your go to source, despite the continuing march of facts that exonerate Trump.

          1. In other words, you’re unable to give an example of Wheeler being wrong.

            1. In other words I choose to not play your stupid word games and wade through your soup of pedantry. I have done it all before.

              You say XxX is true, cite Wheeler as proof. XXX is proven wrong ie, RUSSIA RUSSIA RUSSIA, and when Wheelers’ proof is shown, your argue what is says is not what you say it says.

              1. You simply claim to have done it in the past, without actually showing that you’ve ever done it. If you’d done it before, you’d be able to link to where you’d done it, but you can’t, because you didn’t.

                This is just your general handwaving.

    3. Brennan mentioned this intelligence during a broader White House briefing on Russian interference with top officials (including Obama, Biden, and FBI Director James Comey) in August 2016.

      This data point does not mean what you want it to mean.

      This information was strong enough to warrant a dedicated briefing to the President of the United States. But failed to trigger a preliminary investigation. Those two facts are in conflict with each other. Unless you realize Obama was moving all the chess pieces himself. He was not getting all those briefings on what has been happening. All those meetings were when Obama gave orders on how to progress.

    4. Svelaz says Vox says the New York Times says an unnamed source says…

      We’ve been here many times. The left loves complex obscurity. It allows them to feel smart while lying through their teeth.

    5. March Wheeler? Please, at least try to be serious here, okay?

    6. citing MSN as a valid source shows your lack of research and intelligence, it reveals BIAS, and stupidity. Try sourcing from an UNBIASED paper and you might get me to listen, or even have an ounce of respect for what you say. If you watch MSN or cite them, you already lost points for intelligence, fairness, and I PITY you and how you have been indoctrinated.

    7. Svelaz – What argument is having holes poked in it? That the FBI should have taken the claim that Clinton was stirring up a conspiracy to defame Trump by linking him to Russia? But that actually happended, so the preparation therefor should have been taken very seriously.

    8. Svelaz, it was my misfortune to read your link. The glaring problem is that is it sprinkled with statements from unnamed sources that are not cited as “unnamed sources.” Very lame. Prokop writes about the NYT writing about classified documents, so either the NYT’s unnamed sources are leaking secrets (a felony) or spreading disinformation (a likelihood, given the NYT’s track record).

      Prokop cites the NYT over and over again to give himself plausible deniability in case this story blows up. This is cheap stuff because it is Vox, the purple-haired rag of record. This Prokop dude is probably some shill who was told to write this as a smokescreen to cover Hillary’s prodigious backside. I doubt he even knows who gave Vox the order to write it.

      Nobody takes Vox or the NYT seriously anymore… except trolls looking for a smokescreen. Peace.

  2. Professor Turley,

    What is your issue with Bump’s point about Trump’s claim re: DEMOCRAT-run cities? He is correct. You admit this respect to the straight crime comparison. Two are run by independent mayor, and Jax FL was run by a Republican. Are independent mayors card-carrying members of the Democratic party? Is a Republican a Democrat? No. His claim is correct.

    With respect to per capita data, you leave out the fact that one of the cities (Springfield, MO) was run by an independent may in the dataset. Again, Trump’s claim that they were ALL run by Democrats is clearly false.

    You may disagree with the significance of this falsehood, but that is entirely a separate issue from whether it was correct or incorrect. Facts matter. If Trump said, “Most cities with the worst crime rates are run by Democrats,” then Bump would have no leg to stand on. But he didn’t. Trump was wrong here.

    Please revise your column as this tangent isn’t even your primary point. So why misrepresent the truth?

    1. Anonymous: “The per capita data essentially backed up Trump’s claim, while the first set of data also largely proved the president’s point, with the exception of Jacksonville.”

      1. Was Trump correct or not? Without qualifying it with “essentially” or “largely”…

        Trump was not correct. Bump pointed that out and was right. If you think the significance of this point is weak, fine. But don’t call out Bump as spreading disinformation. Because we was correct.

        I don’t understand why it is so hard to separate: (1) whether Bump was correct from (2) whether his point was significant. They are SEPARATE things.

        1. Your claim is that Trump was wrong and Bump correct. Trump speaks without editing while Bump spends hours trying to figure out how to lie in his headline while being dishonest.

          You wish to take Bump’s side. Let’s see how that turns out.

          You were wrong 17 times.
          Trump was correct 17 times.

          I hope Trump corrects the one time he was wrong about a city not being Republican. You will almost never correct when you are wrong and will repeat the same falsehoods at a later date.

          1. I don’t wish to take Bump’s side. personally I think Bump writes some pretty dumb columns. But thats my point… Why call out one where he is objectively correct when there are so many others where the veracity of his statements are less clear?

            I have no idea where your “17 times” figure comes from, but if this was pulled out of thin air, then perhaps the statement is a curious one when discussing the veracity of statements based on statistics.

    2. Two are run by independent mayor, and Jax FL was run by a Republican.

      Of course, crime in a particular city must be looked at as a whole. Not just Mayor.
      Mayor
      Police Chief
      City Prosecutor.

      The mayor has little to zero influence on daily policing, and daily decisions concerning charges, indictments, plea deals, etc.

      Yes lots of these cities have been Democrat Mayors for half a century, or more. But the downstream leadership is important. Police Chief, their Captains, and Chiefs. The Prosecutor, Some of these a elected by the voters, some appointed. Some can be fired, some are much more difficult

      But the larger point is salient. Democrat leftist policies deliver terrible results.

      But employing such pedantry, attempting to discredit Trump, is a deflection from the facts that are clear. Unable to address the substance, the only thing left is to count commas, and run spellcheck.

      1. I am not sure this line of thought helps Trump. Many of the cities on the list are in red states, such as Houston, Dallas, San Antonio, Nashville, St. Louis, Jacksonville, and Cleveland.

        Regardless, Trump’s claim was that “Every one of [these cities] is Democrat run. Twenty out of 20. The 20 worst, the 20 most dangerous are Democrat run.”

        The individual who “runs” these cities is the Mayor. Not the Police Chief or City Prosecutor. Whether the Mayor is responsible for policing policy and crime is irrelevant to whether Trump’s claim is accurate.

        1. Your attempt to say that crime-ridden Democrat cities exist in the Republican States is an example of your continuous deception. The states don’t control local policing, the Democrat’s Mayors do.

          But we can look at some of the most crime-ridden cities including where the crime resides. Those locations are where many of the fraudulent ballots are thought to come from.

          Crime and illegitimacy are active problems caused mostly by Democrats.

          1. No, it was a response to Iowan, who claimed that the party affiliation of the Mayor was not determinative of whether the city’s policing was controlled by a particular party. Read the thread.

            My point was that this is irrelevant because Trump said “Democrat-run.”

            Y’all seem to have a hard time focusing on the point of the post. Where crime is committed mostly in cities run by Democrats is IRRELEVANT. The whole point was that Turleys attack of Bump for his column, in which he very clearly pointed out the falsity of Trump’s unqualified claim, namely that ALL 20 cities are run by Democrats is unjustified. This wasn’t “spin.” It was a fact check, based very clearly on the words of trump.

            1. Your fact check was meant to deceive. Check out my previous posting on lying and deception. Another word to add to your collection is prevaricator.

    3. He said that the main point of the argument was the high crime rates, and conceded that only 17 of 20 were Democrat run. 95% sounds just as damning anyway.

      1. He said “Twenty our of 20. The 20 worst, the 20 most dangerous are Democrat run.”

        He was wrong. It isn’t 95% correct.

        True or False. This is false. 0%.

        He would be correct if he said most are Democrat-run. Regardless, the point I am making here is questioning why Turley would bring this up years later as if Bump was off his rocker. HE WASN’T. He was correct. Read the article yourself: https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2020/06/25/trump-keeps-claiming-that-most-dangerous-cities-america-are-all-run-by-democrats-they-arent/

        1. Technically that aspect of Bump’s op-ed is correct but unimportant as almost all are Democrat cities. Bump intentionally used verbal gymnastics to lie. You love Bump and only wish you too could be competent in that fashion, lie, and get paid for it.

          1. But he didn’t lie. That’s my point. Nothing that he said was false. You may think it is trivial, but triviality does not equate to lying.

            Folks thow the “lie” word out way too much. A statement may be a lie, but a harmless one. A statement may also be true, but trivial. The normative judgment attached to the statement is separate from whether the statement is true or not.

            I don’t know why most people don’t understand how basic logic works.

            1. “Nothing that he said was false.”

              ATS, you accuse people of not knowing how basic logic works, but you do not understand lying and deception. 1) lying by commission 2) lying by omission 3) paltering.

              You do all three. I will explain #3. You actively make truthful statements put together in such a way that the receiver gets the mistaken impression.

              Most people hate that type of person which is one reason many dislike you. Politics takes paltering to a new level where it is somewhat acceptable even though frequently not appreciated.

              Biden does all three on an almost continuous basis. Obama did all three but to a lesser extent. Trump engages in paltering but not outright lies though he occasionally errs. Trump is transparent and speaks off the cuff. Biden reads almost everything, so he plans his lies and deception. He believes in censoring almost everything of value.

              Clinton’s response to a vital question: “there is not a sexual relationship” gets a gold star for paltering. It was correct because such a relationship didn’t exist at the time, though it did earlier.

              The news media should be clean of paltering, but the leftist media is almost all paltering when dealing with things harmful to their movement. Nothing Bump said was false, but he was intent on deceiving the public. That is the type of person you like and wish to protect.

              1. Nothing that I said was paltering. If you are going to try to make that argument, what did I say that was misleading?

                1. Here is a definition of paltering: : to act insincerely or deceitfully

                  That is why, ATS, I say you lie and deceive. I have pointed that out dozens of times and then you engage in Sea Lionizing. It’s non-stop with you and almost all know it.

                  People engage with you for fun and almost all the time when they get a bit stumped it is because you are lying or deceiving. It’s that simple. You are rarely correct or truthful.

        2. This is an example of how the left responds to Conservatives literally and not seriously. And respond to leftists seriously and not literally.

          Using the Trump metric Biden rarely makes a factual statement. The White House spends more time cleaning up behind Biden, than a family, house training a new puppy.

          1. Maybe not everyone is on a team. I don’t like Biden either. He routinely makes false statements as well. Why do you assume everyone subscribes to groupthink?

            The team you play for should be irrelevant when determining whether a statement is factual or not.

            Again whether you think the difference is “serious” is a separate question from whether is true or false. Turley here calls into question the veracity of the claim, which, objectively is not a valid take.

            You appear to admit as much with your “literal” vs. “serious” distinction. Failure to acknowledge that Bump was objectively correct is an error by Turley, plain and simple.

            1. Failure to acknowledge that Bump was objectively correct is an error by Turley, plain and simple

              And Bumps deflection successfully shifts the discussion away from the FACT, the Democrat let govt policies are a failure, and thousands of people are murdered needlessly because…. DEMOCRAT,

              But take your comfort where you must.

              1. “democrat let govt policies are a failure.”

                That is not a fact. That is an opinion.

                You know the difference right?

  4. Pravda-USA news outlets like The Washington Post will continue to give bald-faced liars like Philip Bump a public platform for their lies until “We the People” strip places like the Washington Post of their dollars to function. Places like The Washington Post and people like Philip Bump are only interested in two things, Democratic Party one party rule and the ends justifies the means.

    Actual evidence has shown, those that care to see it, that there was an actual false vilification narrative conspiracy that was concocted by the political left to prevent Donald Trump from being elected President of the United States and the political left and Trump haters extrapolated their bald-faced lies to take down President Trump after he was elected. This is about as close to being a soft coup as I think the USA has ever encountered.

    After seeing what really took place in 2016 and beyond, here is my recollection of a plausible correlation theory I’ve heard a few times regarding the origins of the Russia collusion narrative…

    If you really think about it, do you honestly think that Hillary Clinton has the intelligence to come up with this kind of deep state rooted plan on her own and did she have the clout in the justice department, the FBI and the intelligence world to execute this, I don’t think so. I think all that power and and intelligence was elsewhere at that time in history. I think Hillary was, and still is, a powerless willing figurehead and she was willing to be the recipient of this corrupted plan, if it worked, and the eventual scapegoat if the plan didn’t work and people found out the truth about it. Remember, they all thought that Hillary was going to win the election in a landslide, so they could easily destroy their tracks after Hillary got in office. Also remember, this scheme had to be planned and executed in such a way as to cover their tracks as they were executing it across the globe, not do anything actually “illegal”, and disseminate the anti-Trump Russia propaganda as far and as fast as possible to the people of the USA. I think this plan has the names of Bill Clinton, Barack Obama, Joe Biden, James Comey, John Brennan, and Loretta Lynch written all over it, that’s where the real political power, legal and intelligence clout was at that time.

    This Russia collusion scheme was all planned and executed by knowledgeable and skillful Trump hating professionals and done in a way that would not break existing laws and give plausible deniability to those at the top of the scheme. The tentacles of this scheme went deep into the government bureaucracy and used their Pravda-USA media to make it all happen, it was all well planned. This was a true Washington DC conspiracy to deceive the people of the United States of America going into a national Presidential election, and after the plan didn’t get the “right” person elected, they pressed their concocted Russia conspiracy via the bureaucracy, the media and Congress to destroy the sitting President and limit his ability to get things done.

    There’s the theory.

    Knowing full well that Correlation ≠ Causation I’m a bit skeptical, but there are some points in that that are very interesting and very plausible. Maybe a real journalist in the United State (if there are any non-activists ethical journalists left) could investigate this.

    1. Steve, I responded to your request about the First Amendment milk issue yesterday, but didn’t hear back. Did you actually want to discuss it?

  5. “The Russian investigation was launched days after this briefing.”

    JT leaves out the fact that in the meantime Wikileaks dumped the hacked DNC emails, and Australia contacted the US to let us know that Trump campaign worked George Papadopoulos had told them that Russia suggested they could help Trump with an anonymous release of info that would hurt Clinton.

    From Durham’s report: Crossfire Hurricane was opened with the predicate that “‘Mr[.] Papadopoulos … suggested [to Australian diplomats that] the Trump team had received some kind of suggestion from Russia that it could assist this process [of Trump winning the election] with the anonymous release of information during the campaign that would be damaging to Mrs[.] Clinton (and President Obama).’ … The Australian diplomats would later inform the FBI, and subsequently the Office, that the impetus for passing the Paragraph Five information in late-July was the public release by WikiLeaks (on July 22, 2016) of email communications that had been hacked from the DNC servers. … The Paragraph Five information, however, was the sole basis cited by the FBI for opening a full investigation into individuals associated with the ongoing Trump campaign.”

    Even Durham says it would have been a “sensible step” to open Crossfire Hurricane as a preliminary investigation.

    But this is inconvenient to JT’s argument, so he just omits it.

    1. Turley sure loves to feed the rage While he does mention the Trump tower meeting he conveniently leaves out the details of why that meeting occurred. They were literally meeting with the Russians who were pitching to the Trump campaign dirt on Hillary in exchange for a promise to lift sanctions imposed by Obama.

      Let’s not also forget that Trump’s own campaign manager Paul Manafort shared polling data with a Russian who had connections to the Russian intelligence services. There is a lot Turley omits as well as Durham in his report.

      Turley is upset the media is not giving the report credibility so he tries to do it himself by feeding his gullible readers and MAGA nutties something to rage about, hoping to stir enough attention to keep the issue alive. It’s going to be forgotten by the end of next week. The debt ceiling drama will overshadow it before you know it.

    2. “Even Durham says it would have been a “sensible step” to open Crossfire Hurricane as a preliminary investigation.”

      I called you out on this lie two days ago.

      Durham said the MOST this information would warrant, by FBI rules and regulation, was a preliminary investigation. Meaning seeking corroborating information though interviews, because the FACTS did not support warrants and subpoenas.

      1. It’s not a lie.

        He wrote “the FBI could have taken one or more of these sensible steps: … Under the FBI’s guidelines, the investigation could have been opened more appropriately as an assessment or preliminary investigation.” He also did not rule out it subsequently being elevated to a full investigation.

        1. Followed by three bullet points outlining the failing of the FBI willfully ignoring protocols to launch Crossfire Hurricane. Secret warrants, Confidential Human Sources, Spies, are not a preliminary investigation.

          Instead of your attempt at painting the FBI actions as warranted, using a short snippet. The lengthyR bullet points explain how the FBI was corruptly using its power to go after a Candidate running for the Office of President of the United States.

          1. “Followed by three bullet points outlining the failing of the FBI willfully ignoring protocols to launch Crossfire Hurricane.”

            Nope.

            I was quoting from p. 295, which doesn’t do what you claim.

            1. {different anonymous} – Thank you for actually quoting the report. The purpose of the “three bullet points” is not to “explain how the FBI was corruptly using its power to go after a Candidate…”

              Rather, Durham attempts to make a case for why a preliminary investigation and less intrusive investigative techniques would have been appropriate. However, from what I can tell, nowhere in the 300+ pages does he actually provide a rationale as to why the “articulable factual basis” standard was not met. He notes that a single individual believed it was a “thin” case, but nevertheless, that the standard is a LOW one to meet. Crucially, he fails to identify why this low standard was not met by this “thin” (in the mind of one agent) evidence.

              In fact, he does not even attempt to define this standard and then apply the facts – as they were known at that time! – to determine whether Bill Priestap made the right call, (which by the way, the OIG report believed he did).

  6. SELLERS: LinkedIn Just Banned Me for Mentioning Durham Report
    By Ben Sellers – May 17, 2023
    https://headlineusa.com/sellers-linkedin-just-banned-me-for-mentioning-durham-report/

    Business As Usual: Shutdown or Not, the Police State Will Continue to Flourish
    By John & Nisha Whitehead – May 16, 2023
    https://www.rutherford.org/publications_resources/john_whiteheads_commentary/business_as_usual_shutdown_or_not_the_police_state_will_continue_to_flourish

    1. Marjorie Taylor Greene Introduces Articles Of Impeachment Against FBI Director Chris Wray
      By Joseph Lord via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),
      By Joseph Lord – May 17, 2023Updated: May 17, 2023
      https://www.theepochtimes.com/marjorie-taylor-greene-introduces-articles-of-impeachment-against-fbi-director-chris-wray_5270739.html?utm_source=partner&utm_campaign=ZeroHedge&src_src=partner&src_cmp=ZeroHedge

      House Republican Submits Resolution To Expel ‘Liar’ Adam Schiff From Congress
      By Tyler Durden – Wednesday, May 17, 2023
      https://www.zerohedge.com/markets/house-republican-submits-resolution-expel-liar-adam-schiff-congress

      1. And Finally – This passed the ‘Lula Test’ ✭✭✭✭✭ (“Much to the Chagrin of Hillary Clinton).

        Martha Stewart Gives a Lesson in Ageless Living With Her Sports Illustrated Swimsuit Cover
        Martha Stewart’s 2023 SI Swimsuit Cover Photo Shoot ~ By Ryan Murphy – May 15, 2023
        https://swimsuit.si.com/swimnews/martha-stewart-gives-a-lesson-in-ageless-living-with-her-sports-illustrated-swimsuit-cover

        https://cdn.jwplayer.com/previews/zjs89v9D

  7. Rush saw this years ago when he started referring to the MSM as the “state-controlled media.” Now we know a variation on that theme is also accurate: the deep-state-controlled media.

  8. MR. Turley, do not the documented events of the last several years prove that a coup d’état was undertaken to prevent the election of and subsequently overthrow the legitimate government of Donald Trump? If so, what can be done? If not, please explain. Thanks.

    1. Donald Trump and his minions attempted to prevent t the peaceful transfer of power on January 6, 2021. He list the 2020 election by more than 7 million votes.

      1. Walter,

        I understand this is a very complex thing for shallow minds lacking critical thinking skills….but how many votes accrued to the FBI/DOJ/IC corrupt and grossly partisan misconduct that resulted in the furtherance of the Russia Collusion Hoax started by , funded, by, and orchestrated by Clinton, Fusion, Steele, the WaPo, NYT, and other media, and social media sites doing the government’s bidding? Then four years later, the same bunch played the same cards in burying the Hunter Laptop story and all that it contained?

        If you cannot understand reality even when very carefully explained by many such as Professor Turley…..you really should not burst into print and prove yourself to be the dullard you are.

        That famous American….Forest Gump said it right…..”Stupid is as Stupid does!”.

        But do not feel aggrieved as you have plenty of company here with ATS, Svelaz, Fish, and many others who are your Brothers by other Mothers.

        Biden got it wrong when he falsely claimed “White Supremacists” were the gravest threat to democracy in this Country….it is people exactly like you that gulps down the Kool Aid and eats the pablum being regurgitated by the Media that are the real threat.

      2. Walter: And Biden and his minions hid the Hunter Biden laptop scandal until after the voting — which was essentially an attempt to rig the election. Trump may have not gotten the method right, but what he certainly got right was that the Democrats definitely colluded to hide the evidence until after the election, which in any just society is illegal.

      4. “He list (sic) the 2020 election by more than 7 million votes.”

        Fascinating — except for the fact that we have an electoral college, and that Trump lost that *electoral* college by some 60,000 votes in 5 key districts.

          1. Of course one can easily say the left stole the EC as well as the popular vote. The reason one can say that is because the left made sure that cheating could impact the elections.

      5. Donald Trump and his minions attempted to prevent the peaceful transfer of power

        Jan 6, 2021 to May 18, 2023. 26 months and you lack a single bit of evidence to support such a declarative statement.

        1. Over 1000 people have been prosecuted for their attempt to prevent the peaceful transfer of power via Congress’s certification of the electoral college vote on J6, and many of them have been convicted. Pence has stated that Trump tried to get him to throw out the certification of the EC vote. Hopefully Trump will be prosecuted too.

  9. “nothing can now be believed which is seen in a newspaper. truth itself becomes suspicious by being put into that polluted vehicle.”
    Thomas Jefferson to John Norvell, June 11, 1807

  10. Another reasoned, reasonable analysis and comment by Mr. Turley. Is there anyone better at this stuff?

  12. Disinformation, thy name is Philip Bump and thy vehicle is the WaPoop.

  13. There are kooks everywhere but the fact that a newspaper as prominent as WaPo would allow such propaganda to be published is a sign of a much greater problem. None of this is new so while it isn’t surprising, it continues to be soul crushing to know our foundation is in the final stages of destruction. The uniparty must fall.

    1. WAPO is a tabloid now. Same with The New York Times. They did it to themselves. I trust the National Enquirer to give me articles that are more truthful than both of these rags.

  14. They are “state media” indeed. To paraphrase Hillary, it’s a vast left-wing totalitarian conspiracy, and it’s being funded by someone or some group.

  15. We should not think that Mr. Bump is the only dishonest character at the Washington Post. See the following article about Jeff Stein, a WP reporter, who “quoted” Sen Fetterman’s remarks at a hearing this week. It turns out he quoted a written text given to him by Fetterman’s staff, rather than the actual words uttered by Fetterman at the hearing. The former was a snarky, but coherent, hit on Republicans. The latter was an incoherent mishmash from someone with obvious brain damage. https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2023/05/17/washington-post-reporter-caught-quoting-john-fettermans-prepared-remarks-not-actual-statements/

  16. Bump understands the landscape and is taking full advantage of it. Here’s the synopsis of his tedtalk:

    “Misinformation isn’t a result of social media. Social media is the accelerant that created chaos in the wake of a collapse in institutional confidence. President Trump is the highest-profile spreader of misinformation, but he embraced and stoked misinformation and misinformation systems that already existed, rather than creating the problem. In part, this is a function of the decline in authority. Once upon a time, people’s understanding of the world was more carefully bounded by news outlets and political leaders. The collapse in trust in those institutions coupled with a social media sphere where you can always find someone who agrees with you has led to the growth of misinformation broadly – but, more problematically, an actual marketplace for falsehoods in the media and in politics.”

    If I’m reading that correctly, it appears that once upon a time Bump was able to shove BS down your throat without much (non-curated) competition, but now he competes in a free marketplace of lies and misinformation Strange that Bump (is that a real name?) hasn’t been hassled by US intelligence agencies, his editors, most in the press, or his readers (for whom he shows nothing but contempt) for contributing to the bloated market of BS.

    The only question remaining about Bump is who was he before 2012 and where does he get his Frequent Bullcrap Information, Can I Assume he’s being paid?

  17. Mr Turley. Welcome to reality. A ton of really bad stuff would not have happened if the MSM had actually done their job. From wars to pedos and young girls lives have been destroyed by the MSM looking the other way. When the most vulnerable needed them most. If the war mongers would have been called out over Iraq millions of lives would have been changed either by breathing or not fleeing for their lives. Do you think a coincidence Obama stuck his nose in Ukraine back in 14 to now Joe flushing a couple hundred billion into Ukraine with no receipts is a coincidence. Big Pharma spending billions on ads to keep billions coming back for a vaccine that you need all kinds of shots that doesnt do the job as advertised. Doing huge harm to the younger generation. Excess death happening all o ver the world with 0 reporting by MSM. How anyone can turn a blind eye to the Bioden crfime family destroying the country with letting millions roll across the border illegally. No reporting and not efven beating the R’s up for not impeaching these fools. The harm done by MSM is destroying the country…………..

  18. It’s not only that the MSM are profuse liars, they are actually EVIL! And they continue to be lowlife, lying degenerates on every issue. The amount of harm they’ve caused, is incalculable. And unforgivable! That people so easily believe them, is disturbing in the extreme. It’s nothing short of Sedition.

  19. It becomes clearer by the day that the Media has been infiltrated by Lunatics in a large number. Where did they all come from? Check the college campus for the origins……….

  20. This is the stuff of Meta Universe world. No need for reality here. Maybe Bump could wring a last Pulitzer from this before the fairy tale collapses for good.

Comments are closed.

Res ipsa loquitur – The thing itself speaks

Discover more from JONATHAN TURLEY

Subscribe now to keep reading and get access to the full archive.

Continue reading