The 'Big Lie' is closer to the truth than many would like to admit
-Elizabeth Stauffer
Special counsel John Durham’s trial of Igor Danchenko, the primary sub-source for the debunked Steele dossier who has been charged with lying to the FBI, delivered more evidence of the Democratic Party’s concerted effort to destroy former President Donald Trump.
Danchenko faces five counts of lying to the FBI over his sources as to claims made in the Christopher Steele Dossier as part of the investigation of Special Counsel John Durham into the origins of the FBI probe of alleged collusion between Russia and the 2016 Trump presidential campaign.
FBI supervisory analyst Brian Auten testified that in October 2016, the bureau offered ex-British spy Christopher Steele $1 million to prove the allegations made in his dossier. The FBI desperately wanted the dossier to be true because it was about to use it as the basis of a “verified” application to the FISA Court for a warrant to spy on former Trump campaign adviser Carter Page.
But, of course, we already knew much of this. In October 2020, Fox News reported on declassified notes taken by former CIA Director John Brennan following a July 28, 2016, meeting in which he’d briefed former President Barack Obama on then-Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton’s plan to tie Trump to a Russian intelligence operation. Please note the date. The FBI opened Crossfire Hurricane, better known as the Russia-Gate hoax, two days later. Brennan wrote:
“We’re getting additional insight into Russian activities from [REDACTED]. CITE [summarizing] alleged 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.”
“We’re getting additional insight into Russian activities from [REDACTED]. CITE [summarizing] alleged 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.”
The FBI cannot claim ignorance because we also have a September 2016 CIA investigative referral about Clinton’s scheme to then-FBI Director James Comey and then-Deputy Assistant Director of Counterintelligence Peter Strzok, which read:
“Per FBI verbal request, CIA provides the below examples of information the CROSSFIRE HURRICANE fusion cell has gleaned to date. An exchange [REDACTED] discussing US presidential candidate Hillary Clinton’s approval of a plan concerning US presidential candidate Donald Trump and Russian hackers hampering US elections as a means of distracting the public from her use of a private email server."
“Per FBI verbal request, CIA provides the below examples of information the CROSSFIRE HURRICANE fusion cell has gleaned to date. An exchange [REDACTED] discussing US presidential candidate Hillary Clinton’s approval of a plan concerning US presidential candidate Donald Trump and Russian hackers hampering US elections as a means of distracting the public from her use of a private email server."
Danchenko was clearly an important part of this scheme. In a September court filing, Durham revealed that Danchenko was on the FBI’s payroll from March 2017 through October 2020 for work as a confidential human source. A December 2019 Department of Justice inspector general report stated that during a January 2017 interview, Danchenko told the FBI the stories in the Steele dossier had been made up in a bar. So why did they hire him two months later as an informant and continue the arrangement for nearly four years? Were they paying for his silence?
Related video: Trump's conspiracy theory collides with reality in another embarrassing Durham failure
Now, why did the FBI lose Demchenko as an informant? Because Trump's
Despite their extraordinary efforts, Democrats and their enforcement arm, the FBI, failed to prevent either Trump’s victory or his removal from office. So they turned their attention to the 2020 election. There are many ways to skin a cat, and the Democrats employed every one of them to ensure Trump’s defeat.
According to the Constitution, changes in election law must be ratified by state legislatures. Ahead of the 2020 election, however, the secretaries of state in crucial battleground states bypassed the legislatures entirely and changed rules pertaining to signature requirements, ballot collection, and more in the name of the pandemic.
The explosion of mail-in ballots made vote counting and accountability a nightmare. Approximately 1,000 poll workers signed sworn affidavits claiming they’d witnessed fraud in battleground state vote-counting centers. These allegations have never been proven because not a single court was willing to hear any of the cases. Whether enough fraud was committed to change the results of the election is questionable, but the fact is that it is still a question.
Democrats also found ways to interfere with the will of the people. We’ve learned from whistleblowers that the FBI scuttled an investigation into Hunter Biden to protect then-candidate Joe Biden ahead of the election. Additionally, Big Tech and the liberal media colluded to censor the New York Post’s October 2020 bombshell report about Hunter Biden’s laptop. Moreover, 51 former top-ranking intelligence community officials signed a letter claiming the story had all the hallmarks of Russian disinformation. Days later, this letter provided cover for Biden in a debate with then-President Donald Trump.
Polls have shown that had Biden voters been aware of the Post’s story, many would have switched their votes. Could this have changed the outcome of the election? It’s a distinct possibility.
Given the FBI’s brazen attempts to undermine Trump’s campaigns in both 2016 and 2020, it is remarkable that his claims of malfeasance haven’t been taken more seriously. Indeed, the more we learn about the establishment’s meddling, the more it seems likely that the “Big Lie” is a bit closer to the truth than many would like to admit.
Elizabeth Stauffer is a contributor to the Washington Examiner and the Western Journal. Her articles have appeared at MSN, RedState, Newsmax, the Federalist, and RealClearPolitics. Follow her on Twitter or LinkedIn.
-Elizabeth Stauffer
Special counsel John Durham’s trial of Igor Danchenko, the primary sub-source for the debunked Steele dossier who has been charged with lying to the FBI, delivered more evidence of the Democratic Party’s concerted effort to destroy former President Donald Trump.
Danchenko faces five counts of lying to the FBI over his sources as to claims made in the Christopher Steele Dossier as part of the investigation of Special Counsel John Durham into the origins of the FBI probe of alleged collusion between Russia and the 2016 Trump presidential campaign.
FBI supervisory analyst Brian Auten testified that in October 2016, the bureau offered ex-British spy Christopher Steele $1 million to prove the allegations made in his dossier. The FBI desperately wanted the dossier to be true because it was about to use it as the basis of a “verified” application to the FISA Court for a warrant to spy on former Trump campaign adviser Carter Page.
But, of course, we already knew much of this. In October 2020, Fox News reported on declassified notes taken by former CIA Director John Brennan following a July 28, 2016, meeting in which he’d briefed former President Barack Obama on then-Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton’s plan to tie Trump to a Russian intelligence operation. Please note the date. The FBI opened Crossfire Hurricane, better known as the Russia-Gate hoax, two days later. Brennan wrote:
“We’re getting additional insight into Russian activities from [REDACTED]. CITE [summarizing] alleged 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.”
“We’re getting additional insight into Russian activities from [REDACTED]. CITE [summarizing] alleged 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.”
The FBI cannot claim ignorance because we also have a September 2016 CIA investigative referral about Clinton’s scheme to then-FBI Director James Comey and then-Deputy Assistant Director of Counterintelligence Peter Strzok, which read:
“Per FBI verbal request, CIA provides the below examples of information the CROSSFIRE HURRICANE fusion cell has gleaned to date. An exchange [REDACTED] discussing US presidential candidate Hillary Clinton’s approval of a plan concerning US presidential candidate Donald Trump and Russian hackers hampering US elections as a means of distracting the public from her use of a private email server."
“Per FBI verbal request, CIA provides the below examples of information the CROSSFIRE HURRICANE fusion cell has gleaned to date. An exchange [REDACTED] discussing US presidential candidate Hillary Clinton’s approval of a plan concerning US presidential candidate Donald Trump and Russian hackers hampering US elections as a means of distracting the public from her use of a private email server."
Danchenko was clearly an important part of this scheme. In a September court filing, Durham revealed that Danchenko was on the FBI’s payroll from March 2017 through October 2020 for work as a confidential human source. A December 2019 Department of Justice inspector general report stated that during a January 2017 interview, Danchenko told the FBI the stories in the Steele dossier had been made up in a bar. So why did they hire him two months later as an informant and continue the arrangement for nearly four years? Were they paying for his silence?
Related video: Trump's conspiracy theory collides with reality in another embarrassing Durham failure
Now, why did the FBI lose Demchenko as an informant? Because Trump's
Despite their extraordinary efforts, Democrats and their enforcement arm, the FBI, failed to prevent either Trump’s victory or his removal from office. So they turned their attention to the 2020 election. There are many ways to skin a cat, and the Democrats employed every one of them to ensure Trump’s defeat.
According to the Constitution, changes in election law must be ratified by state legislatures. Ahead of the 2020 election, however, the secretaries of state in crucial battleground states bypassed the legislatures entirely and changed rules pertaining to signature requirements, ballot collection, and more in the name of the pandemic.
The explosion of mail-in ballots made vote counting and accountability a nightmare. Approximately 1,000 poll workers signed sworn affidavits claiming they’d witnessed fraud in battleground state vote-counting centers. These allegations have never been proven because not a single court was willing to hear any of the cases. Whether enough fraud was committed to change the results of the election is questionable, but the fact is that it is still a question.
Democrats also found ways to interfere with the will of the people. We’ve learned from whistleblowers that the FBI scuttled an investigation into Hunter Biden to protect then-candidate Joe Biden ahead of the election. Additionally, Big Tech and the liberal media colluded to censor the New York Post’s October 2020 bombshell report about Hunter Biden’s laptop. Moreover, 51 former top-ranking intelligence community officials signed a letter claiming the story had all the hallmarks of Russian disinformation. Days later, this letter provided cover for Biden in a debate with then-President Donald Trump.
Polls have shown that had Biden voters been aware of the Post’s story, many would have switched their votes. Could this have changed the outcome of the election? It’s a distinct possibility.
Given the FBI’s brazen attempts to undermine Trump’s campaigns in both 2016 and 2020, it is remarkable that his claims of malfeasance haven’t been taken more seriously. Indeed, the more we learn about the establishment’s meddling, the more it seems likely that the “Big Lie” is a bit closer to the truth than many would like to admit.
Elizabeth Stauffer is a contributor to the Washington Examiner and the Western Journal. Her articles have appeared at MSN, RedState, Newsmax, the Federalist, and RealClearPolitics. Follow her on Twitter or LinkedIn.
