February 3, 2018
MY CORNER by Boyd Cathey
The REAL Issue Lurking Behind the “Nunes Memo” and the Christopher Steele Dossier
It’s 1861 (maybe 1862) all over again, and Abraham Lincoln just called for the invasion of Middle America (AKA, the South), violated the right of habeas corpus, attempted to subvert national elections, and is shredding the Constitution and its guaranteed protections.
Sound familiar? Does that not remind us of what has been occurring in the United States not only during this past year, but, as we know now, for decades?
Of course, the Lincoln attempts brought on and produced open armed conflict: his attempts to override and shred the Constitution compelled our ancestors to military resistance and four years of bitter war.
Today, as I have written previously, we are, as pundit Dan Bongino put it this morning on the “Fox & Friends” program, in the midst of a “cold civil war,” a real conflict but without—at least not yet—battles like Manassas or Chancellorsville.
No doubt, by now, you have been able to catch and digest some of the news about the House Intelligence Committee memo, the “Nunes Memo,” a summary of the misdeeds, illegalities and subversion committed by our weaponized Deep State-controlled intelligence community, specifically the FBI, paid for by the Clinton campaign and Democratic National Committee, with the goal, first, of destroying the Trump campaign, and, second, then unseating the president when he became the president (this was the “insurance policy” mentioned in those infamous texts from senior FBI official Peter Strzok).
The hysteria along the Potomac is palpable: the Mainstream Media, while downplaying the confirmation of what we knew was happening as a “nothing-burger,” is also employing various other attacks on the devastating chronology of facts that have been released. Incredibly, in their utter madness the frenzied fanatics of the Deep State actually suggest that the main author of the memo, Representative Devin Nunes and those defending its conclusions, are themselves “working for Vladimir Putin and the Russians” (Case in point: California Democrat Representative Eric Swalwell on last night’s Tucker Carlson program declaring that Carlson’s defense of the memo was a case of him “working for Putin.”)
Such a “defense” reminds me of the Englishman who when he went to France, sternly proclaimed: “When I travel to France, I speak English. If they don’t understand me at first, I speak louder!” The Russian canard has unraveled; the basis for the Mueller Special Counsel has been blasted all to hell; the Congressional investigations of the Trump campaign are nothing more than expensive political theatre; an attempted coup d’etat has been revealed. Yet, the Dems, Obamaites and Clintonistas, our intelligence agencies, academia, the bureaucrats of the Deep State just speak louder.
Yet, there is one point that I think deserves and merits—demands—closer examination and some severe questioning.
The narrative we hear from the zealous Neocon pundits on Fox and which is implied (although not explicitly explained) in the Nunes Memo is that, somehow, “the Russians” are still responsible; that is, some Russian “agents” (putatively of Putin’s government?) supplied the raw (and fake) data to Christopher Steele, the violently anti-Trump rogue former British intel agent, contracted by the Democrats and Clinton via FusionGPS, to produce the infamous dossier.
Now let me get this narrative straight: Putin’s intel folks worked with an agent of the Democrats and Hillary (Christopher Steele) to prepare a fake dossier which was to be used to: (1) destroy Trump’s campaign, maligning it as “pro-Russian” and “working with Russia” [!!] and then, if he were elected, (2) demonstrate that a President Trump had colluded with those very same Russians, thus deserving to be impeached.
Let me repeat: Vladimir Putin was providing information to friendly Dems and the FBI leadership via Steele so that they could attack the Trump campaign as being in cahoots with…the Russians, and then, intimate that President Trump had “colluded” with the Russians to win the election! Plus, all the resulting anti-Russian sanctions that have come directed at Russia and the very real tensions and potential military confrontations that have resulted?
Something doesn’t make sense here? A lot doesn’t make sense here. We are being told that Vladimir Putin worked with one American political group to produce dirt on the other political group and its candidate, so that the first political group could then come out and then raise bloody hell against Russia and suggest real war against the Russians? We are being told that Vladimir Putin—whom the Democrats and media now frenetically charge wanted Trump to win in 2016—actually was working with and assisting the Democrats to defeat candidate Trump and then President Trump in 2016?
As they say down in eastern Carolina, “that dog don’t hunt.”
The most credible explanation—and one that has some significant evidence to support it—is that very likely Christopher Steele created the fake dossier himself, and whatever assistance he received from “the Russians,” came specifically from a shadowy group of vocal anti-Putin Russians who have had an inordinate influence on American and British intelligence since the 1990s.
Just yesterday, investigative journalist Philip Giraldi, pointed out the role of those anti-Putin propagandists (in league with anti-Russian Neoconservative globalists) in shaping American foreign policy. I strongly recommend Giraldi’s essay, especially on the critical role of William Browder (see: https://www.strategic-culture.org/news/2018/02/01/meet-corrupt-billionaire-who-has-brought-about-new-cold-war.html), grandson of the former head of the Communist Party USA, Earl Browder, in influencing American policy towards Russia. Browder’s cachet with the bitterly anti-Russian, anti-Putin Neoconservative internationalists, is significant. [Additional research by Giraldi can be seen here: http://www.unz.com/pgiraldi/the-magnitsky-hoax and here: http://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/the-new-know-nothings-in-congress/; and additional investigatory information by Robert Parry can be read here: https://consortiumnews.com/2017/08/02/a-blacklisted-film-and-the-new-cold-war/]
Those anti-Putin Russians very likely did, in fact, work with the Democrats and also with the GOP and Neocon NeverTrumpers and the globalist foreign policy establishment—and very probably with the Progressivist-dominated intelligence community. And with Christopher Steele. Their unrelenting goal was not just to defeat (or maybe even impeach) a Donald Trump, supposedly “weak on Putin,” but to continue to push for hostilities between America and Russia, up to and including potential military clashes in Ukraine and in Syria. And their eventual aim is to unseat the hated Putin and establish one more outpost of the New World Order in Moscow.
Here follows Philip Giraldi’s latest investigation; please read his earlier work, as well.
One has to ask why there is a crisis in US-Russia relations since Washington and Moscow have much more in common than not, to include confronting international terrorism, stabilizing Syria and other parts of the world that are in turmoil, and preventing the proliferation of nuclear weapons. In spite of all that, the US and Russia are currently locked in a tit-for-tat unfriendly relationship somewhat reminiscent of the Cold War.
Apart from search for a scapegoat to explain the Hillary Clinton defeat, how did it happen? Israel Shamir, a keen observer of the American-Russian relationship, and celebrated American journalist Robert Parry both think that one man deserves much of the credit for the new Cold War and that man is William Browder, a hedge fund operator who made his fortune in the corrupt 1990s world of Russian commodities trading.
Browder is also symptomatic of why the United States government is so poorly informed about international developments as he is the source of much of the Congressional “expert testimony” contributing to the current impasse. He has somehow emerged as a trusted source in spite of the fact that he has self-interest in cultivating a certain outcome. Also ignored is his renunciation of American citizenship in 1998, reportedly to avoid taxes. He is now a British citizen.
Browder is notoriously the man behind the 2012 Magnitsky Act, which exploited Congressional willingness to demonize Russia and has done so much to poison relations between Washington and Moscow. The Act sanctioned individual Russian officials, which Moscow has rightly seen as unwarranted interference in the operation of its judicial system.
Browder, a media favorite who self-promotes as “Putin’s enemy #1,” portrays himself as a selfless human rights advocate, but is he? He has used his fortune to threaten lawsuits for anyone who challenges his version of events, effectively silencing many critics. He claims that his accountant Sergei Magnitsky was a crusading "lawyer" who discovered a $230 million tax-fraud scheme that involved the Browder business interest Hermitage Capital but was, in fact, engineered by corrupt Russian police officers who arrested Magnitsky and enabled his death in a Russian jail.
Many have been skeptical of the Browder narrative, suspecting that the fraud was in fact concocted by Browder and his accountant Magnitsky. A Russian court recently supported that alternative narrative, ruling in late December that Browder had deliberately bankrupted his company and engaged in tax evasion. He was sentenced to nine years prison in absentia.
William Browder is again in the news recently in connection with testimony related to Russiagate. On December 16th Senator Diane Feinstein of the Senate Judiciary Committee released the transcript of the testimony provided by Glenn Simpson, founder of Fusion GPS. According to James Carden, Browder was mentioned 50 times, but the repeated citations apparently did not merit inclusion in media coverage of the story by the New York Times, Washington Post and Politico.
Fusion GPS, which was involved in the research producing the Steele Dossier used to discredit Donald Trump, was also retained to provide investigative services relating to a lawsuit in New York City involving a Russian company called Prevezon. As information provided by Browder was the basis of the lawsuit, his company and business practices while in Russia became part of the investigation. Simmons maintained that Browder proved to be somewhat evasive and his accounts of his activities were inconsistent. He claimed never to visit the United States and not own property or do business there, all of which were untrue, to include his ownership through a shell company of a $10 million house in Aspen Colorado. He repeatedly ran away, literally, from attempts to subpoena him so he would have to testify under oath.
Per Simmons, in Russia, Browder used shell companies locally and also worldwide to avoid taxes and conceal ownership, suggesting that he was likely one of many corrupt businessmen operating in what was a wild west business environment. My question is, “Why was such a man granted credibility and allowed a free run to poison the vitally important US-Russia relationship?” The answer might be follow the money. Israel Shamir reports that Browder was a major contributor to Senator Ben Cardin of Maryland, who was the major force behind the Magnitsky Act.