The Russia Russia Russia Grievance Was Built Into Russian Attack from the Start

On July 29, 2016, two days after SVR crafted the draft memo falsely claiming Hillary Clinton had a Deep State plan to smear Donald Trump that would stoke investigations for much of the last decade, Christopher Steele reached out to Bruce Ohr, then in charge of transnational crime at DOJ. Steele was going to be in DC on short notice. Would he like to meet for breakfast?

The meeting between the two is one of the most curious details of the right wing conspiracy theory that has animated the right wing since.

According to Ohr’s notes and his subsequent testimony, he and Steele spoke about a number of things: a claim sourced to SVR that Russia had Trump over a barrel, both details about Carter Page from the dossier and notice of it, Russian doping, and Oleg Deripaska’s plan to start pressuring Manafort for the money Deripaska claimed he was owed.

Mr. Ohr. So Chris Steele provided me with basically three items of information. One of them I’ve described to you already, the comment that information supposedly stated and made by the head, former head of the Russian Foreign Intelligence Service.

He also mentioned that Carter Page had met with certain high-level Russian officials when he was in Moscow. My recollection is at that time, the name Carter Page had already been in the press, and there had been some kind of statement about who he had met with when he went to Moscow. And so the first item that I recall Chris Steele telling me was he had information that Carter Page met with higher-level Russian officials, not just whoever was mentioned in the press article. So that was one item.

And then the third item he mentioned was that Paul Hauser, who was an attorney working for Oleg Deripaska, had information about Paul Manafort, that Paul Manafort had entered into some kind of business deal with Oleg Deripaska, had stolen a large amount of money from Oleg Deripaska, and that Paul Hauser was trying to gather information that would show that, you know, or give more detail about what Paul Manafort had done with respect to Deripaska.

[snip]

Q Were there any other topics that were discussed during your July 30, 2016, meeting?

A Yes, there were. Based on my sketchy notes from the time, I think there was some information relating to the Russian doping scandal, but I don’t recall the substance of that.

The right wing has pointed to this meeting as the founding moment of what they call Hillary Clinton’s hoax — Steele’s efforts to find side channels via which to share the dossier, which they claim was part of a Hillary plot to frame Trump, though it was one Hillary didn’t know about or sanction.

But they always ignore the Deripaska part. Indeed, even though most Republican members of Congress who have pursued the dossier concluded it was filled with Russian disinformation, even though the DOJ IG Report says (using the moniker Oligarch-1 for Deripaska) that Deripaska had the knowledge and means to do that by the time of this meeting, Deripaska’s potential role has disappeared from all right wing obsession on the dossier (indeed, at the time it did disappear in 2018, well past the time members of Congress were focused on the SVR documents that included the Hillary memo, multiple right wing propagandists were claiming references to Deripaska was really Trump).

Of course, the right wing really wants to say nothing of the way this founding moment of their imagined dossier operation interacts with Konstantin Kilimnik’s role, including a meeting with Trump’s campaign manager he was setting up on those very days, to discuss how to win, how to get Manafort paid, and how to carve up Ukraine. Or the way that Manafort came back from a meeting with a Deripaska aide the following January and started pushing the attack on the dossier.

Oleg Deripaska was playing a brutal double game, but rather than admit that, Republicans would rather join in the Hillary side of it.

But at that moment in July 2016, Russian spooks had already decided it’d be fun to exploit the tensions caused by the election operation by framing Hillary Clinton, and by doing so, discrediting the investigation and giving a malignant narcissist cause for grievance.

I’m not saying that Deripaska was acting on the memo itself (though I find the addition of the Olympics in the memo, matching Steele’s mention of it to Ohr, to be notable). And his 2018 Daily Caller column stoking dossier grievance reads from the same script.

What has been inelegantly termed the “Deep State” is really this: shadow power exercised by a small number of individuals from media, business, government and the intelligence community, foisting provocative and cynically false manipulations on the public. Out of these manipulations, an agenda of these architects’ own design is born.

There was a larger plan to frame Hillary, as evidenced by the Seth Rich attack that started two weeks earlier and got picked up by Julian Assange and Roger Stone two weeks later.

I’m saying the Hillary hoax was built into the operation from the start.

Nor am I saying that Russia expected it would destroy the United States.

It was just one strand of spaghetti they threw at the wall in 2016.

But boy did it stick.

image_print
Share this entry
13 replies
  1. WV Blue Dot says:

    “I’m saying the Hillary hoax was built into the operation from the start.”
    I think you meant “I’m NOT saying”?
    Feel free to delete this comment – spell checking is not of interest to the general community. ;-)

    • emptywheel says:

      No. The “Nor am I” was meant to follow from the “I’m not saying that Deripaska.”

      The Hillary hoax was very much built into the operation from the start.

      • Savage Librarian says:

        I think the confusion has to do with how language has been co-opted by disinformation. So, I think “Hillary hoax” is confused with Durham’s “Clinton Plan.” That’s why it is so hard to reclaim intent.

        To me it feels like using the word hoax now has unintended pitfalls. That’s why I’ve come to think about what you are explaining to us as an:

        SVR contrived Hillary setup used to concoct Durham’s verbal deep fake

      • WV Blue Dot says:

        Sorry, my brain’s parenthesis detector doesn’t always go deep enough. I see now- thanks.

  2. PedroVermont says:

    Agree with your analysis. The big picture continuously validated is the other side doing all sorts of things to help them win elections that should not be rewarded with electoral victory, but they work all too well nonetheless. Their RW messaging machine along with the MSM happy to normalize absurdity does much of the heavy lifting.

    How else did two superbly qualified and dependable female politicians lose to chaos ? And where do Democrats go from here?

  3. Upisdown says:

    Hillary Clinton was a private citizen who was campaigning for office. It makes zero sense to claim she had the power to control an investigation than spanned two separate administrations and that unearthed tons of evidence to support Russia interfered with her election chances. Especially since the FBI hated her. According to a Guardian article:
    https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/nov/03/fbi-leaks-hillary-clinton-james-comey-donald-trump

    “The FBI is Trumpland,” said one current agent.

    This atmosphere raises major questions about how Comey and the bureau he is slated to run for the next seven years can work with Clinton should she win the White House.

    The currently serving FBI agent said Clinton is “the antichrist personified to a large swath of FBI personnel,” and that “the reason why they’re leaking is they’re pro-Trump.”

    The agent called the bureau “Trumplandia”, with some colleagues openly discussing voting for a GOP nominee who has garnered unprecedented condemnation from the party’s national security wing and who has pledged to jail Clinton if elected.”

    [FYI – text formatted with blockquote tags to ensure it is clear this is an excerpt. /~Rayne]

    • Super Nintendo Chalmers says:

      Would it be inconceivable that SVR had Kompromat on NYT management and editors? They made a BFD about her LEGAL private server, which — unlike the one at State — was never hacked.

      • PedroVermont says:

        I doubt it. More likely that was simply an editorial choice consistent with their traditional efforts to pursue ’balanced’ reporting. They seem to find journalistic validation when criticized by both the left and the right.

        • Greg Hunter says:

          I suspect it is more than that as there is a definite slant toward war in the Middle East and cleaning up right wing nuts.

          The Millers come to mind. Judith and Elisabeth Buh have certainly white washed the worst ideas and people, IMHO.

      • Reader 21 says:

        Other explanations crumble—to this day, ‘dark clouds over Clinton’ and butheremails Maggie has yet to mention trump’s longstanding ties to alleged and indicted associates of transnational and Russian organized crime, f/ex.

    • Ginevra diBenci says:

      Thank you, Upisdown, for restoring the historical record re: the FBI circa 2016. This resonates especially painfully now given Trump’s success in the years since then at demonizing the Bureau as full of raging liberals out to get him; his campaign of lies has allowed him to reset the premise, firing career agents with strong (and conservative) records to replace them with loyalists.

      Every lie begets a new reality, evermore divorced from truth…to say nothing of justice and the American way.

  4. zscoreUSA says:

    Is it now known exactly how the Steele/Ohr materials went from DOJ the the GOP members of the Oversight and Judiciary committees? The GOP members asked Ohr about these documents in his 8/28/18 testimony.

    The linked 8/31/18 letter from Cummings and Nadler say it “appears” that DOJ produced the materials to Nunes in response to a 3/23/18 letter.

    The letter also states that John Solomon, member of the Grassley network, referenced the documents in an 8/7/18 article in The Hill, also falsely identifying the “favorite tycoon” as Trump.
    https://thehill.com/hilltv/rising/400810-opinion-how-a-senior-justice-official-helped-dems-on-trump-russia-case/

    It should be noted that Grassley network member Ezra Cohen-Watnick was Sessions’s National Security Advisor from April 2018 to post 2018 mid-term election. Cohen-Watnick has a previous MO of printing out a document and a 3rd person handing off to Nunes.

    • zscoreUSA says:

      This incident is reminiscent of the early 2019 email from Solomon to Parnas bragging that he has access to Hunter Biden’s financial information that was gathered by the FBI. Unclear how the documents got to Solomon; I suspect either Cohen-Watnick who was just Sessions’s Advisor or Patel who just moved to NSC were involved.

      [This incident was described by Hunter and Parnas in their conversation in the documentary where they claimed the FBI sent the documents to Solomon. ]

Comments are closed.