Kimberly Strassel of the Wall Street Journal tells us to expect more “Russia bombshells” if a judge orders Fusion GPS to turn over bank records to House investigators. Says Strassel:
We now know where Fusion got some of its cash, but the
next question is how the firm used it. With whom did it work beyond former
British spy Christopher Steele? Whom did it pay? Who else was paying it?
Bank records would likely answer these questions.
More “bombshells” may fall when the FBI turns over its
dossier file to the House next week, as it has promised to do. Strassel
predicts:
[E]xpect to learn that the dossier was indeed a major
basis of investigating the Trump team—despite reading like “the National
Enquirer,” as Rep. Trey Gowdy aptly put it. We may learn the FBI knew the
dossier was a bought-and-paid-for product of Candidate Clinton, but used it
anyway. Or that it didn’t know, which would be equally disturbing.
It might show the bureau was simply had. . . .
[Director] Comey was so convinced by the dossier that he
pushed to have it included in the intelligence community’s January report on
Russian meddling. Imagine if it turns out the FBI was duped by a politically
contracted document that might have been filled up by the Kremlin.
Another set of records, those of Perkins Coie, might well
put an end to the DNC’s attempt to disclaim knowledge of the dossier deal and
pin the blame on the firm. Strassel explains:
[W]hile it is not unusual for law firms to hire opposition-research
outfits for political clients, it is highly unusual for a law firm to pay bills
without a client’s approval. Somewhere, Perkins Coie has documents showing who
signed off on those bills, and they aren’t protected by attorney-client privilege.
Those names will matter, since someone at the DNC and at
the Clinton campaign will need to explain how they somehow both forgot to list
Fusion as a vendor in their campaign-finance filings. Some Justice Department
lawyer is presumably already looking into whether this was a willful evasion,
which can carry criminal penalties.
These aren’t the only bombshells Strassel anticipates.
Read the whole thing [below].
____________________
The Coming Russia Bombshells
A judge may order Fusion GPS to give House
investigators its bank records.
By Kimberley A. Strassel
The confirmation this week that Hillary Clinton’s
campaign and the Democratic National Committee paid an opposition-research firm
for a “dossier” on Donald Trump is bombshell news. More bombshells are to come.
The Fusion GPS saga isn’t over. The Clinton-DNC funding
is but a first glimpse into the shady election doings concealed within that
oppo-research firm’s walls. We now know where Fusion got some of its cash, but
the next question is how the firm used it. With whom did it work beyond former
British spy Christopher Steele ? Whom did it pay? Who else was paying it?
The answers are in Fusion’s bank records. Fusion has
doggedly refused to divulge the names of its clients for months now, despite
extraordinary pressure. So why did the firm suddenly insist that middleman law
firm Perkins Coie release Fusion from confidentiality agreements, and spill the
beans on who hired it?
Because there’s something Fusion cares about keeping
secret even more than the Clinton-DNC news—and that something is in those bank
records. The release of the client names was a last-ditch effort to appease the
House Intelligence Committee, which issued subpoenas to Fusion’s bank and was
close to obtaining records until Fusion filed suit last week. The release was
also likely aimed at currying favor with the court, given Fusion’s otherwise
weak legal case. The judge could rule as early as Friday morning.
If the House wins, don’t be surprised if those records
include money connected to Russians. In the past Fusion has worked with
Russians, including lawyer Natalia Veselnitskaya, who happened to show up last
year in Donald Trump Jr.’s office.
FBI bombshells are also yet to come. The bureau has
stonewalled congressional subpoenas for documents related to the dossier, but
that became harder with the DNC-Clinton news. On Thursday Speaker Paul Ryan
announced the FBI had finally pledged to turn over its dossier file next week.
Assuming the FBI is comprehensive in its disclosure,
expect to learn that the dossier was indeed a major basis of investigating the
Trump team—despite reading like “the National Enquirer,” as Rep. Trey Gowdy
aptly put it. We may learn the FBI knew the dossier was a bought-and-paid-for
product of Candidate Clinton, but used it anyway. Or that it didn’t know, which
would be equally disturbing.
It might show the bureau was simply had. Don’t forget
that it wasn’t until January the dossier became public, and the media started
unearthing details. And the more ugly info that came out (Fusion, Democratic
clients, intelligence-for-hire) the more former Obama officials seemed
skeptical of it. In May, former Director of National Intelligence Jim Clapper
said his people could never “corroborate” its “sourcing.” In June, Mr. Comey
derided it as “salacious and unverified.”
Yet none of this jibes with reports that the FBI debated
paying Mr. Steele to continue his work. Or that Mr. Comey was so convinced by
the dossier that he pushed to have it included in the intelligence community’s
January report on Russian meddling. Imagine if it turns out the FBI was duped
by a politically contracted document that might have been filled up by the
Kremlin.
There’s plenty yet to come with regard to the DNC and the
Clinton campaign. Every senior Democrat is disclaiming knowledge of the dossier
deal, leaving Perkins Coie holding the bag. But while it is not unusual for law
firms to hire opposition-research outfits for political clients, it is highly
unusual for a law firm to pay bills without a client’s approval. Somewhere,
Perkins Coie has documents showing who signed off on those bills, and they
aren’t protected by attorney-client privilege.
Those names will matter, since someone at the DNC and at
the Clinton campaign will need to explain how they somehow both forgot to list
Fusion as a vendor in their campaign-finance filings. Some Justice Department
lawyer is presumably already looking into whether this was a willful evasion,
which can carry criminal penalties. It’s one thing to forget to list that local
hot-dog supplier for the campaign picnic. It’s a little fishier when two
entities both fail to list the firm that supplied them the most explosive hit
job in a generation.
And there are still bombshells with regard to unmasking
of Americans in surveilled communications. If the Steele dossier reports (which
appear to date back to June 2016) were making their way into the hands of
senior DNC and Clinton political operatives, you can bet they were making their
way to the Obama White House. This may explain why Obama political appointees
began monitoring the Trump campaign and abusing unmasking. They were looking
for a “gotcha,” something to disqualify a Trump presidency. Of course, they
were doing so on the basis of “salacious and unverified” accusations made by
anonymous Russians, but never mind.
No, this probe of the Democratic Party’s Russian
dalliance has a long, long way to go. And, let us hope, with revelations too
big for even the media to ignore.
