The indictments of Igor Danchenko, the main source for the now-discredited Steele dossier, and former Clinton lawyer Michael Sussmann all but confirm that the premise of the “Russiagate” investigation was hatched and pushed by Clinton cronies. No wonder the media have gone silent.
Special counsel John Durham charged Danchenko last week with five counts of making false statements to the FBI about the information he provided to Steele, which became a part of the Steele dossier. Durham alleges that Danchenko passed along a false dossier claim that he received from Charles Dolan, an ally of the Clintons, to Steele. When the FBI asked Danchenko about his sources in 2017, Danchenko allegedly lied about the role Dolan played in supplying at least the basis of certain claims.
Sussmann was indicted in September on similar charges. Durham accused him of lying to the FBI during a September 2016 meeting when he told then-FBI general counsel James Baker that he was not working for any client even though he was representing Clinton’s campaign at the time. Sussmann was another one of Steele’s sources.
These charges, coupled with the fact that Steele was hired by an opposition research firm working for the Clinton campaign’s general counsel, Marc Elias, confirm that Clinton associates played an instrumental role in the origins of the Russiagate investigation, which ultimately called into question the validity of former President Donald Trump’s electoral victory. Indeed, it now seems indisputable that the allegations against Trump’s campaign were created and peddled by the Clinton camp for the sole purpose of undermining Trump and portraying him as some sort of Russian puppet.
So why aren’t we hearing more about this? For years, the media gladly pushed the Steele dossier and the rest of the Russiagate hoax as legitimate. But now that the dossier’s sources are being revealed as Democratic operatives, the media seem totally disinterested in correcting the record. MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow has yet to admit she was wrong to push Steele’s “deep cover sources” as credible. CNN’s Alisyn Camerota has not apologized for claiming the intelligence community “corroborated all the details” of the dossier. Neither have CNN’s Don Lemon, John Vause, Manu Raju, or Phil Mudd, all of whom went on air to assert baselessly that Steele’s reporting had been verified.
Perhaps the media don’t want to admit they were party to a corrupt political hit job. Or, more likely, maybe they just don’t care. Until we see some retractions, I’m inclined to believe the latter.
