Today’s Status

Greetings, dear reader,

Could there be some truth behind the Clinton orbit emails, which reportedly outlined a strategy to depict Trump as a secret ally of Russia? Just a thought…

The Russians Did It… Again

Honestly, I find the boldness of the liberal media strategies kind of impressive.

With fresh evidence surfacing, it seems that the narrative about Trump and Russia has turned into a bigger conspiracy, and it’s being attributed to Russia once more.

For context, Republican Senator Chuck Grassley has unveiled the previously classified “Durham Annex.” At the center of the current debate are two emails from Leonard Benaldo, who represents Soros’ Open Society Foundation.

I’ll share them here in case you’re curious to take a look.

The essence is this: These emails were intended to influence both the intelligence community and the Democratic media, planting the idea that in the summer of 2016, the “Clinton Plan” utilized various cyber firms to suggest that Russia wanted Trump to win the election and acted to facilitate that. It also highlights how the narrative about the “critical infrastructure” of elections began.

After Clinton’s loss, there was a concerted effort from some sources connected to Obama to reinforce the idea that “Russia was backing Trump,” attempting to undermine his presidency. Obama even orchestrated a meeting in December to guide intelligence heads towards embracing this fabricated conclusion.

Here are those two emails:

What was the response from those involved in this potential scheme to disrupt the electoral process?

If you guessed “Russia’s fault,” you’re spot on.

Even Ben Smith, known for announcing the Steele Dossier through various major outlets, seems shocked that anyone thinks these emails are real.

They even refer to skepticism from Durham himself.

“The declassified Durham Report appendix indicates that special advisors were set up to verify the authenticity of the ‘Clinton Project’ email, yet it was deemed false, allegedly created by Russian operatives,” reported NYT’s Charlie Savage. “It’s incredible how people are discussing these ’emails’ as if they’re significant. Can anyone actually read them?”

Can you read them, really? I’m genuinely curious about Charlie Savage’s take.

Similarly, Smith now poses as a critic, emphasizing that “Durham’s emails being circulated today were fabricated.”

“I’m not missing the story!” he insists, seemingly proud of his stance.

Sure, Ben.

I have four responses to this entire narrative.

First: I’ve heard similar claims before. Donna Brazile insisted that her leaked email was fake and linked to Russia. But they were real. Many intelligence agents asserted that Hunter Biden’s emails were fabricated too. They were real.

Second: Among the thousands of hacked emails that were made public, how many turned out to be forgeries? It’s surprisingly simple to check if an email was sent. There are multiple outlets like CBS, NYT, WAPO, and others that have developed methods to authenticate emails from the DNC and Hunter Biden.

How many fakes have been uncovered? If you believe not a single email was counterfeit, my dear, you’re mistaken.

Third: Durham’s leading intelligence analyst concluded that the email in question was “probably authentic.” Despite this, the claims revolve around nobody recalling the email while some did borrow similar language from previously sent communications.

I must say, Durham may be a tad naive here. Bosses stealing wording from their subordinates? In Washington? Unheard of.

They must have been Russian!

Lastly: Why on earth would Russia create a fake July 27 email that appears to confirm a New York Times story released just the day before? The motivation here is bizarre.

So, why maintain this charade? Was it to earn a Pulitzer?

To be honest, I don’t have the answer. Perhaps it’s just arrogance. The media seems desperate to avoid drawing clear conclusions. You’ve helped spread some of the most damaging conspiracy theories in our nation’s history. Just as your outrage over fake news peaked, you contributed to it.

Your mission to suppress free speech and undermine Trump’s presidency has, ironically, backfired, revealing the very thought crimes you accused others of perpetrating.

In comparison, the fake news about the Pope’s backing for Trump seems trivial now, doesn’t it?

What I’m Reading

“The only focus is on Russia’s actions, they state.”

John Brennan and James Clapper manage damage control after news revelations.

NYT pursues a narrative that seems to stretch the definition of reality.

It’s happened yet again.

Biden-appointed judge halts Trump admins from rescinding deportation protections for thousands.

We’ll see how this unfolds.