While Russiagate Was Fake, Spygate Is Real, and Horowitz Is About to Prove It

October 25, 2019 Updated: October 28, 2019

Commentary

Department of Justice Inspector General Michael Horowitz turned in his report into potential FISA abuses to Attorney General William Barr almost four weeks ago. That report detailing his extensive and meticulous year-and-a-half-long investigation into issues surrounding how fake evidence was presented to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court in order to obtain warrants to spy on at least one American citizen is currently undergoing the required classification review.

During this time, nothing has leaked, which is quite telling in itself. If there was anything that could be leaked from this report that would mitigate the coming fallout, we’d have seen it by now. This points to the report being incredibly damaging to the Obama administration.

During this four-week interim period, several developments have emerged:

The Implosion of the Ukraine Hoax

First, the House Democrats launched a new hoax to replace the debunked RussiaGate hoax. This new hoax involved a secret whistleblower filing a complaint claiming that in a phone call President Donald Trump demanded that newly elected Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky launch a corruption investigation into former Vice President Joe Biden or Trump would withhold key military aid to Ukraine.

The new hoax quickly went down in flames when Trump promptly declassified and released both the fake whistleblower complaint and the transcript of his phone call with Zelensky.

The transcript revealed there was no such demand on the part of President Trump, and it was quickly demonstrated that the whistleblower had no first-hand knowledge of the allegations being made.

President Zelensky himself also publicly pushed back against any notion that there was any sort of quid pro quo demanded by Trump during their conversation, and subsequently it was proven that the notification of the delay in providing the military aid to Ukraine wasn’t made until a month after the phone call between Trump and Zelensky had taken place.

Despite all the evidence having been made public that there was no quid pro quo, the Democrats and the media have ferociously continued gaslighting as if there was, attempting to use the new hoax as a pretext for launching a new round of impeachment theater in the House.

In fact, it now appears the Democrats were hoping to launch this new Ukraine hoax in conjunction with the release of the Horowitz report. If so, they made the mistake of launching the hoax too early.

UkraineGate is already stone-cold dead. Trump has killed it. Only relentlessly fierce and determined gaslighting by Democrats and their media allies is keeping up the pretense that the Ukraine phone call allegations are going anywhere.

As I wrote in a column last year, I call what Schiff and the Democrats are doing right now the “Phantom of the Opera Gambit.”

Standing in front of a big curtain he won’t let you look behind, Schiff is furiously pointing at his clenched fist, regaling you with tales of all the mountains of evidence he’s supposedly seen that proves President Trump has committed serious crimes. Evidence he holds in his hand, but that he can never let you see.

You may recall this is the exact same trick that Schiff and the Democrats pulled for over two years with the Trump-Russia collusion hoax.

This is a futile Hail Mary play. It’s all they’ve got left, it’s what they’ve been reduced to. It’s either this fake impeachment inquiry held behind the secret curtain or just give up.

The Mifsud Phones

The second key development as we waited for the Horowitz report was the sudden revelation that both Attorney General William Barr and U.S. Attorney John Durham were in Italy meeting with government officials.

From a recent filing by lawyer Sidney Powell, who is currently leading the defense of General Michael Flynn, it now appears that either just before or during their foray to Italy, Barr and Durham received cell phones belonging to Joseph Mifsud.

I have surmised for two years that Mifsud was one of the “OCONUS LURES” working for the FBI’s Crossfire Hurricane counterintelligence investigation of the Trump campaign during the 2016 election.

For the RussiaGate narrative to work, there always had to be at least one real Russian agent approaching a member of the Trump campaign to make a genuine offer of help from the Putin government.

Mifsud is the only candidate that fits the bill, and if he turns out to have been working for the FBI all along, this blows up the RussiaGate narrative forever.

The narrative could no longer be that it is “possible” Russian agents approached the Trump campaign with offers of help to win the election, but that the Mueller special counsel simply couldn’t find enough evidence to charge it.

This is what many Democrats and DNC Media hacks have been claiming for months now: “We know Trump did it, its just that Mueller couldn’t conclusively prove it!”

What if phone records and other documentary evidence from these phones prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Mifsud was an FBI asset all along?  Then there’s no doubt this was a sting using a fake Russian asset.

So if the Steele Dossier wasn’t used to start the FBI’s counterintelligence investigation or obtain warrants to spy on people like Trump campaign adviser Carter Page, and Mifsud turns out to have been a fake Russian spy working for the FBI who was sent to entrap Trump campaign adviser George Papadopoulos, where’s the real Russian agency in any of this?

If a genuine Russian agent can’t be found, the narrative Democrats and the mainstream media spent more than three years relentlessly pushing will be exposed as a hoax.

Meanwhile, the SpyGate scandal, which has been mocked and dismissed as a wild and bizarre conspiracy theory, is going to be established as a fact beyond all reasonable doubt.

Barr, Horowitz, and Durham will be showing the public all the SpyGate evidence. Schiff and the Democrats and their media allies? They’ll all be standing in front of a curtain making exciting claims about what’s supposedly behind it.

One side in this has all the evidence and time on its side. The other does not.

Can you tell one from the other?

Views expressed in this article are the opinions of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of The Epoch Times.

RECOMMENDED