Do we still call it “Russiagate”?
I think it needs a new name, because the evidence of conspiracy is growing bigger and bigger by the day, and now includes Hillary Clinton’s alleged health problems. The story has acquired so many moving parts that I haven’t familiarized myself with them all, which would probably take the reading of several books that haven’t yet been written.
I’m not going to be the one writing those books, either.
So this is not a comprehensive post on the subject; it’ll take me some time to digest the information out there. But in the meantime, I’d suggest reading this article, which is more thorough than most.
NOTE: For the new name: “Russiagate 2.0”? I’d wager you can improve on that.
I’m uncertain that I’ve used “Russiagate” much, being as I somewhat disdain that term on various grounds.
As to a better expression? Huhm, perhaps ObamaFraud if not the longer more cumbersome ObamaCoupFraud or some other such usage. Key, though, to get the subject Obama of the matter front and center, I think.
If whimsy is permitted, I’m still fond of my metaphorical gesture toward the Mr . Creosote sketch, so perhaps TheWaferThinMint Affair?
I had forgotten about Hillary’s health issues. I vaguely recall a video clip long ago now, of her and her handlers (literally) waiting for the limo or SUV. She’s sitting or perhaps propped up against a post. Then, when she gets in, two men on either side of her drag her in. In one moment, you can see her toes dragging the tops of her shoes on the pavement.
Everyone remembers the Hillary’s email situation, but another less well known and incredible incident was the SCIF she had put into her DC home. She had a legal immigrant house maid (non-citizen) who she gave access to the SCIF. On occasion when classified docs came in, and Hillary was traveling, the maid would forward the docs to Hillary via FAX or cell-phone.
Whatever we call it, I think we can agree it involved all of the following:
1) Obama used his power as President to try to help Hillary Clinton get elected.
2) Obama used his power as President to try to undermine Trump once he was elected.
3) Obama continued to use his influence in government to undermine Trump while Trump was President.
I would call it the maskirovna
The deception, a very layered one
Bananobama. Maybe Bananobama Republic.
Barack-Hussein-Obama-mm-mm-MM-gate?
Not proud of any of these.
I had forgotten about Hillary’s health issues. I vaguely recall a video clip long ago now, of her and her handlers (literally) waiting for the limo or SUV. She’s sitting or perhaps propped up against a post. Then, when she gets in, two men on either side of her drag her in. In one moment, you can see her toes dragging the tops of her shoes on the pavement.
IIRC; it was September 11th or thereabouts in NYC and she was attending a memorial service. She started looking like she was going to pass out when her minders grabbed her, tossed her into an SUV and took off.
She showed up a couple of hours later smiling and waving for the cameras, saying; “I’m ok, folks!” Her spox put it down to the heat, but I don’t think it was all that hot that day. Personally, I always figured she was drunk but with this latest development maybe stoned is a better word.
Compounding the difficulty of keeping track of the moving parts is the meta-phenomenon of bloggers etc taking one of two major positions: (1) the document releases comprise a smoking gun legally speaking vs (2) interesting information but not legally actionable (sometimes also combined with an assertion that we already know this anyway).
I’m tracking all of neo’s sources. Matt Taibbi’s focused take at Racket News is also merited.
Around the time of the incredible 2nd Trump impeachment, where his “criminality” with Russia was in play, I began using “ObamaGate” together with “Russiagate” to organize my files. That’s when the link to Obama — plus Dan Bongino’s serial books on Russiagate — made his culpability inevitable to me.
My present day data sets require a new “Trump II” version of ObamaGate. THIS is going to last a couple years news coverage— at least!
Oh. And Mike Davis of the Article III Project in DC was interviewed, Monday I think? On Bannon’s Warroom (not Steve B, but a staffer) interview.
Davis’ bailiwick of conspiracy to deprive Trump of his civil rights was on full display (yet unmentioned elsewhere).
Thus, the full panoply of possible criminal charges that could be brought and prosecuted grows.
PS sharksauce line “Bananobama Republic” is good for my LOLz!
https://x.com/walterkirn/status/1948058683763499335
Andrew Branca is another useful commentator on the ObamaFraud. He’s vehement, and highly knowledgeable. https://youtu.be/lpZqSQILyaE
Mollie Hemingway and Sean Davis do a Federalist radio hour dissecting in detail the HPSCI report released today. They’ve been covering this story since its very beginnings: Federalist Radio
Coup d’obama
I am so tired of “gate” being affixed to every scandal. Let’s call a spade a spade: Obama Treason scandal. Pushing language back to coherence. (Yes, I know what I did.)
Nice find, sdferr!
Fox News Channel’s Hannity spends about 10 minutes encapsulating Gabbard’s new presentation — followed by 8+ minutes with House Judiciary Committee’s Jim Jordan, John Solomon, and resident legal analyst Gregg Jarrett.
Watch without commercials here https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Si6mKrzXbtQ
Solomon avers that “unindicted co-conspirator Barack Obama” may become the Watergate-style most quotable phrase after all that’s coming. Jarrett provides the most pith, closing with the ironic thought that Obama surely will owe Trump a debt of gratitude for the recent SCOTUS decision on criminal acts done in Official Presidential capacity to the outer periphery cannot be prosecuted.
Meanwhile, AG Bondi has tasked a Strike Force to consider prosecutions based on Gabbard’s findings. The term is normally applied to racketeering conspiracies, large patterned criminality like those involving Mafia prosecutions. Gabbard states that some 20 intelligence officials were interviewed in her document dive.
Will this get serious fast, this fall? Will Congressional investigations have and parallel tracks? With follow-up interviews? Or will it be total deference to the DoJ?
Will we see the 20 intel officers Gabbard mentions testifying against Obama’s high ups?
Finally, the articulate and fast parsing Victor Davis Hanson gives us a 6 minute version of the whole sorry ObamaGate tale, at the start of this longer pull clip
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oHF7tKZKe_o
If I wasn’t already happily married to The Most Perfect Woman on God’s Green Earth (Hi, Honey!) I would consider proposing to Tulsi Gabbard. Except she is also married. Oh well. At least I can express my appreciation for her outstanding work on behalf of Truth, Justice and The American Way in exposing the shameless and craven Barack Hussein Obama and the rest of the gaggle of leftists he imported into his administration. Of course, I am not sanguine about the prospects of any of Obama’s crew, especially including Obama himself, being the subject of criminal indictments, but I hope there are at least a few prosecutions brought, in order to force the corporate news media to pay some attention. So far, those quislings have ignored all these developments, hoping that people will remain uninformed. Criminal prosecutions would force them to pay some attention, even if only to try to debunk their legitimacy and perhaps a few more people would thereby awaken to the danger posed by the democrat party, which remains dominated by the same cabal that installed Obama, and very nearly Clinton in power.
The MSM will move heaven and earth to demonstrate that Gabbard’s assertions and any subsequent DOJ investigations and/or indictments are total BS and just an illegal hit job by Trump to destroy his enemies.
And if any of the perps are subjected to a criminal trial, it had better not be in DC or NYC or any other leftist liberal bastion, because the perps, REGARDLESS of the evidence, will be found innocent by a jury of their DNC peers.
They will lie like scorpions its in their nature, maybe they can find a proper venue
Yeah kind of like real life black widow in the marvel universe
Miguel Cervantes–
I think you mean “maskirovka,” not “maskirovna.”
I agree that “gate” has been overused. I think the words “treason”, “hoax”, “fraud” should be used.
I am seeing “Russian Collusion Hoax” and “Russian Hoax” on other sites and it is a good term. I also like the use of Strike Force by the DOJ. Gives an action feel instead of just another review that goes nowhere.
Liz,
But “coup” is more appropriate than “hoax”.
This was a huge deal, the biggest scandal in American politics.
Basically a corrupt attempt at a take over by deep state actors supported by media.
A coup. Not just against Trump, but against the American people.
And it is one of the things that significantly harmed Trump going into the 2020 election. Hiding Hunter’s laptop wasn’t the only thing that impacted votes.
There are so many pieces of this over time it is hard to keep track.
I’m okay with “Russiagate.” “Watergate” is a building complex in DC, but Nixon’s scandal was about more than that.
I like Obamagate, but the Ministry of Truth will forbid the O Word.
Trump calls it Russia Russia Russia which may be too long. Perhaps he will coin a new word for the scandal.
One little part in the Russia collusion coup attempt:
Recall during the Mueller investigation (which was part of the coup), at several points they prosecuted Russians for interference, that is, buying Facebook ads. I don’t recall seeing these ads, it would be interesting to see what was in them.
These prosecutions seemed intended to include some actual Russians, who were generally lacking in all this.
In one of these prosecutions, DOJ showed up unprepared at the court date and had to request an extension. Seems they didn’t expect the Russians to show up and contest it, but they hired US lawyers.
US lawyers who–surprise–demanded discovery. Discovery the DOJ refused to provide. Eventually prosecution was dropped due to the lack of discovery.
But at one point Mueller came out and gave a funny little press briefing. No one knew what he called it for, and it wasn’t clear what it was about after listening to it–almost everything he said was well known.
But if you paid close attention, he did state that there was no evidence the Russians indicted were agents of the Russian government.
It turns out that he had to back out of prior lies claiming those indicted were working on behalf of the Russian government because of a court order.
Selfy on July 24, 2025 at 12:59 pm said:
I’m okay with “Russiagate.” “Watergate” is a building complex in DC, but Nixon’s scandal was about more than that.
It turns out “deep throat” was the deputy director of the FBI. Not a Nixon insider. The implication is that the deputy director was spying on the Nixon administration, a crime at least equal to Nixon’s. Really worse, since the deputy director was just a government employee using his power to overthrow a president.
@Don: It turns out “deep throat” was the deputy director of the FBI. Not a Nixon insider.
All true. The Deep Throat whistleblower was Mark Felt. After J. Edgar Hoover died, Nixon passed over Felt for FBI Director.
Felt had been Hoover’s associate director and was considered Hoover’s natural successor. Instead Nixon chose L. Patrick Gray III, who had no experience in law enforcement.
Hell hath no fury like a bureaucrat scorned!
Hat tip to Richard Nixon for not choosing an inheritor of the Hoover machine to continue running the FBI.
Though it appears Nixon paid dearly for that smart, brave choice.
@ Don: ” But “coup” is more appropriate than “hoax”. ”
Yes, that terminology should receive more emphasis going forward. But the Right does not seem to have a Journolist type connectivity to all focus on a common phrase or term or narrative “upon demand”.
Perhaps we can go with something like “Coup-bama” ?? where the “P” is pronounced, to reflect back on Obama’s “esprit de corps” faux pas.
Trump calls it the RussiaHoax, tho maybe also other phrases. I’m tired of x-gate, too, but it’s the Dem media that usually pushes some phrase.
It’s Russia Hoax for me until Trump names it more clearly something else.
What are the actual crimes, tho?
And I support impeachment for all 4 FISA judges that failed to require the FBI/ CIA to have first person witnesses.
Russia Hoax sounds best. But lack verve and attack on the expoed.
Obama-Coup comes closer