Declassified intelligence files expose a calculated plot by Hillary Clinton’s 2016 campaign to tarnish Donald Trump with fabricated Russian ties. This revelation, dripping with political cynicism, unveils a scheme to shift focus from Clinton’s email scandal. It’s a stark reminder of how far some will go to cling to power.
The New York Post reported that Clinton’s campaign, led by foreign policy advisor Julianne Smith, concocted a plan to falsely link Trump with Russian collusion, aiming to distract from Clinton’s mishandling of classified emails on a private server.
The strategy, detailed in memos and emails, involved coordination with the Democratic National Committee and George Soros’s Open Society Foundations. These documents, declassified before July 23, 2025, lay bare a deliberate effort to manipulate public perception.
In March 2016, FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe shared these memos with Justice Department officials, hinting at a potential investigation rooted in the Democratic campaign’s narrative.
The plan, hatched nine months before Obama’s December 2016 intelligence assessment, pushed themes like “Putin’s support for Trump” to equate Russian influence with election hacking. Such tactics reek of desperation, not democracy.
Julianne Smith, who later became Biden’s NATO ambassador, proposed smearing Trump with scandalous claims of ties to the “Russian Mafia.” “Clinton approved a plan to smear Trump by magnifying the scandal tied to Russian intrusion,” a memo states. This wasn’t policy debate—it was character assassination dressed as strategy.
The campaign’s first stage leaned on FBI-affiliated firms like Crowdstrike and ThreatConnect to feed media narratives, banking on Russia’s GRU to supply more “facts.”
A July 27, 2016, email crowed, “HRC approved Julia’s idea about Trump and Russian hackers.” The audacity of orchestrating a hoax while dodging accountability is breathtaking.
Leonard Bernardo, a senior Open Society Foundations official, outlined how these firms would disseminate information to major U.S. publications. “Due to lack of direct evidence, Crowdstrike and ThreatConnect will supply the media,” Bernardo wrote. It’s a masterclass in manufacturing consent, with truth as the first casualty.
The memos, deemed “likely authentic” by the FBI and CIA, couldn’t be fully corroborated but were not Russian fabrications.
Special counsel John Durham’s probe confirmed Smith’s role in pushing the Trump-Russia narrative for Clinton’s gain. Yet, the Obama FBI’s failure to scrutinize this intelligence raises red flags about institutional bias.
By January 2017, an intelligence assessment echoed the campaign’s claims, incorporating the now-debunked Steele dossier, partly funded by Clinton’s campaign and the DNC.
“The Obama FBI failed to adequately review intelligence reports,” Senator Chuck Grassley noted. This isn’t just oversight—it’s a betrayal of public trust.
Grassley’s push for transparency, backed by Attorney General Pam Bondi and FBI Director Kash Patel, led to the files’ declassification. “The American people deserve the full truth about the Russia collusion hoax,” Patel declared. Their commitment to accountability contrasts sharply with the secrecy of 2016.
The scheme wasn’t just about winning an election—it was, as Director of National Intelligence John Ratcliffe put it, “a coordinated plan to destroy Trump’s presidency.” The memos reveal a two-pronged Democratic strategy to discredit Trump with fabricated scandals. It’s a playbook that thrives on deception, not discourse.
Bernardo’s emails boasted of a “long-term affair to demonize Putin and Trump,” with the FBI expected to “put more oil into the fire.”
Such brazen collusion between a campaign and federal agencies undermines the very democracy they claimed to protect. The hypocrisy is almost poetic.
Clinton’s approval of Smith’s plan, as one email gloated, was meant to “distract people from her missing email.” “That should distract people,” the email read, as if voters were pawns in a game of misdirection. This wasn’t leadership—it was manipulation.
Grassley decried the “political weaponization” that “caused critical damage to our institutions.” His leadership, praised by Bondi as “shining light on critical issues,” demands answers for a scandal that rivals Watergate in scope. The American public deserves no less.
Durham’s findings expose a campaign willing to fabricate narratives for political survival, with federal agencies as complicit enablers.
“This is one of the biggest political scandals in American history,” Grassley warned. His words carry weight in a nation weary of elite double standards.
