Declassified intelligence files have unveiled a calculated move by Hillary Clinton’s 2016 campaign to smear Donald Trump with baseless Russian collusion claims. The scheme, greenlit by Clinton herself, aimed to shift focus from her email scandal. It’s a revelation that raises serious questions about political tactics and media manipulation.
The New York Post reported that during the 2016 presidential race, Clinton’s team concocted a plan to tie Trump to Russian interference, a distraction from her controversies. The 24-page intelligence annex, compiled from memos and emails, was declassified on Thursday, shedding light on these efforts. It’s a stark reminder of how far some will go to control the narrative.
Julianne Smith, Clinton’s foreign policy adviser, masterminded the operation to paint Trump as Putin’s puppet. The plan involved top Democratic National Committee figures, including then-Chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz. Coordination with George Soros’ Open Society Foundations added another layer to this political gambit.
Emails from July 2016 reveal the scheme’s intent to make Russian interference a domestic issue. Leonard Benardo, a senior vice president at Open Society Foundations, outlined the strategy in late July. He saw it as a dual-purpose tool: a short-term boost post-convention and a long-term hit on Trump’s credibility.
On July 25, 2016, Benardo wrote that demonizing both Putin and Trump would serve Clinton’s campaign well. He predicted a “post-convention bounce” from the narrative. The email’s cold calculation shows how political operatives exploit public perception.
“Julie [sic] says it will be a long-term affair to demonize Putin and Trump,” Benardo noted, revealing the campaign’s cynical foresight. His words suggest a deliberate, sustained effort to tarnish Trump’s image. It’s the kind of backroom deal that fuels distrust in politics.
By July 27, 2016, Benardo confirmed Clinton’s approval of the plan to link Trump with Russian hackers. The goal was to overshadow her email scandal, which threatened to derail her campaign. Comparing the distraction to the 2014 Sochi doping scandal, Benardo aimed high.
“HRC approved Julia’s idea about Trump and Russian hackers hampering U.S. elections,” Benardo wrote, tying Clinton directly to the scheme. The email scandal, a persistent thorn in her side, needed a bigger story to bury it. This was political sleight-of-hand at its most brazen.
Benardo’s emails emphasized making Russian interference a “U.S. domestic issue.” The plan leaned on firms like Crowdstrike and ThreatConnect to feed the media narrative. Without hard evidence, they hoped Russia’s GRU would inadvertently bolster their claims.
“In absence of direct evidence, Crowdstrike and ThreatConnect will supply the media,” Benardo wrote, admitting the plan’s weak foundation. Relying on speculative intelligence to fuel a public fire is a risky move. It’s the kind of tactic that thrives on noise, not facts.
The involvement of Open Society Foundations raises eyebrows about the influence of private wealth in politics. George Soros’ group wasn’t just a bystander but an active player in shaping this narrative. It’s a reminder of how deep-pocketed elites can sway public discourse.
Julianne Smith, now Joe Biden’s ambassador to NATO, stayed mum when pressed for comment. “I don’t have any comment,” she told The Post, dodging accountability. Her silence speaks volumes about the discomfort these revelations bring.
Special counsel John Durham’s multi-year investigation into 2016 election activities brought these files to light. His probe peeled back layers of secrecy, exposing the machinations behind the Russia narrative. It’s a slow drip of truth that challenges the official story.
The declassified annex details “confidential conversations” among DNC leaders and Soros’ allies. These talks reveal a coordinated effort to equate Russian political influence with election hacking. The conflation was deliberate, designed to inflame public fears.
This episode underscores the dangers of unchecked political strategies that prioritize winning over integrity. Clinton’s campaign, facing a scandal, chose distraction over transparency—a choice that erodes trust. As voters, we deserve better than orchestrated smears masquerading as truth.
