Newly declassified documents show that Hillary Clinton approved the Russia hoax strategy — and that the Obama White House was briefed from the beginning.
Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) last week declassified a 29-page document known as the Durham annex. Its publication has received remarkably little attention from major media outlets, despite containing one of the most significant intelligence disclosures since the origins of the Russiagate investigation.
The Durham annex is not conjecture, analysis, or political spin. It is a collection of sensitive intelligence reports, internal memos, and declassified emails compiled by the intelligence community and withheld from public view for years under the pretext of “source protection.”
The Durham annex reveals that the FBI ignored evidence in 2015 and 2016 suggesting that foreign governments were attempting to collude not with Trump, but with Clinton.
The declassified document offers a clearer view of what many Americans have long suspected: that the narrative surrounding Trump-Russia collusion was not only politically motivated but deliberately constructed by the Clinton campaign, facilitated by sympathetic actors within U.S. intelligence agencies, and ultimately endorsed by senior members of the Obama administration.
This trove of documents does not merely reinforce existing criticisms of the FBI’s conduct during the 2016 election. It provides evidence that the Clinton campaign approved a strategy to discredit Donald Trump by promoting a false association with Vladimir Putin. And it does so using intelligence collected from foreign surveillance of American political actors — surveillance that the CIA deemed credible enough to brief President Barack Obama directly.
The cover-up unraveled
Central to the Durham annex is a source codenamed “T1” — a foreign intelligence asset who intercepted Russian cyber-espionage activity targeting American entities, including George Soros’ Open Society Foundation, the Clinton campaign, and U.S. think tanks. The reports T1 relayed to U.S. intelligence included detailed assessments of internal American political strategy. In effect, T1 was watching Russian spies watch us — and reporting back.
T1’s identity remains classified, but strong circumstantial evidence points to a Dutch intelligence source. The Netherlands reportedly gained access to Russian cyber operations as early as 2014. Regardless of who provided it, U.S. agencies treated the intelligence from T1 as credible.
Then-CIA Director John Brennan quickly briefed President Obama, Vice President Biden, FBI Director James Comey, and Director of National Intelligence James Clapper. Those briefings included memos indicating Hillary Clinton had personally approved a plan to tie Donald Trump to Russian election interference.
One memo, dated 2016 and reportedly obtained through Russian surveillance of George Soros’ Open Society Foundations, outlined a Clinton campaign strategy: “Smear Donald Trump by magnifying the scandal” over Russia’s preference for Trump. That memo laid the groundwork for the Trump-Russia collusion hoax now known as Russiagate.
Intelligence running Clinton’s interference
The CIA labeled the intelligence “sensitive” and credible. The FBI rejected it. Agents claimed it relied on hearsay, appeared exaggerated, and might have suffered from translation errors.
That kind of skepticism might seem reasonable — if the FBI had applied the same scrutiny to the Steele dossier. Instead, they accepted that now-debunked document without verification and used it to justify surveillance warrants.
The inconsistency runs deeper than analysis. The Durham annex reveals that the FBI ignored evidence from 2015 and 2016 showing that foreign governments weren’t courting Trump — they were cozying up to Clinton.
One memo, written before Trump even announced his candidacy, described a foreign intelligence operative preparing to meet with a Clinton associate to discuss a “plan.” The operative was acting on direct orders from a foreign head of state
Gilbert Carrasquillo / Contributor | Getty Images
The precise content of the plan is redacted, but the FBI’s field office viewed it as serious enough to request a FISA warrant. That request, however, was left to “languish in limbo” by senior FBI officials, who subsequently warned Clinton in a defensive briefing.
Frayed trust, no accountability
The documents suggest a coordinated operation — one in which political, bureaucratic, and media institutions aligned to discredit a political opponent using information they had strong reasons to believe was false. The CIA deemed the intelligence worth a presidential briefing. The FBI discarded it. The media ignored it. And Clinton operatives implemented it.
This is not merely a scandal of partisan excess. Nearly 10 years after the first Hillary Clinton email leaks, and eight years after Trump’s unexpected victory, we are only now beginning to see the scope of institutional complicity in the Russiagate deception. The political cost may never be fully calculated, but the institutional damage — to the FBI, to the intelligence community, and to the trust of the American people — is already done.
This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.
The silence of an empty home reminds me that life’s outcomes are out of my control — what matters is showing up.
My son moved out of the house this spring. My daughter moves out in a couple of weeks, and my older kids are headed up north. Now, it’s just Tania and me — and it’s been quiet. Too quiet.
As I sit here in a house full of space and silence, my mind has been meditating on the reality of being a dad — and what that really means.
As a father, I’ve learned that sometimes the most important thing is simply showing up and doing the best I can — even when I’m not sure what that looks like.
I didn’t grow up with the model of fatherhood that I now find myself trying to live out. My dad wasn’t present. He worked hard — harder than most people I’ve ever met — but he wasn’t there for me the way I needed him to be. My dad was passionate about his job, and that job was providing for the family. He taught me about hard work, but there wasn’t much emotional connection. We didn’t start developing any real relationship until I was 30.
I’m not complaining. That was just the reality. But such memories inevitably materialize as I reflect on my own experience as a father and try to navigate this new chapter in my life.When my kids were little, it was clear that I wasn’t home enough. And looking back, I knew that my work — this job — was costing me time with them. But we all talked about it as a family. When the opportunity to make this career change came in 2006, we discussed it openly because we knew it would change everything, for better or for worse. We made the decision as a team.
Now that they're moved out, I walk around in this big house filled with all this stuff, considering whether anything was worth it. In the end, it's just stuff. Everything in my home could be gone, and all I would miss are the kids.
The reality of fatherhood
Something I thought — and I think many others can relate — is that you think that your main job is to provide. You’re not needed in the same way mom is. You’re not the one the baby looks to in those early years. You watch your wife bond with the child, and you wonder where you fit in. It’s a strange feeling.
But as I’ve come to learn, you are needed in more ways than just a provider. You just don’t always get the immediate connection that mothers do.
A special season starts around age seven when dad becomes a little magical. You can feel it. The connection is there. It’s that sweet spot before the teenage years, when everything is awkward, when both dad and kid seem to be at odds. But in those years before, it’s golden.
Then, it all changes.
As kids hit the teen years, they start to pull away. The relationship with dad often becomes strained. They turn to mom when they need comfort, leaving dad in the background, unsure of where he stands. And that’s fine. That’s how it goes. But in this phase of life, as the kids start moving out and forging their own paths, I wish things were different.
I feel that loss deeply. As a father who wasn’t home all the time, I worked to provide. But now, I’m left with this ache in my chest, wondering, “Did I do enough?”
Releasing the outcome
The hardest part of fatherhood is when you stop expecting a certain outcome. My wife often tells me, “It’s going to happen. It will all work out.” And I believe her. But honestly, it’s hard not to be caught in the endless loop of second-guessing. Did I make the right decisions? Did I do enough? How can I fix this?
This struggle isn’t just about fatherhood. It’s about life. I’ve spent so much time looking ahead, planning, pointing to the horizon. I could always see the future and strive toward it. But in this season of life, I’m realizing that we also need to release our attachment to the outcome — whether it be over the injustices we see in the news cycle or the things we are wrestling with in our individual lives.
Photo by Kelli McClintock via UnsplashIt doesn't mean we're not engaged. It just means we have to stop wanting a specific outcome. It’s a journey where the road is uncertain, and the destination might look different than what I expected.
I’ve always been someone who could picture the future and work relentlessly toward it. But it’s not just about getting to the destination — it’s about being present in the moment, doing the next right thing, and giving the end result to God.
Applying this to life
We live in a world obsessed with results, with winning, with reaching that end goal. But what if, just for a moment, we stopped obsessing over the outcome? What if we focused on doing the next right thing, one step at a time?
I don’t have all the answers. I’m still figuring it out. But what I do know is that there’s beauty in the process. There’s meaning in the moments, even if they don’t lead to the perfect outcome. As a father, I’ve learned that sometimes the most important thing is simply showing up and doing the best I can — even when I’m not sure what that looks like.
The house is quiet now, but the work isn’t over. There’s still plenty to do. And it’s time to focus on making each moment count.
This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.
The rise of dual loyalties in Congress is a dangerous trend. Rep. Ramirez's allegiance to Guatemala calls into question her commitment to America’s laws and sovereignty.
When an elected official swears an oath to uphold the Constitution and defend the United States, that pledge should mean something. But what happens when a member of Congress chooses to place her allegiance with another country over the United States? It’s a violation of that oath, plain and simple.
Rep. Delia Ramirez (D-Ill.), a sitting member of Congress, openly stated in Spanish during a political event in Mexico City, "I'm a proud Guatemalan before I'm an American."
If we don’t demand that our elected leaders place their loyalty to the United States above all else, then we risk the very foundation of this republic.
Ramirez didn’t have a casual slip of the tongue. Her statement was a declaration of her loyalty to another nation. And it’s not just her words that are troubling; her husband, according to Rolling Stone, is in the U.S. illegally. That’s a violation of our immigration laws — laws that Ramirez should be sworn to uphold.
Ramirez’s statement isn’t an isolated incident. This is part of a growing pattern where elected officials, like Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-Minn.), proudly identify with their country of origin before America. They claim cultural pride, but celebrating your heritage is distinctly different from putting your identity above the country that gives you the freedom and opportunity to express that identity.
Heritage vs. loyalty
I’m proud of my heritage, as many Americans are. My wife’s family is a great example. They’re Italian-Americans who are very proud of their roots. But they would never say they’re “Italian before American.” They are Americans who cherish their heritage.
This is what Theodore Roosevelt meant when he said, "There is no room in this country for hyphenated Americanism." This is not a swipe at immigrants. This is a call for unity under one flag, one national destiny. For too long, we’ve allowed dual loyalties to take root in the very institutions that are meant to protect our sovereignty. This is how nations crumble.
George Washington warned against foreign entanglements and divided loyalties in his Farewell Address. He understood the dangers of dual allegiances. He knew the republic couldn’t survive if its leaders pledged allegiance to foreign powers instead of the Constitution.
This isn’t about whether you love your country of origin. It’s about the fundamental principle of loyalty to the United States. You can’t serve in Congress, be part of the body that governs and protects America, if you’re more loyal to another country than to the sovereignty and integrity of the U.S.
National security at risk
This issue goes beyond politics. It goes to the very heart of our national identity. The growing influence of foreign allegiance among our elected officials poses a direct threat to national security. You can’t be trusted to defend America’s borders and enforce immigration laws if you’re willing to place another country above your sworn duty.
Anadolu / Contributor | Getty Images
Congress must hold these people accountable. Ramirez must be removed from any committees related to national security or immigration. She has shown that her loyalty lies elsewhere. Her position on the Homeland Security Committee is not only a conflict of interest, it’s a violation of the trust placed in her by the American people.
Her husband’s illegal status must be investigated thoroughly. If you or I were in the same situation, we’d be facing the consequences. There’s no reason why she and her family should be above the law.
Time to act
This issue is about loyalty, integrity, and national security. If we don’t demand that our elected leaders place their loyalty to the United States above all else, then we risk the very foundation of this republic. The time to act is now.
Will Congressional lawmakers listen to the American people and choose America, or will they continue to play politics with our sovereignty? We need to know, now more than ever, whom these leaders are really serving.
This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.