1.) Elise Stefanik’s Vote To “Release The Memo” Could Be An Example of “Pay-To-Play” Politics At Its Absolute Worst:
Congresswoman Elise Stefanik (R) is currently one of the 13 Republicans that sit on the infamous House Intelligence Committee, chaired by Devin Nunes (R-CA), also known as the “Nunes Committee,” which has been tasked with investigating Russian interference into the 2016 elections. On January 29, Stefanik, as well as the rest of the Republicans on the committee voted to release the first of what will likely be a series of memos designed to damage the credibility of the FBI and undermine the ongoing counter-intelligence investigation being conducted by Special Council Robert Mueller.
In a diary back in December, using research conducted by both NY21Watchdog and the campaign of Democratic congressional candidate Katie Wilson, I detailed a number of contributions, totaling $11,000, to Stefanik from sources that were trying to either obstruct or interfere with the ongoing investigation by Special Council Mueller. These contributions included $10,000 from top Republican members of the House Intelligence Committee (“Nunes Committee”), including $4,000 from Devin Nunes’ “New PAC”, $5,000 from Mike Conaway’s “CONA PAC” and $1,000 from Will Hurd’s “HURD PAC.” Stefanik also received $1,000 from the pro-Trump Great America Political Action Committee in February 2016.
Recently, I encountered even more contributions of interest; Stefanik received $7,000 from associates of the Podesta Group, the now-defunct Democratic-leaning Washington D.C. lobbying firm founded by Tony Podesta, who is currently being investigated by Mueller for his previous Russian and Ukranian lobbying efforts which were largely connected to former Trump campaign manager Paul Manafort. In addition, according to FEC campaign disclosure reports, Stefanik also received a $1,000 contribution on March 24, 2014, from former Congressman Vin Webber (R-MN), a lobbyist at Mercury Strategies, who is also being investigated by Mueller for his work lobbying on behalf of Ukrainian clients on behalf of Manafort.
This brings the grand total of Stefanik’s contributions from interests that are potentially trying to interfere with the Russian investigation up to $19,000.
Elise Stefanik’s contributions from interests in conflict with the ongoing Russian investigation currently being conducted by Special Council Robert Mueller:
- $4,000 from Devin Nunes’ NEW PAC
- $5,000 from Mike Conway’s CONA PAC
- $1,000 from Will Hurd’s HURD PAC
- $1,000 from the pro-Trump Great America PAC
- $7,000 from associates of the former Podesta Group, the Washington D.C. lobbying firm of Tony Podesta, who is currently being investigated by Robert Mueller for his lobbying activities on behalf of Russia and Ukraine that are largely connected to former Trump campaign manager Paul Manafort.
- $1,000 from former Republican Congressman and lobbyist Vin Webber, who is currently being investigated by Robert Mueller for his lobbying activities on behalf of Russia and Ukraine that are largely connected to former Trump campaign manager Paul Manafort.
- TOTAL : $19,000
2.) Stefanik’s Questions at James Comey’s March 2017 Testimony Have Helped To Embolden and Legitimize Alt-Right “Deep State” Conspiracy Theorists Across the U.S.:
If you still harbor any lingering doubts about Elise Stefanik trying to undermine the ongoing investigation into Russian interference, perhaps you need to go no further than former FBI Director James Comey’s testimony before the House Committee in March of 2017, where Stefanik asked a series of questions to Comey that were intentionally designed to insinuate that Russia did not specifically target Hillary Cinton, the Democratic National Committee or Democratic Party candidates during the 2016 elections. Largely because of her actions during the Comey testimony, Stefanik has since become one of the new heroes of national right-wing bloggers trying to perpetuate ridiculous “deep state” conspiracy theories.
In the video footage, while being interrogated by Stefanik, Comey admitted for the first time that Russia hacked into the Republican National Committee, in addition to the Democratic National Committee. And while this has been proven to be factually correct, to the casual observer, Stefanik’s questioning insinuates that Russia may have had no specific bias against Hillary Clinton or any other Democrats during the 2016 elections and was just interfering with various targeted candidates from across both major political parties that year. Under this faulty theory, one would then be lead to believe that Russia was perhaps targeting and victimizing Donald Trump, in addition to Hillary Clinton, and therefore, the investigation into Russian interference may no longer be as relevant or that the FBI may have a bias against Trump and the Republican Party for not previously disclosing any evidence of RNC hacking. In essence, Stefanik’s insinuations are helping to lend credibility to right-wing conspiracy theorists.
The reality, as Comey explains, is that Russia only used and released material it hacked from the Democratic National Committee to influence the outcome of the 2016 elections. None of the material Russia illegally obtained from the Republican National Committee was ever used to influence any elections. Why, then, would Russia hack both committees? Perhaps one could speculate that the information obtained from the RNC could potentially give Russian operatives significant leverage over Donald Trump or certain members of Congress, such as Nunes or Stefanik, that play a pivotal role on the House Intelligence Committee. Truth be told, we don’t really know for sure. But what we do know is that Russian operatives were trying to undermine Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign; members of Congress shouldn’t be trying to indirectly suggest that anything else was occurring.
In addition, and also worth of note from the testimony, was Stefanik’s continued grilling of Comey over the FBI’s decision to wait until February, after the election, instead of July 2016, to inform congressional leadership that a counter-intelligence investigation was occurring. Why is this of importance and significance? At the time of Comey’s testimony in mid-March 2017 was the height of the fabricated “Obamagate” fiasco, where Donald Trump and right-wing media outlets were making baseless claims that the FBI and the Obama Administration somehow were engaged in a covert operation in the months before the election to wiretap Trump Tower in New York City. Stefanik’s questioning likely provided even more fodder to the hard-core Republican base which was already being lead to believe at the time that somehow Comey and the FBI were collaborating with the Obama Administration and Democratic Party officials to undermine Donald Trump’s presidential campaign in the months before the election.
For the past eleven months, alt-right conspiracy theorists and national right-wing blogs have continually cited former FBI Director Comey’s testimony with Elise Stefanik as one of their leading pieces of evidence that somehow a clandestine “deep state” organization exists within the federal government. One right-wing blogger even exclaimed that Stefanik exposed Comey as “a participant in the intelligence gathering for political purposes.” Today, Stefanik, as well as her colleague Devin Nunes, are now two of the biggest heroes of this growing, but marginalized group of fringe right-wing conspiracy theorists that continue to harbor wrongful delusions that our government is under the control of a group of “deep state” operatives.
4.) Stefanik Insinuates During May 2017 Testimony of Former CIA Director John Brennan That The Primary Cause of Russian Interference Was Incompetence Within the Obama Administration; she asks no questions to Brennan about potential collusion amongst Trump campaign officials:
When reviewing former CIA Director John Brennan’s testimony before the House Intelligence Committee on May 23, 2017, Elise Stefanik asked a series of questions to Mr. Brennan that were largely designed to insinuate that incompetence within the Obama Administration played a significant role in the Russian interference within the 2016 elections. Shifting blame to the Obama Administration for Russian collusion was a prominent tactic that many conservative pundits, such as Sean Hannity and Rudy Giuliani, used back in late 2016 and early 2017.
Interestingly enough, though, as pointed out by Brian Mann of North Country Public Radio, when Stefanik had the opportunity to ask questions to Brennan about members of the Trump campaign potentially be recruited by Russian agents, she said absolutely nothing.
From North Country Public Radio, May 24, 2017:
“Former CIA director John Brennan dropped some bombshells yesterday about his concerns that members of the Trump campaign may have been recruited by Russian agents. Rep. Elise Stefanik asked no questions about that.”
“In her public questions, North Country Congresswoman Elise Stefanik – who supported Trump during the campaign – didn’t ask about those revelations. Instead she asked process questions about how U.S. intelligence agencies responded to the Russian threat and also seemed to question whether U.S. intelligence on this issue could be trusted.”
“Brennan told Stefanik that he viewed American intelligence identifying the Russian threat as solid, but again Stefanik returned to questions about the Obama administration’s role in the threat assessment.”
In light of the fact that our nation was attacked, more partisan political gamesmanship and divisive rhetoric is the last thing we should expect from our elected officials in this currently polarized political atmosphere, especially coming from someone that continually claims to be an “independent” leader.
4.) Stefanik Conveniently Remained Silent at the November 2017 Testimony of Erik Prince, the Billionaire Founder of Controversial Military Contractor Blackwater/Academi, who was attempting to set up a backchannel between Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin:
Thanks to research conducted by NY21Watchdog, I learned that Elise Stefanik conveniently remained silent and didn’t ask a single question at the November 30, 2017 testimony of Erik Prince before the House Intelligence Committee. For those of you who don’t know, Prince is the brother of Education Secretary Betsy Devos and billionaire founder of private military contractor Blackwater/Academi, which conducted a 2007 massacre in Baghdad’s Mansour district, killing and injuring many Iraqi civilians.
On January 11, 2017, Prince conducted a secret meeting in the Seychelles with a business executive with close ties to the Kremlin and Russian President Vladimir Putin. The purpose of the meeting? Supposedly to establish a communications backchannel between Putin and Donald Trump.
From The Washington Post:
“The United Arab Emirates arranged a secret meeting in January between Blackwater founder Erik Prince and a Russian close to President Vladimir Putin as part of an apparent effort to establish a back-channel line of communication between Moscow and President-elect Donald Trump, according to U.S., European and Arab officials.
The meeting took place around Jan. 11 — nine days before Trump’s inauguration — in the Seychelles islands in the Indian Ocean, officials said. Though the full agenda remains unclear, the UAE agreed to broker the meeting in part to explore whether Russia could be persuaded to curtail its relationship with Iran, including in Syria, a Trump administration objective that would be likely to require major concessions to Moscow on U.S. sanctions.”
So why did Elise Stefanik remain silent? The theory of NY21Watchdog is that Stefanik has taken over $14,000 in campaign contributions from members of the Devos family. Once again, another classic example of “pay-to-play” politics at its absolute worst.