Obama Fueled Russia Collusion Lies in Secret White House Meeting

By Hans Mahncke & Jeff Carlson

In 2022, Bloomberg’s Jason Leopold obtained a transcript of a secret briefing that Barack Obama held with a group referred to in the transcript as “progressive journalists.” The meeting took place during the final days of the Obama administration on January 17, 2017. 

A Bloomberg article regarding the secret meeting focused on the part of the briefing in which Obama alleviated the journalist's concerns about a potential Trump presidency. Obama stated that a one-term Trump presidency was no big deal because Trump’s breach of the “norms” could be remedied, whereas eight years of norm breaking posed a genuine threat.

Leopold later sent out a tweet promoting the Bloomberg article. It mentioned that he would post the transcript; however, it was only posted a few days ago. Many thanks to our friend Stephen McIntyre for bringing it to our attention.

The transcript, obtained through a Freedom of Information Act request, spans 21 pages. The most intriguing revelations have, to date, remained unreported. In particular, the transcript reveals a strategy employed by Obama to repeatedly implant the Russia collusion narrative in the minds of the attending journalists. In fact, Obama addressed the Russia collusion hoax on four distinct occasions during the meeting.

Before we delve into an analysis of what Obama said, it is worth noting that approximately six months earlier, on July 28, 2016, Obama was informed by his CIA director, John Brennan, that the Russia collusion narrative was a dirty trick concocted by the Hillary Clinton campaign. It is unclear what Obama communicated to Brennan during the closed-door White House meeting in July 2016, which was apparently also attended by FBI Director James Comey. What is known is that within three days of this meeting, the FBI launched its fraudulent Crossfire Hurricane investigation into the Trump campaign for alleged collusion with Russia, despite the fact that they should have been investigating the Clinton campaign for staging a hoax with significant national security implications.

Instead, the investigation continued to escalate, placing several Trump advisors under surveillance. Notwithstanding the onslaught, Trump managed to secure a victory in November 2016. After Trump's win, Obama chose to weaponize the Clinton’s dirty trick by commissioning an Intelligence Community Assessment with the aim of entrenching the false narrative that Trump owed his win to Putin. This action by Obama solidified the Russia collusion narrative and, in many ways, undermined Trump's presidency over the following four years.

With this in mind, it is remarkable that Obama was exceedingly cunning and dishonest with the group of progressive journalists. Instead of extinguishing the flames of a situation he knew to be fabricated, he chose to fan them.

1. Obama blames media for not embracing Russia collusion narrative

In the first of four instances where Obama discussed the Russia collusion allegations, he stated the following:

“I think the Russian leaks, how that played out, how all this stuff was reported -- I mean, I'm just being honest with you, and many of you share this view. You guys weren't necessarily the culprits, but how that played out. Some failures of polling and analytics leading a leading Democratic candidate never to appear in Michigan or Wisconsin, or show up in a union hall, right? I mean, there's just a bunch of stuff that could have happened in which we wouldn't be having this particular conversation.”

In his characteristic crafty manner, Obama intertwined Hillary Clinton’s shortcomings with the media’s failures, particularly lamenting that the media did not promote the Russia collusion narrative with greater intensity. What is often overlooked is that, despite numerous attempts by the Clinton campaign to publicize the Steele dossier, the media did not report on it until just a few days before the election, and the dossier was not published until two months after the election. The most straightforward explanation for the media’s actions is that they may have been more principled eight years ago and refrained from publishing information that seemed fabricated and was entirely uncorroborated. Additionally, most people anticipated Clinton’s victory, which may have led the media to feel less compelled to fully engage with the highly dubious dossier.

By attributing blame to the media, Obama skillfully, albeit subtly, instilled the notion of guilt regarding Trump's victory, fully aware that the media would subsequently intensify its efforts to compensate for its perceived role in failing to prevent his win.

2. Obama suggests that Trump uses third parties to communicate with Putin

Having planted the seed of guilt, Obama then turned it up a notch and not so subtly suggested that Trump was communicating with Putin through intermediaries:

“I think the Russia thing is a problem. And it's of apiece with this broader lack of transparency. It is hard to know what conversations the President-elect may be having offline with business leaders in other countries who are also connected to leaders of other countries. And I'm not saying there's anything I know for a fact or can prove, but it does mean that -- here's the one thing you guys have been able to know unequivocally during the last eight years, and that is that whether you disagree with me on policy or not, there was never a time in which my relationship with a foreign entity might shade how I viewed an issue. And that's -- I don't know a precedent for that exactly.”

Notice how Obama addressed the issue by stating that Russia is a problem, but then seamlessly transitions to talking about other countries more broadly, effectively distancing himself while knowing that the audience will primarily remember Russia. In typical Obama fashion, he then established a contrast with himself. 

The idea that Trump was secretly communicating with Putin through third-party business leaders appears to directly reference the Alfa Bank hoax, which was included in both the Steele dossier and the broader Clinton dirty tricks campaign. Specifically, the allegation claimed that Trump was in contact with Vladimir Putin via Russia's Alfa Bank. A few weeks after Obama held his secret meeting, Clinton campaign lawyer Michael Sussmann approached the CIA to promote the false Alfa Bank narrative. He had previously pushed the Alfa Bank allegations into the FBI.

3. Obama implies that Trump received payoffs from Russia

When a reporter asked Obama to “talk a bit more about the Russia thing”, he had this to say:

“And can say less. (Laughter.) This is one area I've got to be careful about. But, look, I mean, I think based on what you guys have, I think it's -- and I'm not just talking about the most recent report or the hacking. I mean, there are longstanding business relationships there. They're not classified. I think there's been some good reporting on them, it's just they never got much attention. He's been doing business in Russia for a long time. Pent house apartments in New York are sold to folks -- let me put it this way. If there's a Russian who can afford a $10-million, or a $15- or a $20- or a $30-million penthouse in Manhattan, or is a major investor in Florida, I think it's fair to say Mr. Putin knows that person, because I don't think they're getting $10 million or $30 million or $50 million out of Russia without Mr. Putin saying that's okay.”

Obama’s response seems to reference the unwitting involvement of Sergei Millian in the Russia collusion narrative. Millian is an American realtor who, in 2007, sold condominiums to Trump in Florida, including, reportedly, to Russian buyers. On direct instructions from Clinton campaign operatives, ABC News obtained, under false pretenses, footage of Millian acknowledging that Trump had sold apartments to Russian citizens. While there is nothing inherently wrong with such transactions—Trump has sold numerous apartments to individuals of various nationalities—the ABC footage was utilized by Clinton in an advertising campaign to imply that Trump was indebted to Putin. Setting this aside, the notion that Putin would personally need to approve Russian citizens purchasing apartments appears to be rather implausible. However, this did not concern Obama, whose primary objective was to weaponize Clinton’s dirty tricks campaign in an effort to undermine the President of the United States.

4. Obama insinuates that Putin has influence over Trump

Later in the briefing, Obama was asked: “if there were somebody with the powers of U.S. President who Russia felt like they could give orders to, that Russia felt like they had something on them, what's your worst-case scenario?”

Again, Obama's response was intended to stoke the flames of a scandal he knew to be fabricated:

“What I would simply say would be that any time you have a foreign actors who, for whatever reason, has ex parte influence over the President of the United States, meaning that the American people can't see that influence because it's not happening in a bilateral meeting and subject to negotiations or reporting -- any time that happens, that's a problem. And I'll let you speculate on where that could go.”

With little effort to conceal his true intentions, Obama not so subtly suggested that Trump was under Putin’s influence. What is particularly noteworthy—and once again quite clever on Obama’s part—is that he informed the media that this influence was occurring secretly behind the scenes. This ensured that the media would propagate entirely speculative stories, as Obama had effectively encouraged them to do so.

Lastly, we will engage in some speculation of our own. The 21-page transcript does not indicate who the progressive journalists in attendance were. However, on two occasions, Obama mentions someone named Greg. Greg Miller is a national security reporter for The Washington Post and was part of a group that won the 2018 Pulitzer Prize for his reporting on Russia collusion, reporting that was largely false. While we cannot assert with any degree of certainty that Obama was referring to Greg Miller, the familiarity Obama displayed with him, along with Miller’s outlet and area of coverage, suggests a strong possibility that it is indeed Greg Miller. In other words, if our speculation is accurate, Obama directly contributed to the false narratives that led to legacy media winning the Pulitzer Prize.