A Woman Claimed a GOP Lobbyist Was Paying for Fake Allegations Against Robert Mueller. Does She Even Exist?

The special counsel’s office has asked the FBI to look into the very murky situation.

Special Counsel Robert Mueller J. Scott Applewhite/AP

Fight disinformation: Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter and follow the news that matters.

Special Counsel Robert Muellerā€™s office has asked the FBI to investigate allegations that shameless Republican self-promoter and conspiracy theorist Jack Burkman offered an initially unnamed woman tens of thousands of dollars to falsely accuse Mueller of sexual misconduct. That much is true. The Atlantic reported it, and Peter Carr, a spokesman for Muellerā€™s office, confirmed in a statement, ā€œWhen we learned last week of allegations that women were offered money to make false claims about the Special Counsel, we immediately referred the matter to the FBI for investigation.ā€

But the story gets much more convoluted from there. There is no evidence that Lorraine Parsons, the woman accusing Burkman of soliciting false accusations, actually exists. There’s also reason to believe that the email “she” sent to multiple reporters about the alleged payoff scheme may have been designed to trick the media into reporting a made-up allegation against Burkman. 

When Mother Jones asked Burkman about the woman, he said, ā€œThatā€™s a person who doesnā€™t exist.ā€ He added, ā€œI know nothing of the email. I didn’t send it. I didn’t authorize anybody to send it.ā€ The woman in the Atlantic article sent her accusations to reporters including freelancers Scott Stedman and Yashar Ali and Hill Reporter‘s Ed and Brian Krassenstein, brothers who have gained large Twitter followings by attacking President Donald Trump. They all could find no evidence that Parsons is a real person.

Burkman is best known for his role in promoting conspiracy theories as part of his supposed effort to solve the murder of Seth Rich, a Democratic National Committee staffer killed in 2016 in what police identified as a mugging gone awry. Burkman has long gone to great lengths to get media attentionā€”including calling for the NFL to ban gay players despite the fact his brother is gay. Earlier this year, Kevin Doherty, one of Burkman’s former Rich co-investigators, tricked Burkman into thinking he was an FBI official with dirt on then-FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe. When Burkman followed his informant’s instructions and went to a parking garage to pick up supposedly incriminating documents, Doherty allegedly shot Burkman and ran over Burkman and his dachshund, Jack Jr. 

As Mother Jones reported last year, Burkmanā€™s claim he is a top DC lobbyist is particularly misleading:

Burkmanā€™s lobbying record includes its own theatrics. When the Hill reported that his firm signed up 70 clients, Burkman admitted that his desire to be ā€œsqueaky cleanā€ may have led him to register more clients than he needed to. Two clients I spoke with said they paid Burkman less than the amount he reported to the government, and a similar discrepancy involving a third client appears in a court document. (Burkman says he doesnā€™t personally prepare the reports but tells everyone he works with to be ā€œ100 percent accurate.ā€)

Few of his clients have worked with a Washington lobbyist before. Desert Lakes University, which like many of Burkmanā€™s clients lacks a working phone number, boasts on its Facebook page that it provides ā€œeducation for individuals to prepare them for the future without charging the for tuition [sic].ā€ Desert Lakesā€™ website went offline several years ago. Burkman calls the school a startup. Another client, the Black Moon Corporation, hopes to build a repository of genetic material akin to the library of Alexandria inside a crater on the moon.

It is unclear what Burkman is up to with his latest stunt. Burkman says a womanā€”a real womanā€”will accuse Mueller of sexual assault at a press conference Burkman is hosting Thursday at a hotel outside Washington. Earlier this year, he told reporters someone would come forward in person, at the same hotel, with evidence the government had killed Rich. Instead, a man with an incoherent story made the accusation on speakerphone. There’s no reason to think Thursday’s press conference will turn out any better.

The Hill Reporter story lays out a case for why the Parsons email appears to be a hoax. After the Krassensteins received the Parsons email and called the number “she” provided, they soon received a text stating, ā€œYouā€™re in over your head…. Drop this.ā€ A man who said he was calling from a company called Surefire Intelligence soon told Hill Reporter to stop contacting the woman as well.

Jennifer Taub, an associate professor at Vermont Law School, received a similar email from Surefire Intelligence, the Atlantic reported later Tuesday. “It’s my understanding that you may have had some past encounters with Robert Mueller,ā€ the email stated. ā€œI would like to discuss those encounters with you.ā€ The writer said he was investigating Muellerā€™s past and offered to pay Taub for “references.” Taub told the Atlantic she forwarded the email to Mueller’s office. Burkman denies offering anyone money to falsely attack Mueller.

Burkman told Hill Reporter that Jacob Wohl, a 20-year-old Trump supporter with a large Twitter following, runs Surefire Intelligence, adding that the company does a ā€œlot of good research.ā€ Wohl denied knowing anything about Surefire. The Krassensteins later found internet source code that clearly connected Wohl to the company.

Surefire Intelligence appeared to ask Burkman earlier this month for $4,000 for ā€œOperation Hellfire,ā€ according to an invoice Burkman sent to Hill Reporter. Burkman declined to comment on his relationship with Wohl when we spoke. He would only say that any invoice he did send was for ā€œinvestigativeā€ services.

Burkman said he didnā€™t know whether the Parsons email was a hoax, but seemed to relish the idea that it might cause journalists to fall for a trap. In that case, he said, “the only thing that would highlight were the pathetically low journalistic standards. That’s almost likeā€”if that’s trueā€”what Project Veritas does. You’re letting them walk into it.” He later said that anything that highlighted ā€œthe extremely low standards of the establishment media is something I would love to do.”

Regardless of the story behind the email, Burkman has achieved his longtime goal of getting more attention. He told me he had just gotten off the phone with the New Yorker‘s Jane Mayer, who tweeted that everything about the Parsons story ā€œseems fishier than a tuna sandwich” and that the whole episode is “just a stupid hoax.”

Burkman seemed happy to be in the spotlight. “Well, hey,ā€ he said. ā€œWe’ll take it. Maybe it will get me more followers.”

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We canā€™t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who wonā€™t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its futureā€”you.

And we need readers to show up for us big timeā€”again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

payment methods

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We canā€™t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who wonā€™t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its futureā€”you.

And we need readers to show up for us big timeā€”again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

payment methods

We Recommend

Latest

Sign up for our free newsletter

Subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily to have our top stories delivered directly to your inbox.

Get our award-winning magazine

Save big on a full year of investigations, ideas, and insights.

Subscribe

Support our journalism

Help Mother Jones' reporters dig deep with a tax-deductible donation.

Donate