“A Means Of Distracting The Public”: Brennan Briefed Obama On Clinton “Plan” To Tie Trump To Russia

Director of National Intelligence John Ratcliffe on Tuesday declassified notes of former CIA Director John Brennan showing that he briefed former President Obama on Hillary Clinton’s alleged “plan” to tie then-candidate Donald Trump to Russia as “a means of distracting the public from her use of a private email server.” My interest in this story is not simply the serious underlying allegation but the lack of coverage by major networks or media outlets. This was clearly released at this time for political purposes, but that does not make it a non-story. We have often discussed concerns over the active effort by many in the media to downplay stories that would either help President Donald Trump or hurt the Democrats in the upcoming elections. This would seem such a case. Whether this is true or a complete fabrication, it should be major news. In the meantime, the responses from Clinton allies have not addressed the substance of the document and have simply dismissed the entire story as groundless.

Brennan’s handwritten notes would seem extremely serious on their face. It certainly indicates that Brennan considered the issue sufficiently serious to brief the President of the United States on July 28th. The notes state

“We’re getting additional insight into Russian activities from [REDACTED]. . . CITE [summarizing] alleged approved by Hillary Clinton a proposal from one of her foreign policy advisers to vilify Donald Trump by stirring up a scandal claiming interference by the Russian security service.”

There is also a notation reading “Any evidence of collaboration between Trump campaign + Russia” and margin references to “JC,” “Denis,” and “Susan.”  If Brennan thought this was serious enough to brief the President, shouldn’t the media consider this sufficiently serious to investigate and report?

While it would be dangerous to release documents without redactions, there is an obvious value to understanding the truth about these briefings and the underlying allegations.

This release further supports a newly-declassified document with the Senate Judiciary Committee revealing that, in September 2016, U.S. intelligence officials forwarded an investigative referral on Hillary Clinton purportedly approving “a plan concerning U.S. presidential candidate Donald Trump and Russian hackers hampering U.S. elections” in order to distract the public from her email scandal.

When asked about this referral involving a candidate for the presidency, then-FBI Director James Comey insisted that it “didn’t ring a bell.”

Once again, my initial interest is in the utter blackout on the story.  This would seem a major story regardless of the ultimate findings. If these notes have been fabricated or misrepresented, it would show a breathtaking effort to lie to the voters before the election. If these notes are genuine, it would indicate that the FBI was aware of an effort by the Democratic presidential candidate to tag Trump with a Russian collusion scandal.  We know that Clinton’s campaign funded the Steele dossier and that Steele shopped the dossier with the media to try to generate coverage to influence the election.

Throughout the campaign, and for many weeks after, the Clinton campaign denied any involvement in the creation of the dossier that was later used to secure a secret surveillance warrant against Trump associates during the Obama administration. Journalists later discovered that the Clinton campaign hid the payments to Fusion as a “legal fees” among the $5.6 million paid to the law firm. New York Times reporter Ken Vogel at the time said that Clinton lawyer Marc Elias had “vigorously” denied involvement in the anti-Trump dossier. When Vogel tried to report the story, he said, Elias “pushed back vigorously, saying ‘You (or your sources) are wrong.’” Times reporter Maggie Haberman likewise wrote: “Folks involved in funding this lied about it, and with sanctimony, for a year.” Even when Clinton campaign chairman John Podesta was questioned by Congress on the matter, he denied any contractual agreement with Fusion GPS. Sitting beside him was Elias, who reportedly said nothing to correct the false information given to Congress.

Later, confronted with the evidence, Clinton and her campaign finally admitted that the dossier was a campaign-funded document that was pushed by Steele and others to the media.

Making things worse is the fact that we know know American intelligence flagged Steele’s main source as a Russian agent and warned that the dossier was suspected of containing Russian disinformation from Russian intelligence agencies.

Yet, even with this latest disclosure in Brennan’s own writing, we hear the familiar sound of crickets.  It seems that journalism is suspended until after the election when reporters might be allowed a modicum of curiosity on such stories.

943 thoughts on ““A Means Of Distracting The Public”: Brennan Briefed Obama On Clinton “Plan” To Tie Trump To Russia”

    1. Hey John, aren’t you the one who said “If you accuse someone of lying and fail to prove it – then YOU are lying.”

      Is Allan lying here, or do you think he proved that Harris was lying? The Federalist didn’t call her a liar.

      1. One of the historians that writes a lot about Lincoln said in his 37(?) years of study he never heard such a thing. There were other factors existent at the time and no longer existent today that led to that decision. (Transportation problems was one of the things mentioned.) I normally would accept something of that nature to be an error but Kamala Harris said a bunch f things that weren’t true both in the debate and elsewhere. She is not a credible person.

        1. There are numerous problems with Harris’s statement.

          But the largest is that she presumes a motive and intent.

          Lincoln did not provide one. Therefore she is lying. Saying X is the motive when there are many possible motives but none expressed by a person long dead is a lie.

          1. Democrats are fond of assigning intent to everyone’s statements and political beliefs. Democrats have been calling anyone who disagrees with their policies a “racist” and other horrific names. As a Latino, I am deeply offended being called a “white supremacist” for believing a voter should be required to identify themselves before their vote counts, for common sense reasons. This is just a minor example of what Democrats and their delusional, hateful, censoring, Antifa supporting, Marxism supporting, admitted anti-American, GROSSLY biased, lying media and supporters say and do.

            But Democrat supporters can stay in a party that admits all the above and more, along with TWICE RUNNING an admitted communist within their party. Communism cannot co-exist with our brilliant Constitution and Bill of Rights, but of course they want to get rid of the Constitution and destabilize America to bring it down. Democrat supporters don’t care how many times Schiff is caught blatantly making things up (called lying by most people), they’ll just keep repeating the lies. Hillbillary can be caught totally making up the statements to get the warrant to SPY ON A SITTING PRESIDENT and prior, spying on his campaign. But Democrats have ZERO problem with that. Bill Clinton rapes women, destroys the life of a young schoolgirl intern whose parents thought they were sending her to a place that was safe, but there was a predator president. Democrats and supporters destroyed the lives, made excuses for it all! Then when Billy lies in a federal court in front of a federal judge. BTW, Democrat supporters don’t even know that the US Bar Association TOOK BILL CLINTONS LAW LISENCE AWAY FOR LIFE as a result of his crimes in impeachment. Biden can’t put a sentence together, has to answer a question with a teleprompter, is so corrupt he can’t even deny the corruption, he’s in hiding, STILL NO PROBLEM FOR DEMOCRATS. Thats how much Democrats care about America. So bottom line, Democrats and their supporters are just scum, Democrat supporters and politicians are EXTREMELY dangerous and need to be defeated so badly that they can NEVER return to their treacherous & treasonous coup plans again!


      2. Harris’s statement is false. Among other reasons Because Harris asserts a motive to Lincoln’s decision, unless she can read the minds of dead people she can not know. Further Tammy died with the Senate out of session. it was likely technically impossible for Lincoln to confirm Chase. Even if the Senate agreed to reconvene – unlikely in the middle of an election and without mass communications, they would have had to travel to washington. There just was not time to do so.

        Whether Harris’s statement is KNOWINGLY false ? I do not have a problem with accusing people of lying when they engage in mind reading of dead people.

        So Harris made a demonstrably false statement.

        Allan called it a lie and provided evidence to support that claim.

        Sounds good to me.

        But I would note that a false statement and a knowingly false statement are different.

        In this instance, this was a setup, this was a prepared answer – to be clear I have no problem with that. But it also means that Harris or her people had researched this ahead of time. Therefore they KNEW they were engaging in mind reading regarding Lincoln’s motives.
        They also knew or should have known that it was impossible for Lincoln to confirm Chase in the available time in 1864.
        And they knew or should have known that Lincoln was using the Supreme court seat as a carrot for Chases support in the election.

        The standards for a researched answer and an off the cuff remark are not the same.

        1. John, good comments regarding differentiating a lie from an error of fact. Take note that after providing reason and fact Anonymous cowardly runs away without a word.

          I think your comment about mind reading is excellent as well. That is what the left and the MSM do all the time and they are shocked when they find out they are wrong almost all the time.

        2. How about when people engage in mind reading of living people, John, do you consider that lying too?

          1. You do it all the time.

            When you say that you know the motives or intents of others.

            Regardless, I am not going to give you a general rule. I do not need to.
            In this instance Harris did not know Lincoln’s movitves or intentions and knew or should have known that she could not.
            That is sufficient to be a lie.

            As politicians go it is a fairly minor and pretty typical lie. Not a whopper. But Allan’s accusation has more than sufficient supprot that he has not defamed Harris.

  1. Pelosi refuses to help Americans in need:

    “There is almost no disagreement between Republicans and Democrats over sending every American adult a $1,200 check.”

    “Instead, though Pelosi never mentions it, her bill would rewrite election law for 2020, barring voter ID requirements, forcing states to count absentee ballots that arrive as late as 10 days after Election Day and imposing same-day voter registration everywhere, though currently only 21 states allow it. These changes don’t belong in a stimulus bill.”


    1. McConnell has done nothing in months with the bills that were already approved by the House. He could cut out some of the difference and send it to reconciliation, but he doesn’t.

      You blame Pelosi instead of McConnell because you’re a partisan shill.

      1. The American people need the stimulus not the election law rewritten. Both parties agree to the $1.200. Pass just that portion the American people need which has been agreed on.

        Dems have done nothing. Their bills are pork having nothing to do with Covid.

        1. Allan you’re such a dumbass, a bill cannot pass if McConnell doesn’t bring it up for a vote. McConnell has not joined the negotiations, and he’s made no effort to work on the bills that the House already passed. You lie that the Dems have done nothing when they sent bills to the Senate MONTHS ago. McConnell is the one who’s done nothing.

          You talk about “both parties” as if there are only 2 instead of 3: the House, the Senate, and the President.

          1. Pelosi refused to deal with relief to citizens in need as a separate bill so the people could be helped and the other things could be dealt with later.

            Covid bills need not include changes in election law and other things unrelated to Covid.

            If Covid says yes to $1,200 relief or another reasonable number it will immediately be passed. Pelosi refuses.

            1. Nothing is stopping McConnell from passing a $1,200 relief bill in the Senate. Let him pass that bill and send it to the House.

              1. Maybe because the GOP senators are of the same thinking as I am. If you had a job in March, kept a job April-Sept and have your job now, why do you need $1,200? What changed in your life that requires this spending?

                The house is responsible. for spending bills. Split up the stimulus bills into separate bills for those things needed ( ie Unemployment, airlines, travel and leisure, restuarants, each separate) and then pork ( $1200 tax refunds, state bailouts). If Pelosi wont do it now, let them do it in January when they get control and they own it and cant blame someone else.

              2. Read the Constitution to figure out why. He will sign that bill if the House passes it and sends it to the Senate.

                You have added to your lack of credibility.

                  1. Anonymous, you are either deceitful, stupid or both. Pelosi filled the bill with non Covid related material. That will not even be considered. That means she is not looking for a bill to help the American people. The Republicans will sign a reasonable bill if it is only for Covid relief.

                    John, Let me make it clear that I am pointing out Pelosi’s hypocrisy and Anonymous’ hypocrisy. That doesn’t mean I support any of these measures. Nor does it mean I wouldn’t support some measure to help those in trouble. I do not believe the way we manage relief is good.

                    1. Nothing stops the Senate from amending that bill and sending it back to the House for concurrence, Allan: “the Senate may propose or concur with amendments as on other Bills.”

                    2. As I said you are deceitful, ignorant or both. Trump told Pelosi that such a bill would pass. The end result of Pelosi’s answer was that no such bill would pass.

                1. Obviously along with never reading the Senate reports or any of the bills he talks about Anonymous has never read the Constitution.

                2. The House already passed a spending bill, John. It’s been sitting on McConnell’s desk for months. Read the rest of Article I, section 7, clause 1: “All Bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with amendments as on other Bills.”

                  1. And it includes numerous posion pills.

                    Regardless YOU Claimed that McConnell could pass his own bill – he can’t.

                    1. But you didn’t.

                      “Nothing is stopping McConnell from passing a $1,200 relief bill in the Senate. Let him pass that bill and send it to the House.”

                      Further changing pass to ammend does not fix your statement.

                      The senate would not amend and existing relief bill to add something that is already there.
                      Nor would it send that bill to the House if the Senate passes an amended house bill it goes to a joint house/senate committee, and then back to the house and senate for an up/down vote.

          2. “a bill cannot pass if McConnell doesn’t bring it up for a vote.”
            Correct – there is no reason to vote on something just because it passed one chamber.

            ” McConnell has not joined the negotiations,”
            Of course he has – “not joining” negotiation IS negotiating – it is a clear NO!!

            Strip out the political nonsense or you will not get a vote on the floor of the senate.
            Democrats are free to do the same thing.

            Compromise is a tool not a value.

            ” and he’s made no effort to work on the bills that the House already passed.”
            There is no requirement that he do so.

            If you have a specific bill that does not have lots of pork or political cruft, provide a description of that bill and we can decide if it merits a vote. But “the house passed it” is not an entitlement for a vote.

            “You lie that the Dems have done nothing when they sent bills to the Senate MONTHS ago.”
            You are correct – they have sent bills they know will not pass and will not even get a vote.
            That is SLIGHTLY more than nothing – it is political posturing.

            “McConnell is the one who’s done nothing.”

            The Senate has passed bills that do not have political cruft in them.

            “You talk about “both parties” as if there are only 2 instead of 3: the House, the Senate, and the President.”

            Sounds good to me – the more hurdles to legislation the better. Nothing should pass without broad support.

        2. There is no need for stimulus. It is waste as is what was passed already.

          The shutdowns were both unconstitutional and immoral – and THAT is what should be dealt with.

          We should be well past the idea that “stimulus” works.

          We are not even pretending that the stimulus is actual stimulus.

          Our standard of living is what we produce.
          If we do not produce no extra money will help.
          If we produce – no money is needed.

          1. “There is no need for stimulus. It is waste as is what was passed already.”

            John, I was voicing an opinion on who was blocking the passage of a bill to help people. I agree that most of what was done was counterproductive. We want and need people to work. There are much better ways of preventing the problems people were afraid of, however, the political process in this country has degenerated into which party can provide more spending.

            This is the problem with a large federal government and a loss of federalism.

      2. Why is the Senate required to act because the house has passed something ?

        Allan’s arguments regarding stimulus are relevant – there is broad agreement on many things.
        What there is not should not be passed.

        That should be unverserally true.

        Any legislation passed by congress should have BROAD support.

        Anything that can only muster a majority of one party in one chamber should not be passed.

        I think that we should revisit voting laws. But I would do the oposite of Pelosi.

        No vote by mail.
        Universal voter ID.

        No same day registration.

        Vote in person on one day and no votes after that day to be counted.

        All votes by paper ballot and scanned.

  2. What Obama Knew, and When He Knew It
    Last week, Director of National Intelligence John Ratcliffe declassified information to the effect that U.S. intelligence agencies “obtained insight into Russian intelligence analysis alleging that U.S. Presidential candidate Hillary Clinton had approved a campaign plan to stir up a scandal against U.S. Presidential candidate Donald Trump by tying him to Putin and the Russians’ hacking of the Democratic National Committee.” Ratcliffe also indicated at that time that CIA Director John Brennan briefed President Obama and others on the intelligence. Today Ratcliffe declassified documents relating to last week’s communication, including handwritten notes by John Brennan.

    Brennan’s notes, reportedly dated July 28, 2016, relate to a briefing that he gave on that date to President Obama, “JC” (James Comey), “Denis” (Denis McDonough), and “Susan” (Susan Rice). The version of the notes that I have seen includes pages five and six. Here they are:

    The notes are so heavily redacted that it is barely accurate to say that they have been declassified. The relevant text reads:

    We’re getting additional insight into Russian activities from….

    CITE alleged approval by Hillary Clinton on 26 July of a proposal from one of her foreign policy advisers to vilify Donald Trump by stirring up a scandal claiming interference by the Russian security services.

    Continued with copy of handwritten notes:

  3. State officials viewed Steele intel reports as ‘flaky,’ ‘extreme’ before dossier sent to FBI
    Newly declassified memos detail suspicions about British spy’s work dating to 2014.

    By John Solomon
    Updated: October 10, 2020 – 10:38am

    Newly declassified documents show FBI informer Christopher Steele routinely submitted intelligence reports to the Obama State Department long before his anti-Trump dossier in 2016, but senior officials didn’t always find the former MI6 agent’s work credible.

    Through a U.S. official he befriended named Jonathan Winer, Steele was able to distribute intelligence reports from his Orbis Business Intelligence firm to the highest levels of State, including an ambassador and then-Assistant Secretary of State Victoria Nuland, who oversaw Russia and Ukraine policy, the memos show.


    1. 18 U.S. Code § 371. Conspiracy to commit offense or to defraud United States

      If two or more persons conspire either to commit any offense against the United States, or to defraud the United States, or any agency thereof in any manner or for any purpose, and one or more of such persons do any act to effect the object of the conspiracy, each shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than five years, or both.

  4. Anonymous, you have been asked many times, Do you still think the Steele Dossier is true? That is the problem. You believe reports based on the Steele Dossier. How foolish.

      1. Anonymous, you have spent a lot of time trying to prove your case based on the initial Senate Intelligence Committee. You provide opinion and conclusions where the foundation for the opinion and conclusions was based on the Steele Dossier.

        Since the Dossier was severely debunked no opinion or conclusions based on that Dossier are trustworthy. What you are left with is the search for facts that are either hidden among a lot of trash or non existent. Your argument is built on a soft foundation and crumbles the moment you make it.

        Your refusal to state whether or not you think the Steele Dossier credible forces people to conclude that you foolishly still accept the Steele Dossier as true. That means all your statements regarding the Senate Committee are worthless except if you can separate the facts from the rest and make sure those facts aren’t based on the Dossier.

        Your arguments on this subject have done yourself a disservice as you look even less credible today than you did before. It is obvious you don’t know how to research a point by starting with its foundational material.

        1. What do you mean by “the initial Senate Intelligence Committee,” Allan?

          They released 5 reports. Joe Friday and another Anonymous have quoted from the 5th one, released a month and a half ago, not from their initial report.

          You say “Your refusal to state whether or not you think the Steele Dossier credible forces people to conclude that you foolishly still accept the Steele Dossier as true,” when you’re not forced to do that. You’re choosing to do that. You could easily choose to just accept that you don’t know.

          I doubt you read the Senate Intelligence Committee’s fifth report. Have you read it?

          1. Let’s hear the facts you wish to promote from that report and the raw data from where it came. Then you can draw your own conclusion. You brag that you know so much about it but so far you can’t make your case. The reason is that you believe in the Steele Dossier and you use left wing summaries that aren’t exactly telling the truth.

            I listen with an open mind so I am waiting for you to prove your case. We all know that the Russians have interfered with the 2016 elections as they have in prior elections.

            The real problem is that you are all talk and can’t make a decent argument based on fact. Another problem seems to be that you don’t understand the levels of credibility when producing data. I also am not sure if you are able to fully understand what raw data looks like.

            1. “I listen with an open mind so I am waiting for you to prove your case.”

              Now, that’s funny,Allan.

            2. Allan,

              The real problem is that you are all talk and can’t make a decent argument based on fact.

              (It’s good to know that Allan understands his limitations.)

            3. Hahahahaha!

              You complain that an Anonymous didn’t answer your question, and now you won’t answer a question.

              I doubt you read the Senate Intelligence Committee’s fifth report. Have you read it?

              1. I am open to listening to how you draw your conclusions, but you don’t have the facts.

                Anonymous the Factless.

                  1. Factless Anonymous,It makes no difference. I listened to the debate and only added the fact that a lot of Opinions in the Senate were based on the Steele Dossier and neglected recently released transcripts, hand written documents etc. You have a tendency at various times to connect all the reports together in an inaccurate way and you have no credibility.

                    That is why I asked only for only the facts and raw data which could be followed by your opinion. I am interested. I looked over some of the stuff posted on the blog and one could see opinion dominated, since even some of the facts were based on opinion and therefore not fact. That is your problem you can’t distinguish fact from fiction or fact from opinion.

                    Set your legion of pretend anonymous friends to work tying to produce fact. So far all you do is talk.

                    1. Hahahaha!

                      Allan says “I asked only for only the facts and raw data” and also says “It makes no difference” if he read the fifth Senate Intelligence Committee Report.

                      Looks like he won’t read the facts and raw data in the fifth Senate Intelligence Committee Report for himself. Like an infant, he needs to be fed. Even toddlers want to feed themselves. Allan hasn’t progressed beyond the infantile stage.

                    2. Massive cut and pastes of the report were provided – there were few facts and none were substanative.

                      There was lost of innuendo.

                      It would be trivial to assemble facts supporting the claim that Putin favored Clinton and interfered on her behalf.

                      The lest would be 10 times longer. In most instances the same names would show up

                    3. John Say claims Putin favored Hillary.

                      The GOP led Senate IC Report – quoted more thoroughly above reciting facts of Trump campaign/ Russian collusion – includes this:

                      “(U) The Committee found that Russian President Vladimir Putin ordered the Russian
                      effort to hack computer networks and accounts affiliated with the Democratic Party and leak
                      information damaging to Hillary Clinton and her campaign for president. Moscow’s intent was
                      to harm the Clinton Campaign, tarnish an expected Clinton presidential administration, help the
                      Trump Campaign after Trump became the presumptive Republican nominee, and undermine the
                      U.S. democratic process. ”

                      That is in a document written under a GOP majority with a GOP chairmen and with hundreds of hours of interviews with principals and thousands of documents available for review.

                      John Say has whatever he reads in the Daily Caller and sees on Hannity.

                    4. John Say Claim that Clinton’s election was in Russia’s interests using FACTS that are well known to everyone and predate the election.

                      If you, Clinton, Brennan his manufactured ICA, and a few paged from a thousand page report wish to claim that the leader of Russia acted against the interests of russia in the 2016 election, because you FEEL that is true, because it appeals to your guts. I can not stop that.

                      But the FACTS are that Russia benefited from Obama as president, would have benefited from Clinton as president and will benefit should Biden become president. There is really little doubt of that.

                      Trump’s energy policy is not the only thorn in Russia’s side – but it is one very large one.

                      You can claim Putin acted against his countries interests if you wish – though there is no proof of this.

                      But claiming that Trump’s election was in Russia’s interests is laughably false.

                      If you accept such nonsense – you have a below average IQ, and I am sorry for you.

                      But wait there is ACTUAL evidence of Putin’s preferences.

                      Russian Oligarch’s – certainly with putin’s blessings gave The Clinton Foundation $140B – do you think that was because they support the CF’s (non) Aides work in Africa ? Or because they favor Clinton ?

                      Russia paid Bill Clinton 500K for speaking in Moscow – do you think that was because he is a fascinating speaker ? Or because they favor Clinton ?

                      Russia failed to approve Trump Tower Moscow – do you think that was because Putin loved Trump so much ?

                      Russia has been directly harmed by Trump’s policies – not sanctions – which are ludicrously ineffective, but by the Choices that Trump made to put the interests of the US first – even if that was harmful to Russia.

                      I strongly suspect that Clinton hates Putin. While Trump has an inordinately stupid affinity for him.
                      I suspect that Putin hates Clinton, and is likely amused by Trump.

                      But Clinton will not let her hatred of Putin preclude her from enacting policies that will benefit Russia.

                      And Putin will not let his hatred of Clinton from acting in Russian’s best interests – and that is a Clinton presidency.

                      And Trump will not let his affinity for Putin interfere with his America First agenda.

                      And you are completely unable to grasp that.

                      No amount of nonsense from Brennan or Steele or whoever is going to change where Russias actual interests lie.

                      But I guess i can see one point you have. Trump will act in America’s interests. Putin will act in Russia’s interests.
                      But Clinton will actin in Clinton’s interests not the nations.

                      It is reasonable for those on the left who are deluding themselves about the interests of the country to also delude themselves into beleiving that all world leaders act against the interests of their country.

                      I would note that the fact that Clinton (or now Biden) is in Rusia’s interests, and Trump is not, is not even a close call.

                    5. I do not read the daily caller or watch Hannity – not that that is relevant.

                      You seem to be under the delusion that tangential attacks on non-sources is a meaningful argument.

                      My judgement is based on the FACTS. I have cited those FACTS. You keep dodging them.

                      There are BTW more facts than those – but they also lead to Russia favoring Clinton.
                      But energy alone is enough.

                      Trump’s change in energy policy has disrupted the entire world order in very significant positive ways.
                      It has radically shifted the balance of power in europe against the interests of Russia and the MidEast.

                      It has shifted US policy from Russia/europe/Mideast centric to Asia facing and containing China.

                      But you are blind to that.

                    6. You keep citing Moscow’s intent – are you able to read Putin’s mind ?

                      Why do you beleive you know Putin’s mind ?

                      My argument is that leaders who wish to remain leaders must do what is in the interests of their countries.

                      Do you dispute that ?

              2. I presume that whoever posted cuts from it posted the most damning parts.

                I went through each of those one at a time.

                There are a few errors – Missing that Kliminick was a State department source is a big deal.

                There are massive ommissions – Manaforts efforts post election were to expose the DNC operatives who colluded with the UKraine to publicly defame him during the election.

                And most of the “evil oligarchs” that Trump purpotedly has indirect ties to, Biden and Clinton have direct ties to.

                I always find it funny that so many fixate on the efforts to build a Trump tower Moscow.

                Those FAILED. What more proof do you want that Putin favored Clinton ?

                Clinton got whatever she wanted from Russia – hundreds of millions to the Clinton Foundation.
                half a million speaking fees to Bill.

                Trump got NADA.

                And you think Putin was Trump’s bossum budy ?

          2. The report quoted was without substance – whether it was final or a draft.

            IT claims to “PROVE” lots of things that are of no consequence.

            It confuses adjectives with facts.

            Woods matter.

            There is not a single thing that JF quoted that is a crime. That is substance., that is anything more than spin.
            There are a number of inaccuracies.
            And if one did a similar report on the Clinton campaigh for 2016 – it would be 10 times as long and have 10 times the number of disturbing ties to Russia.

            Facts, logic reason.

            There is no meaningful facts, and lots of innuendo.

            1. John Say says: “Woods matter.”

              Yes, “woods” do matter…and it’s sometimes good to spend time alone in the “woods,” reflecting and getting close to nature…without a computer…all alone…listening…listening…listening…rather than endlessly bloviating.

        2. The problems with the Senate Report go beyond the Steele Dossier.

          There are a few actual errors in the findings – such as Kliminick is a US state department source.

          We do not know that he is a russian agent – though he likely is.
          He also may be a double agent. The entire mess is complicated.

          But what was cited is massive innuendo about things that are not even crimes.

          There are several people noting correctly – that if the CIA Brennan memo is accurate – Clinton is not guilty of anything, because the acts are not crimes. I agree. But if what we KNOW Clinton did is not a crime – then nothing Trump is alleged to have done is either.

          It is unclear if the Trump campaing actually sought a public meeting with Putin. But so what if they did ?

          Wow! An international real estate magnate tried to develop realestate in Russia – and FAILED – clearly he is colluding with Russians.

          People in the Trump Campaign know, met with, or are indirectly affilitated with SOME of the Russian Oligarchs that are much more closely tied to Clinton and Biden. Is there no one on the left that notices that all the same names that are purportedly the Russians Trump is collaborating with Show up in the Biden and Clinton investigations ?

          i have a friend who is a lawyer. He contrubutes to every single local political candidate regardless of party.
          Right down to JP’s.

          1. “But what was cited is massive innuendo about things that are not even crimes.”

            John, without question, but we are dealing with Anonymous so one has to limit the number of variables otherwise he gets confused. The Senate Report was in good part based on the Steele Dossier. The Dossier was a lie so that makes the Senate report wrong and not credible. That means Anonymous has to pick out those items in the Senate Report he believes are true and not based on the Dossier. Anonymous can barely tie his own shoes so he definitely can’t do that. Therefore long discussions are ended leaving more room for the absolutely ridiculous ones.

            1. Allan, you still haven’t answered the question: have you read the fifth Senate Intelligence Committee Report? Have you read ANY of the Senate Intelligence Committee Reports? I doubt you have.

              As John said earlier, “I am not obligated to prove your allegation false. You are obligated to prove it true.” Are you going to prove your allegation that “The Senate Report was in good part based on the Steele Dossier”?

              1. Anonymous, we already know you haven’t. Whether I have read it or not has nothing to do with the fact that you do not know what you are talking about. If you did you would have provided the necessary proof, but you didn’t because it isn’t there. Tell us the crimes in the Senate report and describe the proof and where it came from. That is the issue. John said it correctly: “But what was cited is massive innuendo about things that are not even crimes.”

                You are a scatterbrain and don’t even know the question at hand.

                1. Once again, Allan just ASSumes “we already know you haven’t” read the report because he finds it convenient to ASSume that about me. I bet Allan is talking about himself. He’s been asked several times whether he read the fifth Senate Intelligence Committee Report, and he was even asked if he’d read ANY of the Senate Intelligence Committee Reports, but he refuses to say.

                  Allan, you should learn from John, who pointed out earlier that “I am not obligated to prove your allegation false. You are obligated to prove it true.” Are you going to prove your allegation that “The Senate Report was in good part based on the Steele Dossier”?

                  1. Anonymous, all I am waiting for is you to state the criminal act committed by Trump as President and then the facts behind them. That is a question that has been asked almost forever.

                    You can talk about every last investigation but you can’t provide the fact and proof of criminality. That tells us you are winging virtually everything you say. On the other hand we do have facts and proof that Biden acted inappropriately if not criminally. Yet you don’t want an investigation into Biden.

                    You are a severe partisan with surprisingly little knowledge.

                    1. Wait as long as you want, Allan. I don’t have to make a statement simply because you want one.

                      It’s a nutso demand on your end, pulled out of thin air rather than based on what I said. I don’t go around demanding that you “state the criminal act committed by Pelosi as Speaker and then the facts behind them.”

                    2. “Wait as long as you want, Allan. I don’t have to make a statement simply because you want one.”

                      You are absolutely right. You have been treading water since the day I go here. Nothing changes except the various investigations. Anonymous says nothing.

                      What is your point? Doesn’t have one
                      What is the criminal act? Can’t state what it is.
                      What are the facts? Doesn’t have any.
                      What is the proof? Doesn’t have proof.

                    3. “Wait as long as you want, Allan. I don’t have to make a statement simply because you want one.”

                      Correct ponder on that a while. Soince you demand it of others all the time.

                    4. “It’s a nutso demand on your end, pulled out of thin air rather than based on what I said. I don’t go around demanding that you “state the criminal act committed by Pelosi as Speaker and then the facts behind them.””

                      Nope, it is a pretty rational request. You buy and sell this collusion delusion nonsense.

                      So “Wheres the beef ?”.

                      It is certainly not in the Senate report JF cited – just lots of innuendo.

                      Lots of “sound and fury signifying nothing.”
                      At least in the sections that JF cited.

                      BTW Why does anyone need to “read the report”

                      Presumably JF quoted the portions that made his case.
                      They didn’t.

                      If there is actual substance – I would expect one of you collusion delusion folks would have made us all aware of it.

                      Sometimes – like when the entire world is looking for something and can not find it, the absence of evidence is the evidence of absence.

                  1. Your command of the English language is well known throughout the blog, non-existent.

                    You discuss all sorts of things that you obviously know little about. Your are attempting to prove Trump did something criminal. You can’t and to date you have been unable to list facts to prove he did anything wrong as President. This is very frustrating to you so you make all sorts of comments that reveal your hostility and ignorance. The Senate hearings is part of that long line of investigations that according to you has the proof but as usual you are unable to list what that proof is.

                    1. “Yep.”

                      Here we have Anonymous and an anonymous pretend friend talking to one another. Anonymous needs someone to pat him on the back.

                    2. The point is that If you can not address the substance – obfuscate with ad hominem

                    3. “I don’t care if your questions are answered either.”

                      Why are you telling us something that is obvious on at least half of your responses. You are unable to answer because you are unable to answer opinions based on fact and you barely know what a fact is.

                      Those 4 questions to you in one form or another exist all over the blog and it is exceedingly rare for you to reasonably answer any of them.

              2. “As John Said Earlier”

                The “you” in that remark was YOU specifically, not a general rule.

                YOU are therefore misrepresenting what I said.

                I have been perfectly clear for a long time that with a few exceptions the burden of proof varies with the individual making the claim.

                1. No, John, I didn’t misrepresent anything. I quoted you. If you’re not willing to apply the same standards to everyone, then you have double standards. The standard “I am not obligated to prove your allegation false. You are obligated to prove it true” applies whether or not you agree to it: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance You’re wrong in thinking that “the burden of proof varies with the individual making the claim”. All you’re doing is showing your bias.

                  1. You did quote me – and you misrepresented the quote.

                    I wrote YOU – meaning anonymous. Not You meaning everyone.

                    The same standard DO NOT apply to everyone clearly.

                    We expect different standards of police, prosecutors and judges.

                    The left constantly tells me that Trump does not act presidential. Which he does not.
                    Is everyone required to be presidential ?

                    Banks have different standards for lending to people based on their credit – is that a double standard ?

                    You fail to grasp that credit, credibility, and integrity are earned, and that they can be positive, neutral or negative.

                    Yours is negative. Aside from your history of misrepresentation – your misreading of my remarks being another example,
                    you are also posting as anonymous.

                    All other things being equal – comments by an identified real person have the highest credibility.
                    Those by a consistent pseudonym the next.
                    Those without any identity or where the identiy is constantly changing have the least.

                    That is how the real world works.

                    If you doubt it – go bankrupt and try to get a cal loan.

                    Why would you expect that if you are morally bankrupt you would be entitled to a presumption of integrity.

                    1. The comments section of a blog — even Jonathan Turley’s blog — is not the “real world.”

                    2. Nor is it fantasy island.

                      If you expect to be taken credibly, make arguments that real on real world facts, and work in the real world.

                      If you want fantasy try comics.

                  2. I have been clear since I first started posting here that we are not all held to the same standards.

                    We are not equal. That is a fact. But beyond the fact that we are not born equal, we also do not live equally,

                    Some of us act wisely with money, with facts, and with our reputation and are entitled to the benefits of that conduct.

                    Others act unwisely and are subject to further limitations.

                    I beleive even in the very post you misrepresent, I make it clear that expectations are not uniform.

                    That those who have bought and sold the collusion delusion are subject to higher demands because of past ineptitude and malfeasance.

                    I have noted that when you make a moral accusation against another the burden of proof is on you.

                    One of the reasons for that is that a true moral accusation subjects that person to higher demands.

                    When you lie – people quit believing you. That is not a double standard.

                    It is how things should be.

                    Please quit selling this double standards nonsense – it is false,. deliberately deceptive because I have made myself clear that we are not each subject to the same standards. And I am not interested in such nonsense from you.

                  3. “You’re wrong in thinking that “the burden of proof varies with the individual making the claim”. All you’re doing is showing your bias.”

                    You cite a wikipedia article about the fallacy “argument from ignorance” and then claim I am showing Bias.

                    Which is it ? Regardless the one does not support the other.

                    Further I am biased – as most wise people are.

                    I am biased against people who have a record of behaving badly with money.
                    I am much more careful in my financial dealings with them.

                    I am biased against those who have made frequent errors in the past – I expect more evidence from them.

                    I am biased against those who have made frequent misrepresentations in the past – I either ignore their claims or expect more proof and look carefully to make sure they are not again misrepresenting.

                    I am biased against those who have made moral accusations and failed to prove them – in the future I assume they are likely lying.
                    I would note that once you have actually made a number of false moral accusations – others are free to describe you as a liar without proof.
                    Once you have lost your integrity it is up to you to earn it back and that is far harder than building it in the first place.

                    I need not prove it every time.

                    This is how the real world works.

              3. Given that the only source for much of the nonsense is the Steele Dossier – I think Allan meets that requirement.

                Regtardless YOU are the one with the higher burden of proof.

                In addition to the fact that you misrepresent things constantly – you also keep posting as anonymous.

                You are not even identified by a unique handle.

                Anonymity is a right.
                Credibility is not.

                When anyone posts completely anomymously they face the highest degree of skepticism.

            2. Oh, it’s a crime, Sweetheart!

              18 U.S. Code § 371. Conspiracy to commit offense or to defraud United States

              If two or more persons conspire either to commit any offense against the United States, or to defraud the United States, or any agency thereof in any manner or for any purpose, and one or more of such persons do any act to effect the object of the conspiracy, each shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than five years, or both.

              If, however, the offense, the commission of which is the object of the conspiracy, is a misdemeanor only, the punishment for such conspiracy shall not exceed the maximum punishment provided for such misdemeanor.

            3. I would note something else.

              The Senate report was quite Long.

              JF cites a few paragraphs of a long report that are nothing more than innuendo, and things that represents to whole.

              1. John, if one looks back on the blog using Anonymous as the example for a number of leftists the same questions are asked and left unanswered. The only thing that changes is new transcripts are created, new statements are made, but nothing on the ground actually changes. The questions asked of Anonymous whether it had to do with the Steele Dossier, Ukraine, Russia, Senate investigation are as follows.

                1) Anonymous, what is your point? He has none except Trump is guilty.
                2) What are you accusing Trump of? He never has a specific answer but in his warped mind Trump is guilty
                3) What are the facts involved in the accusation? He never has any
                4) What is your proof? I guess your answer was the best, Anonymous reads minds.

                Does it matter what we are discussing? No. I can take any period in time during any investigation and we get the same outcome. Anonymous is a blithering idiot who is treading water not moving from the same spot.

    1. Allan, you ask a question, you don’t get an answer, and then you ASSume how the person will answer. How foolish.

      You don’t answer all of the questions that people ask you, and now you complain when others follow your model and don’t answer your questions.

      1. AS I said in an earlier post you are here day and nightable to respond minutes after I post. It’s OK but I do note that previously you had severe concerns about people knowing it.

        I don’t care if you answer or not. You are a blind ideologue so what you say is of little value. You will continue to use the fruit of the poisonous tree in most of your discussions. That makes your opinion along with a lot of your facts worthless.

  5. FACT: President Trump pulled out of the Paris Climate Accord and eased Obama-Biden climate regulations, and the U.S. is still leading the world in CO2 reductions.

    1. That apparently is true, but don’t expect the Progressive environmentalists to celebrate what should be good news.

      Many would rather have the Paris Accords without the carbon dioxide reductions than actual reductions without the Accords.

      It is about control. Control trumps little things like actual pollution.

  6. Pelosis Take a Big Stake in CrowdStrike, Democrat-Connected Linchpin of Russia Probe

    Financial disclosure forms show that Nancy and Paul Pelosi have invested between $500,000 to $1 million in Crowdstrike, the firm that first accused Russia of hacking the DNC.


    Yet the most damaging revelation calling into question CrowdStrike’s Russian hacking allegations came with an admission early in the Russia probe that was only made public this year. Unsealed testimony from the House Intelligence Committee shows that Henry admitted under oath behind closed doors in December 2017 that the firm “did not have concrete evidence” that Russian hackers actually stole any emails or other data from the DNC servers. “There’s circumstantial evidence, but no evidence that they were actually exfiltrated,” Henry said. “There are times when we can see data exfiltrated, and we can say conclusively. But in this case it appears it was set up to be exfiltrated, but we just don’t have the evidence that says it actually left.”

Leave a Reply