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.
Kamala Harris lied:
FACT CHECK: Lincoln Didn’t Delay His Supreme Court Nomination Because He Cared About Election Integrity
https://thefederalist.com/2020/10/08/fact-check-lincoln-didnt-delay-his-supreme-court-nomination-because-he-cared-about-election-integrity/
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.
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.
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.
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!
ALL THEIR LITTLE BS, INSIGNIFICANT COMPLAINTS (LIES) written here CAN’T CHANGE WHO THEY ARE! 99% CAN’T DEBATE IF THEY HAD AN OPEN BOOK AND THE QUESTIONS IN ADVANCE.
+10
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.
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.
How about when people engage in mind reading of living people, John, do you consider that lying too?
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.
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.”
https://nypost.com/2020/10/06/nancy-pelosis-covid-relief-bill-is-mainly-just-a-left-wing-wish-list/
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
They did pass a bill and send it to the Senate, They did that months ago, Allan.
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.
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.”
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.
You said they could pass their own bill.
They can’t.
Not one that has broad support. Which is why it has not been voted on.
Spending bills must originate in the house. Read the constitution.
Obviously along with never reading the Senate reports or any of the bills he talks about Anonymous has never read the Constitution.
Or his own posts or the posts he comments on
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.”
And it includes numerous posion pills.
Regardless YOU Claimed that McConnell could pass his own bill – he can’t.
I should have said “amend” rather than “pass”.
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.
“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.
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.
“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.
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.
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:
https://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2020/10/what-obama-knew-and-when-he-knew-it.php?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+powerlineblog%2Flivefeed+%28Power+Line%29
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.
https://justthenews.com/accountability/russia-and-ukraine-scandals/state-officials-viewed-steele-intel-reports-flaky?utm_source=daily-newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=newsletter
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.