Tapper, Clapper, and CNN: Signs of a Coup in the Highest Levels of Government and Media

Director Of National Intelligence...J. Clapper Was Leaking Classified Dossier Details To Cnn's Jake Tapper For Months, While Being Paid By Cnn! And Then Lied About It To Congress...
Clapper Busted Leaking Dossier Details To CNN’s Jake Tapper, Lying To Congress About It

Former Director of National Intelligence (DNI) turned CNN commentator James Clapper not only leaked information related to the infamous “Steele dossier” to CNN’s Jake Tapper while Clapper was in office – it appears he also lied about it to Congress, under oath.

Clapper was one of the “two national security officials” cited in CNN’s report -published minutes after Buzzfeed released the full Steele dossier.

The revelation that Clapper was responsible for leaking details of both the dossier and briefings to two presidents on the matter is significant, because former Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) director James Comey wrote in one of four memos that he leaked that the briefing of Trump on salacious and unverified allegations from the dossier was necessary because “CNN had them and were looking for a news hook.” –The Federalist

So Comey said that Trump needed to be briefed on the Dossier’s allegations since CNN “had them” – because James Clapper, the Director of National Intelligence at the time, provided that information to the same network he now works for.

And who’s idea was it to brief Trump on the dossier? JAMES CLAPPER – according to former FBI Director James Comey’s memos:

“I said there was something that Clapper wanted me to speak to the [president-elect] about alone or in a very small group,” Comey wrote.

The revelations detailing Clapper’s leak to CNN can be found in a 253-page report by the House Intelligence Committee majority released on Friday – which also found “no evidence that the Trump campaign colluded, coordinated, or conspired with the Russian government.”

As Sean Davis of The Federalist bluntly states: “Clapper leaked details of a dossier briefing given to then-President-elect Donald Trump to CNN’s Jake Tapper, lied to Congress about the leak, and was rewarded with a CNN contract a few months later.”

From Clapper’s Congressional testimony:

MR. ROONEY: Did you discuss the dossier or any other intelligence related to Russia hacking of the 2016 election with journalists?

MR. CLAPPER: No.

Clapper later changed his tune after he was confronted about his communications with Tapper:

“Clapper subsequently acknowledged discussing the ‘dossier with CNN journalist Jake Tapper,’ and admitted that he might have spoken with other journalists about the same topic,” the report reads. “Clapper’s discussion with Tapper took place in early January 2017, around the time IC leaders briefed President Obama and President-elect Trump, on ‘the Christopher Steele information,’ a two-page summary of which was ‘enclosed in’ the highly-classified version of the ICA,” or intelligence community assessment.

Read More: https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2018-04-27/clapper-busted-leaking-dossier-details-cnns-jake-tapper-lying-congress-about-it

Just Accept that you’ve been Living under Fascism / Corporate Oligarchy: Now What?

FBI - DOJ - Fusion GPS - DNC - Circle of Treason

Leaked Texts Suggest Coordination Between Obama White House, CIA, FBI And Dems To Launch Trump-Russia Probe

Congressional investigators looking into the origins of Special Counsel Mueller’s Russia probe believe they’ve found a smoking gun that could justify the appointment of a special counsel to investigate whether the Obama administration exerted undue influence over the FBI.

A series of text messages between FBI Special Agent Peter Strzok and DOJ lawyer Lisa Page have revealed the involvement of Denis McDonough, Obama’s chief of staff, John Brennan, Obama’s CIA director, and former Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid in helping create an atmosphere of paranoia that gave them the political cover to launch the Russia probe back in the summer of 2016.

The investigators who leaked the information to Fox said the texts between Strzok and Page “strongly” suggest coordination between the White House, two independent intelligence agencies, and a Democratic Congressional leader. That would “contradict” the Obama administration’s claims of non-involvement.

The texts tell of former Deputy FBI Director Andrew McCabe being concerned with “information control,” and suggest a plot to leak details of the FBI’s incipient investigation to both the White House and Reid. Brennan also became involved in agitating for an investigation, though his agency was supposed to be operationally separate from the FBI.

Page texted Strzok on Aug. 2, 2016, saying: “Make sure you can lawfully protect what you sign. Just thinking about congress, foia, etc. You probably know better than me.”

A text message from Strzok to Page on Aug. 3 described former FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe as being concerned with “information control” related to the initial investigation into the Trump campaign. According to a report from the New York Times, Brennan was sent to Capitol Hill around the same time to brief members of Congress on the possibility of election interference.

Days later, on Aug. 8, 2016, Strzok texted Page: “Internal joint cyber cd intel piece for D, scenesetter for McDonough brief, Trainor [head of FBI cyber division] directed all cyber info be pulled. I’d let Bill and Jim hammer it out first, though it would be best for D to have it before the Wed WH session.”

In the texts, “D” referred to FBI Director James Comey, and and “McDonough” referred to Chief of Staff Denis McDonough, the GOP investigators said.

One of Fox‘s sources said the information was “concerning” enough to justify launching an independent probe into the FBI’s role in launching the Trump investigation.

“We are not making conclusions. What we are saying is that the timeline is concerning enough to warrant the appointment of an independent investigator to look at whether or not the Obama White House was involved [in the Trump-Russia investigation],” a GOP congressional source told Fox News.

Naturally, coordination between political appointees at the White House and DOJ investigators would cast doubt on the entire Russia probe, Fox‘s sources said.

The following day, Aug. 30, 2016, Strzok texted Page: “Here we go,” sending a link to the Times report titled, “Harry Reid Cites Evidence of Russian Tampering in U.S. Vote and seeks FBI inquiry.”

The texts also detail the Bureau and Brennan’s role in feeding information to Reid, which inspired him to write a letter to the FBI demanding an investigation be launched. That letter was later leaked to the press. The Reid letter, Fox said, provided political cover for the bureau when it tried to justify launching an investigation into Trump as early as July 2016.

In other words, the FBI was well-versed in how to strategically use “leaks” to manage information control and wash its hands over any potential collusion allegations… with the exception of course of the texts that reveal how the plot was hatched in the first place.

The question now is whether McCabe, who was fired two weeks ago, will be called in to testify on these stark allegations.

One thing is for certain: The texts provide the clearest sign yet into the Obama administration’s role in helping get the Russia probe off the ground in an attempt to roadblock Trump’s administration, all the while Obama chose to do nothing about reports of Russian attempts at election interference.

We imagine we’ll hear more about this in the coming days.

Read More: https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2018-03-29/alarming-texts-suggest-obama-white-house-and-fbi-collaborated-russia-probe

Grassley/Graham Memo Goes Dark in the Fake News Landscape

WSJ Asks: Why Is The Media Ignoring The Real Bombshell FISA Memo?
WSJ Columnist: Why is the Media Ignoring the Real Bombshell FISA Memo?

 

We’ll bring you Wall Street Journal columnist Kimberly Strassel’s tweetstorm in a moment, but I’ll take a stab at answering her question about the media right out of the gate.

Three possibilities:
(1) The GOP hyped the Nunes memo, which quickly became the center of this whole firestorm — replete with counter-memos, FBI objections, etc.  The press followed the spotlight.
(2) As we’ve been saying, there are so many complex pieces of this larger puzzle, following the plot is difficult.  It’s not just news consumers wondering, “which memo is this now?” — it’s many of the people trying to cover this drama, too.  The document in question here is a second, less redacted, version of a Senate memo that few people have even heard of.
(3) 
The Senate memo, produced by non-bomb-throwers Chuck Grassley and Lindsey Graham, is substantially more disruptive to the Democrats’ narrative than the Nunes document.  And the press generally prefers Democratic narratives to Republican ones because most journalists are liberals.

My guess is that some blend of all three factors helps explain why the Grassley/Graham memo has barely registered on the national radar, even after we’ve endured multiple high-octane news cycles starring Nunes and Schiff.  But on the substance, does Strassel have a point, or is this just the latest shiny object the right-wing is waving around to distract from “the real story,” now that the Nunes memowas arguably a bit of a dud?  Here’s her case:

1) Why isn’t the (mostly) unredacted Grassley memo front page news? Here’s why: Because it confirms the Nunes memo and blows up the Schiff talking points (which the media ran with).

2)It is confirmation that the FBI’s FISA application relied on the dossier and a news article, and worse, on the credibility of a source in the employ of the Clinton campaign.

Kimberley Strassel

Kimberley Strassel

Kimberley Strassel

5) It provides evidence that Steele was getting information from the Clinton team itself! Via the State Department! So now, not only do we have a dossier based on unnamed shady Russians, but on Sidney Blumenthal. How much of this was engineered by the Clinton campaign from start? 

Does that all of check out?  Allahpundit digs into the document (a much more redacted version had been released previously) and seems to agree that Grassley/Graham is a significantly bigger deal than Nunes.  In our analysis of the latter document last week, we wrote that a major question was how much the DOJ relied on the Steele dossier itself to gain a FISA warrant against former Trump adviser Carter Page.  According to Grassley/Graham, the answer is a lot.  I posited that if investigators had used the unverified dossier as a starting point from which to chase down leads and produce more solid evidence to present to a FISA judge, that’d be one thing.  But if they leaned heavily on Steele’s file itself as the “evidence,” that would be sketchier.  According to the two GOP Senators, the FBI did the latter.  From AP’s excellent summary (the relevant bits of the memo itself are here and here):

…“The bulk of the application” against Page was dossier material…“The application appears to contain no additional information corroborating the dossier allegations against Mr. Page.” In other words, they seem to have treated the dossier as evidence, not as a lead. That’s big news.

But that’s not all. Grassley/Graham allege, based on intelligence, that the man behind the anti-Trump dossier was known to be unreliable by the FBI (they eventually severed ties with him) because he was caught lying either to US law enforcement or to British courts, telling each entity different stories about a key fact. Either way, FISA judges who approved and renewed the Page warrants weren’t told about the proven unreliability of the foreign agent whose work product was (apparently) the central basis for said warrants. The FBI might counter that Steele seemed credible at first, then they dumped him when he burned them, but that doesn’t mean their hands are clean, Allahpundit writes:

(a) that doesn’t solve the problem that the original FISA application against Page evidently relied “heavily” on information passed from a not-very-credible foreign agent and (b) that doesn’t explain why the Bureau allegedly failed to tell the FISA Court in later applications to renew their surveillance of Page that Steele’s info maybe hadn’t been so credible…Grassley and Graham make another good point about Steele’s chattering to the press while his investigation was still ongoing: Once bad actors were aware that he was digging for dirt on Trump, they could have sought him out and fed him any amount of BS in hopes of it trickling through to the FBI and deepening the official suspicion surrounding Team Trump. That’s how Clinton cronies — maybe even Sid Blumenthal — got involved in this clusterfark. Because Steele was supposedly willing to accept even unsolicited tips about Trump, the Clinton team may have fed him rumors to help fill a dossier for which their boss was paying.

Two big points there: Even after the FBI recognized Steele was an established liar, his dishonesty was not disclosed to judges deciding whether to keep the warrants active during renewal applications, which were largely predicated on Steele’s credibility. And the topic about which he apparently lied was whether he blabbed to folks in the media about his work, which could have opened up the floodgates for disinformation from shady characters eager to make the anti-Trump case as juicy and brimming with salaciousness as possible. That’s where Blumenthal and company, whom I wrote about here, may have come in. What a mess. Also, speaking of not revealing pertinent information to the courts, it looks like Nunes was technically incorrect that the judges weren’t made aware that the Steele dossier was paid political oppo research. But he was more broadly correct that the judges didn’t have even close to the full picture of who was behind the unverified partisan document upon which they were primarily basing the surveillance of a US citizen — who happened to be a former aide to a major presidential campaign from the out-of-power party.

“As Nunes himself later admitted, the Bureau apparently did disclose in a footnote that the material was paid political research. It just didn’t mention who, precisely, had paid for it,” AP writes.  The memo reads, “in footnote 8, the FBI stated that the dossier information was compiled pursuant to the direction of a law firm that had hired an “identified US person” — now known as Glenn Simpson of Fusion GPS…the application failed to disclose that the identities of Mr. Simpson’s ultimate clients were the Clinton campaign and the DNC.”  So the disclosure came in a footnote and didn’t mention that the parties who paid for the unverified dossier were the Trump campaign’s explicit opposition.  Maybe there was no misconduct in any of this, but even as someone who believes neither that suspicion of Carter Page was unreasonable, nor that this is all part of a grand anti-Trump conspiracy (remember, the Trump angle of the Russia probe started earlier, for an unrelated reason), there’s enough in the Grassley/Graham memo to make me uncomfortable with the standards by which Page was surveilled by the US government.

Read More:  https://townhall.com/tipsheet/guybenson/2018/02/08/strassel-tweetstorm-grassley-memo-n2445871