Archive for the ‘Intel’ Category

Ian Millhiser’s op-ed is a well-reasoned op-ed about Democrat sour grapes. (Actually, it isn’t that well-reasoned.) It contains some things, though, that will likely turn into Democrat talking points.

In his op-ed, Millhiser states that “In the incoming Senate, Democratic senators will represent at least 20,314,962 more people than their Republican counterparts — and that’s if we assume that Republicans win both runoff elections in Georgia.” Later, Millhiser makes an incendiary statement, saying “This is not what the American people voted for in November. But it is what a deeply broken Constitution, which effectively gives extra Senate seats to white conservatives in small states, has given us.”

That’s a thoroughly racist statement. Frankly, it’s disgusting to hear this. When the Constitution was written, Madison, Jefferson and Hamilton enshrined in their document the legislative branch, composed of the House and the Senate. The House was supposed to represent the people. It was elected by the people. The Senate was supposed to represent the states. It was elected by each state’s legislature.

Here’s why it’s imperative that Republicans maintain their Senate majority:

Similarly, if Republicans control the Senate in 2021, the GOP will have the power to prevent Joe Biden from confirming a Cabinet, to block everyone Biden nominates to the federal bench, to prevent Biden from signing any legislation, and even to shut down the government.

If Biden wants a return to a Obama-style cabinet, Republicans shouldn’t hesitate in rejecting people like Clapper, Brennan and Kerry. Republicans should tell him explicitly that deep staters that politicized the IC won’t be tolerated. Further, Republicans should tell Biden that a return to an Obama-style foreign policy won’t be tolerated.

President Trump, Secretary Pompeo and Jared Kushner made far too much progress on Middle East peace to have Biden piss that progress away. If Biden wants to cozy up to Iran and Russia, like Obama did, the answer should be an emphatic no. In terms of Biden’s China virus task force, this should frighten people:

Republicans can’t prevent the appointing of Biden’s task force but they can highlight Ezekiel Emmanuel as a member of it. Emmanuel is the father of the death panel provision in Obamacare. Another thing that they can do is highlight often is President Trump’s Operation Warp Speed, then compare Biden’s programs against that program. Republicans should highlight that President Trump pulled companies together that produced results like this:


President Trump put together the industry that produced the fastest effective vaccine in world history. Biden didn’t do that. Republicans should highlight the Trump policies that make people healthy, prosperous and safe on our city streets. Republicans should highlight how Biden’s decisions destabilized the world, our neighborhoods more dangerous and less prosperous. Biden ran on the notion that he’d fix the China virus. It’s apparent that President Trump did that.

The FBI’s counterintelligence investigation into then-President-Elect Trump was illegitimate. In fact, a previous counterintelligence investigation provided the proof:

The primary sub-source for the Steele dossier was the subject of an earlier counterintelligence investigation by the FBI, and those facts were known to the Crossfire Hurricane team as early as December 2016, according to newly released records from the Justice Department that were first reported by CBS News.

CBS’s Catherine Herridge reports:

“Between May 2009 and March 2011, the FBI maintained an investigation into the individual who later would be identified as Christopher Steele’s Primary Sub-source,” the two page FBI memo states. “The FBI commenced this investigation based on information by the FBI indicating that the Primary Sub-source may be a threat to national security.”

Here’s Page 1:

Here’s Page 2:

Ms. Herridge later wrote “The two-page memo states the case was not reopened, and there is no indication the FISA court was ever told that the dossier source was the subject of an earlier FBI probe.” That’s proof that a) the Mueller Investigation wasn’t properly predicated and b) the FBI didn’t notify the FISA Court that the primary subsource for the Steele Dossier was a Russian spy. Had the FBI disclosed that information, the FBI wouldn’t have gotten a wiretap warrant on Carter Page.

Jim Comey, Andrew McCabe and other senior FBI officials will, at minimum, receive intense new scrutiny from John Durham. It’s apparent that the Obama FBI senior staff was filled with corrupt people. The MSM will, of course, ignore that and continue touting the Obama administration as virtually corruption free.

Gen. Flynn won a major victory in court today. On the other hand, this was a difficult day for Joe Biden. Peter Strzok’s note is particularly troublesome:

Attending the meeting were Susan Rice, the National Security Adviser, Jim Comey, the FBI Director, President Obama, Vice President Biden and Deputy Attorney General Sally Yates. TRANSLATION: Susan Rice = NSA; Obama = P; Biden = VP; Comey = D & Yates = DAG

Remember that Biden was asked about what he knew about Gen. Flynn by George Stephanopoulos in this interview:

Stephanopoulos: I do want to ask you about Michael Flynn, the former national security adviser to President Trump and the move by the Justice Department to dismiss the case against him for lying to the FBI. The President said yesterday that the move was justified because President Obama targeted Flynn. He called it, quote, the biggest political crime in US history. Your former Senate colleague Charles Grassley has added that Flynn was entrapped and asked on the Senate floor “What did Obama and Biden know? When did they know it?” So what did you know about those moves to investigate Michael Flynn and was there anything improper done?
BIDEN: I know nothing about those moves to investigate Michael Flynn, number one, and number two, this is all about diversion. This is the game this guy plays all the time. The country is in a crisis. We’re in an economic crisis, a health crisis.

That’s about 2 minutes into the interview. After Biden’s full-throated denial, Stephanopoulos returned to the subject:

I want to press that. You say you didn’t know anything about but you were reported to be at a January 5, 2017 meeting where you and the President were briefed on the FBI’s plan to question Michael Flynn over those conversations he had with the Russian Ambassador Kislyak.
Biden: No, I thought you asked me about whether I had anything to do with him being prosecuted. I’m sorry. I was aware that they asked for an investigation but that’s all I know about it and nothing else.

I’ll bet most people didn’t notice the fatal flaw in Biden’s reply. Biden said “I thought you asked me whether I had anything to do with him getting prosecuted.” The FBI interview with Gen. Flynn didn’t happen until January 24, 2017, 4 full days after Biden became formerVice President Biden. As a private citizen, he wouldn’t have had any influence to get Flynn prosecuted. Further, Biden’s denial, which was categorical, was a lie. He knew much more about the investigation. According to Strzok’s note, he’s the person who brought up the Logan Act at the January 5, 2017 meeting as a way of investigating Gen. Flynn. Don’t forget that FBI field officers with the DC Bureau had interviewed Gen. Flynn and wanted to drop Operation Crossfire Razor, the FBI code name for the Flynn investigation:

On Jan. 4, 2017, two weeks before the Trump inauguration, FBI agents at a lower level, where the real work is done, prudently tried to close the Flynn investigation, citing the absence of any derogatory information or other facts that would enable the bureau to keep the case open.

Before the now-infamous January 5 meeting, FBI field agents tried closing the Flynn investigation. That investigation was kept open by “the 7th floor”, which is where then-FBI Director Jim Comey’s office was.

Thanks to the investigation into the investigators, Jim Comey refused to renew his security clearance. He allegedly did that to avoid getting asked questions about classified information.

Vice President Biden’s problem isn’t that a hard-nosed reporter will ask him about his dishonesty. It’s difficult to picture Biden’s campaign staff letting him get within a mile of a hard-nosed reporter. That’s if such a reporter exists outside of a handful of national security correspondents. Biden’s problem is that he’ll get pelted with this information by the Trump campaign in ads, by Trump-supporting PACs and by Trump himself during the presidential debates.

Biden can hide in his basement a little while longer but he’ll have to do real campaigning sooner rather than later. Last weekend, the MSM criticized the Trump campaign for only having 6,000 people in the arena. The story that they didn’t tell is that 7,700,000 people watched the rally on Fox and another 5,000,000 watched on C-SPAN. That’s before factoring in the people who watched the livestreaming via YouTube. Trump’s message is getting out and, as Charlie Hurt said this weekend, there’s nobody better at putting people on the defensive than President Trump.

Anyone explaining how the unmasking of Gen. Flynn was routine isn’t trustworthy. To believe that the Flynn unmasking was innocent, I’d have to believe that the same people who spent $40,000,000 investigating the fake Trump-Russia collusion, appropriated 40 FBI agents and hired 19 corrupt attorneys just wanted better understanding of who was talking to the then-Russian ambassador to the US. That’s spin. This was a vendetta led by Jim Clapper, Jim Comey, Robert Mueller, Peter Strzok, Andrew Weissman et al.

The cabal that didn’t hesitate in using the Steele Dossier to obtain a FISA warrant against Carter Page suddenly developed integrity? (Let’s remember that they didn’t get their warrant the first time when they filed their application without the discredited dossier.) I don’t think so. The definition of a cabal is “a small group of secret plotters, as against a government or person in authority.” That definition fits Clapper, Comey, Mueller, Strzok and Weissman perfectly.

Again, to the Weissman/Strzok/Clapper/Comey cabal, this was a vendetta. They hated President-Elect Trump. Strzok told Lisa Page that he went to Walmart once and that he could smell the Trump supporters. Suddenly, this cabal of Trump haters are doing things purely out of civic pride? Shame on them for thinking that we’re that stupid.

We know the stories. Jim Clapper insisted in public that President Trump was a Russian asset but testified under oath that he “never saw any direct empirical evidence that the Trump campaign or someone in it was plotting [or] conspiring with the Russians to meddle with the election.” Susan Rice testified to this:

Susan Rice, who served as Obama’s national security adviser, testified in September 2017 that she hadn’t seen evidence of Trump-Russia collusion during questioning by former Rep. Trey Gowdy of South Carolina.

Rice certainly didn’t tell viewers that when being interviewed on TV. Why should we think that she’s a person of integrity? Peter Strzok found out that field officers wanted to shut down Crossfire Razor, the investigation into Gen. Flynn. Immediately, he ordered that Crossfire Razor not be stopped. A day later, there was a meeting in the Oval office about unmasking. Three weeks later, FBI agents entrapped Gen. Flynn.

Why shouldn’t people think that these different groups weren’t working together? They definitely had common purposes. They definitely weren’t people of integrity. They all hated the thought of a Trump administration. This interview is worth watching:

The FBI agent who foolishly asked on paper what the goal was is Bill Priestap. Here’s Priestap’s ‘contribution’ to the unmasking fiasco:

Priestap’s memo reflected his own thoughts on the FBI’S internal debate about interviewing Flynn. “What’s our goal? Truth/admission or to get him to lie, so we can prosecute him or get him fired?” Priestap wrote, adding: “Protect our institution by not playing games.” His notes also show the FBI “softened its interview strategy” with Flynn, giving him hints to refresh his memory of his conversations, the Times reports. Nevertheless, Flynn “lied repeatedly, and prosecutors have said that agents gave him ‘multiple opportunities to correct his false statements by revisiting key questions.'”

This isn’t going away anytime soon. That’s why it’s important to realize that the Democrats’ spin will intensify. The simple fix for the Democrats’ spin is to ask this simple question: Is it likely that the cabal that wanted to prevent a Trump administration, the cabal that impeached President Trump and tried to remove him from office, suddenly become public servants with integrity? Of course, they didn’t.

This article is proof that the Agenda Media isn’t interested in digging into stories to figure out what’s actually happening. The article essentially opens both barrels at President Trump without digging into the story it’s purportedly covering. Here’s what I’m talking about:

It turns out President Donald Trump’s status as the most accessible person to ever hold the office is more a curse than a blessing. Day after day, he fills the air with the ack-ack of disinformation and misdirection, needlessly alarming the public and sending reporters on wild goose chases to either confirm or disprove his allegations. On Thursday, in an interview with Fox Business’ Maria Bartiromo, Trump repeated his newest figment that Joe Biden and Barack Obama are guilty of some unnamed crimes for which they are deserving of “50-year sentences.”

Strong meat! The heinous crimes—to which he has applied the “Obamagate” moniker and calls “the biggest political crime and scandal in the history of the USA, by FAR”—is a relatively new creation of the Trump Disinformation Laboratory. He only started talking about it on May 10 and has yet to specify exactly what Obamagate is aside from telling reporters in a press conference that it’s “obvious” and that he wants Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., to investigate it.

I know Mr. Schaefer isn’t that stupid. At least, I hope he isn’t. Obamagate refers to the fact that President Obama knew about the Obama administration’s FBI and Obama administration’s DOJ entrapped Michael Flynn in an attempt to get him to turn on then President-Elect Trump. What’s with this foolishness then?

Despite a lack of interest from his minions in Congress (Graham has said he has no plans to grill Obama), Trump’s foggy demagoguery has mobilized the entire press corps to determine what the hell Trump is talking about. Explainers from Reuters, the Washington Post, the Guardian, CNN, and elsewhere struggle to decipher Trump’s vague but strident accusations with little success. We can say this much with certainty. It appears linked to the counterintelligence operation against Gen. Michael Flynn in late 2016, and the requests from Obama administration officials that his identity be “unmasked” from intelligence reports so they could understand who, exactly, was talking to the Russian ambassador. Flynn lied to the FBI about speaking to the ambassador about sanctions and later pled guilty to lying to the FBI about those conversations. (Unmasking, by the way, is a routine, not nefarious thing, which the Trump administration has requested thousands of times.) But until Trump uses his words to make his charges about Obama more specific, we can only guess at what the actual crime might be.

First, if Mr. Schaefer was the least bit interested in covering the story, he’d know that everyone from then-VP Biden to then-DNI Clapper to then-UN Ambassador Power to the then-Ambassador to Micronesia requested this unmasking. If Mr. Schaefer was a legitimate journalist, he’d ask why the US ambassador to Micronesia needed to know who was talking to Russian Ambassador Kislyak.

Next, unmasking is routine for intelligence analysts. It isn’t routine for ambassadors, whether they’re the ambassador to the UN or to Micronesia.

The crime isn’t the unmasking. The crimes would likely come from illegally applying for FISA warrants to surveil Carter Page or from leaking classified information to the Washington Post’s David Ignatius. Though the DOJ hasn’t identified the unmasker that leaked, it’s a safe bet that one of the unmaskers leaked that information to Ignatius. Let’s be clear about this. It isn’t a crime to receive leaked information. It’s a crime to leak classified information. This is a lie:

Now it could be that Obama did commit the biggest political crime in the history of the USA. If there’s a shred of evidence, I want Obama investigated. If the investigation bears fruit, I want him to have a fair trial. If he’s found guilty, I want him punished. But show me that shred of evidence first or I’m going back to bed.

Mr. Schaefer doesn’t want President Obama punished. It’s just that he’s obligated to say that. Further, Schaefer’s complaints about President Trump point to the fact that the MSM hates digging into the Democrats’ misconduct. Tara Reade is just the latest example of the MSM’s disinterest.

John Solomon’s article goes a long ways towards explaining the difference between legitimate unmasking requests and illegitimate unmasking requests. By now, Washington, DC, is awash with the Democrats’ spin on why the Flynn unmasking wasn’t a big deal. It’s a new version of ‘no big deal, just keep moving.’ That isn’t the truth. This is a big deal.

For instance, Solomon explained that “If a Treasury official like Raskin or the U.N. ambassador requested the unmasking because they were trying to deal with a foreign official confused by U.S. policy during the transition, that likely would be deemed a lawful intelligence purpose. But if an official requested the information because they personally did not like the incoming Trump administration or wanted to thwart Flynn during the transition through leaking or other means, it could be deemed an act against a political adversary and a misuse of unmasking.”

According to this article, “The first request appears to have been made as part of a report on Nov. 30, 2016. Along with Biden, other Obama administration officials listed are Treasury Secretary Jacob Lew, United Nations Ambassador Samantha Power and Director of National Intelligence James Clapper.” That’s long before the Flynn-Kislyak call. The Flynn-Kislyak call happened in late December.

A final question for the investigators resides in the policy question about whether unmasking has become too easy to do and therefore infringes on Americans privacy, specifically the Constitution’s 4th Amendment protection against unlawful search and seizure. On that front, there are already troubling revelations. Power, whose name was invoked for hundreds of unmasking requests, testified to Congress she did not make most of those requests attributed to her. That suggests some dangerous looseness in the unmasking system.

The political people who requested these unmaskings haven’t earned the benefit of the doubt. They each have a history of dishonesty.

It’s worth noting that Solomon said that Flynn isn’t the only member of the Trump team that the Obama administration unmasked. I suspect that there’s a closet of shoes left to drop on this. It might not be an Imelda Marcos-sized shoe closet but it’s still a shoe closet.

Apparently, Adam Schiff is in panic mode now that transcripts of the House Intel Committee are about to be released. What’s supposedly getting under Schiff’s skin is that he’s about to be exposed:

Another source familiar with the transcripts told Fox News that the people interviewed by the House Intelligence Committee during its Russia probe were asked whether they had evidence that Trump, himself, or the Trump campaign conspired, colluded or coordinated with Russia during the 2016 election.

Two sources familiar with the transcripts told Fox News that not one of the 53 witnesses could provide evidence of collusion. “The transcripts show a total lack of evidence, despite Schiff personally going out saying he had more than circumstantial evidence that there was collusion,” one source involved in House Russia investigations told Fox News.

Mueller, similarly, at the conclusion of his nearly two-year-long investigation, said he and his team found no evidence of criminal conspiracy or coordination between the Trump campaign and Russia, but did not reach a conclusion on obstruction of justice, which current Attorney General Bill Barr ultimately decided not to pursue.

Then there’s this:

While law enforcement officials have long maintained that there was clear intelligence Russia meddled in the 2016 presidential election, to date, there have been no charges concerning actual conspiracy against people associated with the Trump campaign, which was at the core of the Russia investigation.

There isn’t any dispute that Russia meddled in the 2016 presidential election. The question was whether people from the Trump campaign assisted in that meddling. It isn’t that Mueller couldn’t find enough evidence to recommend impeachment of President Trump. It’s that the official Mueller Report didn’t find any evidence that anyone in the United States worked with the Russians.

This should make Schiff nervous:

This won’t help Schiff’s credibility, either:

“According to Christopher Steele, a former British intelligence officer who is reportedly held in high regard by U.S. intelligence, Russian sources tell him that Page has also had a secret meeting with Igor Sechin, CEO of Russian gas giant Rosneft,” Schiff declared at a March 20, 2017 House Intelligence Committee hearing.

“Sechin is reported to be a former KGB agent and close friend of Putin’s. According to Steele’s Russian sources, Page is offered brokerage fees by Sechin on a deal involving a 19 percent share of the company,” the California Democrat added.

Later, Schiff added this:

For instance, Schiff claimed this about the Steele dossier in a Nov. 15, 2017 interview with The Wall Street Journal: “The bigger factor is how much of it can you corroborate and how much of it is true. A lot of it has turned out to be true.”

Adam Schiff is a guttersnipe and a Democrat partisan hack. If Nancy Pelosi cared about integrity, which she doesn’t, she should’ve thrown Schiff out of the House.

Will Thursday turn into Adam Schiff’s day of reckoning? That’s definitely a possibility according to Byron York’s Daily Memo:

A big development in the fight over 53 secret interviews the House Intelligence Committee conducted during its Trump-Russia investigation. Acting Director of National Intelligence Richard Grenell has sent a letter to chairman Adam Schiff notifying him that transcripts of all 53 interviews, over 6,000 pages in all, have been cleared for public release. “All of the transcripts, with our required redactions, can be released to the public without any concerns of disclosing classified material,” Grenell wrote to Schiff in a letter dated May 4.

Grenell then provided a list of which transcripts had been cleared:

Then York noted this:

The interviews were conducted in secret. But by September 2018, with the committee’s report long finished and made public, the Republicans who still controlled the committee decided the interview transcripts should be released to the public. In a rare moment of comity, Democrats agreed, and on September 26, 2018, the committee voted unanimously to release the transcripts. But there was a catch: The documents would have to first be checked for classified information by the Intelligence Community. So off they went to the IC — never to be seen again.

Now, in May 2020, they’re still secret. Two weeks ago, the Wall Street Journal editorial board reported that the IC had finished its review of 43 of the transcripts, but Schiff was refusing to release them. The paper said Schiff was also preventing declassification of the remaining ten transcripts.

Then Grennell threw in one other thing:

In the letter, Grenell revealed that the 43 transcripts have been finished since June 2019. Schiff has been sitting on them all that time. Grenell said the final ten have just been finished as well. “I urge you to honor your previous public statements, and your committee’s unanimous vote on this matter, to release all 53 cleared transcripts to Members of Congress and the American public as soon as possible,” Grenell said. Just in case Schiff is still not interested, Grenell added, “I am also willing to release the transcripts directly from the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, as to ensure we comply with the unanimous and bipartisan vote to release the transcripts.”

That’s a rather large thing. This puts Mr. Schiff in a difficult position. As York highlights, some in the GOP think that “Schiff was making it up all along.” This is rich:

A House Intelligence Committee spokesman told Fox News Wednesday that the panel received Grenell’s letter on Tuesday. “After more than a year of unnecessary delay, the ODNI has finally concluded its protracted classification review of the Committee’s transcripts, and it also appears the White House has now abandoned its improper insistence on reviewing key transcripts, which the Committee appropriately rejected,” the spokesman said.

House Intel Republicans slapped back:

“We understand now that Chairman Schiff is blocking the release of these transcripts,” they wrote. “This news, if accurate, is disturbing, especially in light of Chairman Schiff’s cries in 2019 for transparency regarding allegations that the Trump campaign colluded with Russia.” “For nearly four years, prominent Democrat politicians and commentators alleged that President Trump colluded with Russia, with Chairman Schiff going so far as to say that he had ‘direct evidence’ of collusion,” they continued. “Now that these allegations have been disproven by several investigations, the American people deserve to have transparency about why public figures such as Chairman Schiff continue to promote such wild accusations.”

Adam Schiff is a liar and a leaker. He should be expelled from Congress and have his security clearance revoked. He told NBC’s Chuck Todd that he had proof that President Trump colluded with Russians way back in 2017:

Schiff is the most corrupt chairman of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence. He’s also the most partisan chairman of the Committee.

Byron York’s article should bother everyone from across the political spectrum. It isn’t just about Russian interference. As Byron puts it, “On Feb. 13, the House Intelligence Committee held a meeting at which intelligence officials briefed lawmakers on foreign efforts to influence U.S. elections. By several accounts, the officials told the committee that Russia is working to reelect President Trump.”

Later, Byron added “The Republicans’ objection was not to the idea that Russia is trying to interfere in a U.S. election. That is an accepted fact. The problem was the assessment that Russia is specifically trying to help reelect Trump. That claim, so incendiary in the 2016 election, was unsupported by the evidence, they said.”

This throws the entire briefing into question:

“How should reporting take place?” one member said later. “You would say, ‘We believe X is true based on A, B, C, and D.’ When that doesn’t happen, it’s very suspect.”

“If you’re going to make an accusation like that, you darn well better be ready to answer questions and have evidence to support it,” said another member. When pressed, the member added that officials gave “very vague and unsatisfying answers.”

If the Intel Community can’t tell Congress what they’ve learned with specificity, then that’s questioning the briefing’s credibility. As the one unidentified member said, the IC “darn well better be ready to answer questions and have evidence to support it” if they’re making such accusations.

As they left the meeting, Republicans agreed that the news would leak soon. It almost seemed to be why Democratic Rep. Adam Schiff, the committee chairman and impeachment leader, called the meeting in the first place.

This is the committee that shouldn’t be partisan. That’s why Adam Schiff is the worst choice to be a member of it, much less chairman of it. That’s why it isn’t just important to clean out the Intel Community. That’s why it’s essential.

Adam Schiff isn’t the only Democrat that shouldn’t be trusted. Jim Himes is another Democrat that shouldn’t be trusted. Here’s why:

For example, not long after the story broke, Democratic Rep. Jim Himes, an intelligence committee member, appeared on CNN. “I can’t talk about what happened in a classified setting,” Himes said. “But … you don’t need an intelligence briefing to think about what Vladimir Putin might want. Would he want a return to sort of conventional, much more confrontational policy with respect to Russia? Or might he want a president who will criticize everybody on the planet except Vladimir Putin?”

Himes’s point was clear: I can’t talk about it, but of course Putin is working to reelect Trump.

Again, assumptions without proof. If you’re making the assertion that the Russians are interfering in the election, that’s one thing. If you’re claiming that they’re interfering with the purpose of helping a presidential candidate, you’d better have tons of rock solid proof to verify that. This sounds like Schiff’s handiwork.

During the impeachment hearings and in the impeachment trial, Adam Schiff made wild accusations that he didn’t support with verifiable facts. He’d make these allegations, then say that they’re supported by hearsay testimony. That isn’t proof. That’s an unsubstantiated allegation. It’s the equivalent of saying ‘I know he’s guilty because I have a vendetta against him. He’s evil.’ That isn’t proof of anything except that the person making the statement has a vendetta against the accused.

Apparently, the question isn’t whether the IC will interfere in this election. The question apparently is whether Ric Grenell can start cleaning out the nasties in the IC before the election.

Shelby Pierson, the woman who allegedly briefed members of the House Intel Committee, aka the House Committee for Leaking Classified Information, shouldn’t have briefed the Committee last week. That’s the gospel according to Bryan Dean Wright, a self-identified Democrat. Wright also was a former CIA officer. Pierson was allegedly the briefer who told Committee members that Russia was attempting to interfere with the 2020 presidential election and that Russia wanted President Trump to win.

This weekend, Fake News CNN reported “The US intelligence community’s top election security official appears to have overstated the intelligence community’s formal assessment of Russian interference in the 2020 election, omitting important nuance during a briefing with lawmakers earlier this month, three national security officials told CNN. The official, Shelby Pierson, told lawmakers on the House Intelligence Committee that Russia is interfering in the 2020 election with the goal of helping President Donald Trump get reelected.”

According to Laura Ingraham, Pierson “has a reputation of being injudicious with her words.” Wright said that “Well, when the Intelligence Community sends a briefer to Capitol Hill, they aren’t sending us their best.” Later, Wright said “She was a career satellite imagery specialist. Why, then, did DNI Coats select her for this role in the depths of political analysis, the nuance necessary for that?”

John Ratcliffe, one of the smartest members of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, nailed it when he told Maria Bartiromo “Look, I’m not trying to be hyperbolic here, but I don’t know anyone in the last three years who has done more to help Vladimir Putin and Russia with their efforts to sow the seeds of discord in American elections and American election security than Adam Schiff has.”

Frankly, that’s being too nice to Schiff. It isn’t that Schiff hasn’t helped Putin a lot. It’s that, in addition to that, Schiff couldn’t identify exculpatory evidence that exonerates a Republican if Schiff’s life depended on it. When I wrote this post, I quoted Rep. Ratcliffe as saying “the narrative often from Democrats and the media is that Republicans don’t think the Russians have meddled in our election. They did. They meddled in 2016, they are going to meddle in 2020. That’s not the issue. The issue is why Russia is being so successful in shaking American confidence in the integrity of our elections. And the reason is, it’s because Democrats keep perpetuating and accentuating and proliferating Russian propaganda for their political gain and for their political motivation against Donald Trump.”

It’s time for Democrats to put the US first instead of putting themselves first. Democrats used to be patriots. Democrats aren’t patriots anymore. They’re really anarchists.

That reality, not the briefing, is the bombshell.