Search
Archives

You are currently browsing the archives for the CIA category.

Categories

Archive for the ‘CIA’ Category

As is becoming the case more often lately, Rep. Devin Nunes has uncovered another important document that provides a more complete picture of the Mueller special counsel investigation.

According to the article, Rep. Devin Nunes, (R-CA), “told Fox News he’d reviewed still-classified materials related to then-Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein’s memos outlining the breadth of special counsel Robert Mueller’s Trump-Russia investigation. He said the bulk of the information in the second scope memo came from the dossier compiled by British ex-spy Christopher Steele, the former MI6 agent who was hired by the opposition research firm Fusion GPS through funding from the Clinton campaign and the DNC during the 2016 presidential campaign.”

The further we dig into this fishing expedition, the more we find out that the Steele document essentially triggered the government’s surveillance and the government’s investigation. That’s pretty frightening when you consider the fact that Steele’s document is likely Russian disinformation that couldn’t be verified if Steele’s life depended on it. Check out this interview:

It’s important to ask the question about whether any part of this investigation was based on legitimate, verifiable intel. If this doesn’t sound like the Deep State working overtime, then I don’t know what does. This isn’t just a screw-up. This is, quite possibly, the insurance policy that Strzok and Page talked about. It isn’t a stretch to think that Strzok and Page thought a special counsel investigation into President Trump that was based on Russian disinformation would cripple President Trump’s administration.

Why would the Intelligence Community start an investigation based on a document that they were repeatedly told was fiction? And yes, the FBI, State Department and the CIA were told the Steele document was worthless multiple times.

This article highlights the things that the leftists want us to ignore.

It opens by saying “President Donald Trump has repeatedly said that his administration is the ‘most transparent in history,’ and that it has ‘cooperated totally’ with Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation, or words to that effect. But the truth is quite the opposite. No prior administration has pushed the envelope of the law to deflect outside scrutiny to the same degree as this one. In a recent letter from the White House to the chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, the president, in effect, rejected the entire notion of congressional oversight as illegitimately political: ‘Congressional investigations are intended to obtain information to aid in evaluating potential legislation, not to harass political opponents or to pursue an unauthorized ‘do-over’ of exhaustive law enforcement investigations conducted by the Department of Justice.'”

This Democrat apparently thinks that whatever House Democrats do in investigating is fine even if the Mueller Report was supposed to be the be-all-end-all of investigations. When the report didn’t deliver the impeachment goods that Democrats were looking for, House Democrats launched a full frontal assault on the Trump administration, issuing 81 subpoenas for documents from people who either haven’t been in office ever or who aren’t in office anymore.

That’s the definition of a fishing expedition. Feel free to call it a witch hunt instead if that’s your preference.

By contrast, prior presidents understood that respect for the rule of law means, in the end, complying with the law, no matter what the cost. That was true even of those under investigation, such as President Bill Clinton. And I should know—I was a member of the team led by Independent Counsel Ken Starr that investigated him.

President Trump didn’t utilize executive privilege while the Mueller investigation was happening. The Clinton administration invoked executive privilege frequently. President Trump made his personal staff available for interviews. President Clinton didn’t allow his personal staff to meet with Mr. Starr’s investigators.

Mr. Rosenzweig should stop trying to rewrite history.

Consider, by way of example and comparison, Clinton’s use of executive privilege—a privilege that Trump has also invoked in recent days to frustrate the House’s effort to get the unredacted version of the Mueller report. Just what is executive privilege, and why do we have it?

Notice the subtlety. President Clinton invoked executive privilege while the grand jury was seated. President Trump invoked executive privilege after Mueller had wrapped up its investigation.

That’s a significant difference. President Clinton protected his high-ranking staff from grand jury exposure. President Trump didn’t protect his senior staff in that way.

It isn’t a matter of if in terms of whether Mueller, Clapper, Comey and Brennan testify. Mueller will testify before Congress. Comey, Clapper and Brennan will testify before a grand jury. Sen. Graham and Mr. Durham will have them sweating bullets.

Democrats know that they’re sort of fine if they stick to their talking points. Democrats know that they’re in trouble the minute they’re pushed off their talking points.

Now that AG William Barr is investigating whether President Obama’s political appointees acted improperly in starting the surveillance into Carter Page, the same suspects (literally) are resurfacing with the same discredited excuses. Byron York’s article asks all the right pointed questions.

The article, though, starts by saying “In February 2018, the House Intelligence Committee released the so-called Nunes memo. In four pages, the document, from the committee’s then-chairman Rep. Devin Nunes, revealed much of what the public knows today about the FBI’s reliance on the Steele dossier in pursuing since-discredited allegations that the Trump campaign and Russia conspired to fix the 2016 election. Specifically, it revealed that the FBI included unverified material from the dossier in applications to a secret spy court to win a warrant to wiretap Trump foreign policy volunteer adviser Carter Page. All that was classified. To release it, the committee appealed to President Trump, who made a declassification order. That is the only way Americans know about the Page warrant. From that knowledge came later revelations about the FBI’s use of confidential informants and undercover agents to get information on Trump campaign figures.”

Now the same doomsayers are back predicting more gloom:

Now, some of the same people are issuing somber warnings of the damage that will be done if Attorney General William Barr declassifies documents showing what else the nation’s law enforcement and intelligence agencies did in the 2016 Trump investigation.

I’m shocked to hear Brennan, Clapper and Comey are using alarmist tones about exposing national security secrets. Coming from them, it rings hollow. Byron York explains in this interview:

We’ve heard this refrain before. Yes, we should handle this information with the greatest of care. No, we shouldn’t trust the most untrustable trio of partisan hacks in US intelligence history.

Earlier tonight, President Trump “ordered U.S. intelligence officials to cooperate with Attorney General William Barr’s investigation into ‘surveillance activities’ directed at the president’s 2016 campaign.”

Let the finger-pointing begin. Comey, Clapper and Brennan are already attempting to incriminate each other. In the end, I suspect that they’ll each be ‘successful’, with each of them getting prosecuted and convicted or getting prosecuted and flipping on the other 2. Either way, the chances of this turning out well for that trio isn’t high.

Let’s get serious about this for a minute. Democrat spinmeisters point to the DOJ’s IG report and insist that it’s a comprehensive report on the origins of the faux investigation. It isn’t because it isn’t exhaustive. It can’t reach the places that the AG’s investigation can get to. First, the IG can’t call in people from all of the IC agencies. It’s limited by statute to the agency it’s assigned to.

Next, the IG can’t interview people who worked inside the DOJ but have since left. That means the IG can’t interview the central figures in the investigation. Specifically, it prohibits the IG from interviewing Comey, Lynch, McCabe, Strzok and Page. Ditto with Clapper and Brennan.

Trump also gave Barr “full and complete authority” to declassify information related to the investigation, White House press secretary Sarah Sanders said in a statement. The notice comes as Barr is conducting a review of what he has described as “spying” on members of the Trump campaign during the investigation into Russian interference.

Sanders said Trump had directed the intelligence community to “quickly and fully” cooperate with the investigation at Barr’s own request. “Today’s action will help ensure that all Americans learn the truth about the events that occurred, and the actions that were taken, during the last Presidential election and will restore confidence in our public institutions,” Sanders said.

This gives Attorney General Barr wide latitude to investigate the investigators. Last Sunday, Trey Gowdy made a rather interesting prediction during Maria Bartiromo’s show:

Considering the fact that Trey Gowdy a) has seen these documents and b) is one of the most honest people to ever serve in Congress, I’m betting that there’s some former employees of the FBI and the IC who should be exceptionally worried.

John Solomon’s article on Christopher Steele’s dossier asks the question of who knew what and when:

Multiple sources confirm to me that the recipient of the State Department email was Special Agent Stephen Laycock, then the FBI’s section chief for Eurasian counterintelligence and now one of the bureau’s top executives as the assistant director for intelligence under Director Christopher Wray. The email to Laycock from Deputy Assistant Secretary of State Kathleen Kavalec arrived eight days before the FBI swore to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court that it had no derogatory information on Steele and used his anti-Trump dossier to secure a secret surveillance warrant to investigate Trump’s possible ties to Moscow.

Officials tell me that Laycock immediately forwarded the information he received about Steele on Oct. 13, 2016, to the FBI team leading the Trump-Russia investigation, headed by then-fellow Special Agent Peter Strzok. Laycock was the normal point of contact for Kavalec on Eurasian counterintelligence matters, and he simply acted as a conduit to get the information to his colleagues supervising the Russia probe, the officials added.

This information on Steele was known well before Jim Comey signed off on the first FISA warrant application against Carter Page.

At the time, Comey “swore to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court that it had no derogatory information on Steele and used his anti-Trump dossier to secure a secret surveillance warrant to investigate Trump’s possible ties to Moscow.” That’s a lie. John Solomon’s reporting, including the email from Kathleen Kavalec to Stephen Laycock, shows that the FBI knew that Steele wasn’t reliable. Comey testified the opposite. He testified that Steele was totally reliable. That testimony is discredited, to put it nicely.

If Solomon’s reporting is accurate, and thus far, it has been, Comey’s in big trouble. Lying on a FISA warrant application is bad enough. Lying on a FISA warrant application to spy on a presidential campaign is a total no-no. What’s most frightening is that, if they can do this to the president of the United States, they can do this to anyone.

Kevin Brock, the former FBI assistant director for intelligence, said the State Department’s email in October 2016 ordinarily should have triggered the FBI to reevaluate Steele as a source. “This is quite important,” Brock said. “Under normal circumstances, when you get information about the conduct of your source that gives rise to questions about their reliability or truthfulness, you usually go back and reevaluate their dependability and credibility.”

This isn’t unravelling the way Adam Schiff, Elijah Cummings or Jerry Nadler hoped it would. They didn’t think that Barr would go on the offensive. They thought wrong. Finding out if the Obama administration cut corners to help Hillary get elected is the right thing to do. Now, Nadler, Cummings and Schiff are put in the position of defending the indefensible. They deserve that fate.

When it comes to legal matters, Trey Gowdy doesn’t mince words. He’s one of the most honest people to have recently served in Congress. If he says that someone is in legal jeopardy, bet on that person to start hiring attorneys. This afternoon, Mr. Gowdy stated that former CIA Director John Brennan was in hotter legal hot water than former FBI Director Jim Comey. It isn’t a secret that Jim Comey is in trouble. That’s what’s behind his constant blabfests on CNN and on speaking tours.

What’s known is that the FBI didn’t attempt to verify the Steele Dossier until after the election, which is well after Jim Comey attested to the FISA Court that it had been verified and that Christopher Steele was a trustworthy informant. Those aren’t accurate statements, which means, I suspect, that he’ll be one of the first people dragged before U.S. Attorney John Durham’s grand jury to get squeezed by Mr. Durham into turning state’s evidence against Brennan and other bad actors from the Obama administration. (Jim Clapper and Loretta Lynch pop to mind. Imagine that.)

“That’s a pretty easy thing to sort out, who insisted that the dossier or the unverified material from Chris Steele be included,” he said. “But … sometimes when you have two people, I can tell from you having been in the courtroom, sometimes when people are blaming each other, they are both right. It’s both of them. And I think it’s interesting Brennan and Comey right now, the only thing they seem to share is a hatred for Donald Trump. It’s going to be interesting if they begin to turn on one another. I’ve seen the document. I’m not going to describe it any more than that, Comey’s got a better argument than Brennan based on what I have seen.”

I wouldn’t want to be either of those gentlemen at this point. Yes, I use the term gentlemen loosely in that sentence. If I wasn’t such a gentleman, I’d probably call Comey, Clapper and Brennan losers. But I digress.

Even Rod Rosenstein is upset with Comey:

Here’s why Mr. Rosenstein is upset:

Kim Strassel’s column this week take a bright sharpie and highlight John Brennan’s ulterior motives in spreading the Trump-Russia collusion storyline. Before getting into that, it’s important to highlight the fact that the FBI was politicized. Strassel did that early in her article.

That’s where she wrote “The Trump-Russia sleuthers have been back in the news, again giving Americans cause to doubt their claims of nonpartisanship. Last week, it was Federal Bureau of Investigation agent Peter Strzok testifying to Congress that he harbored no bias against a president he still describes as ‘horrible’ and ‘disgusting.’ This week, it was former FBI Director Jim Comey tweet-lecturing Americans on their duty to vote Democratic in November.”

John Solomon’s article casts serious doubt on Strzok’s credibility. That’s because he wrote “For any American who wants an answer sooner, there are just five words, among the thousands of suggestive texts Page and Strzok exchanged, that you should read. That passage was transmitted on May 19, 2017. ‘There’s no big there there,’ Strzok texted.” Considering the fact that Agent Strzok hates President Trump, it’s safe to say that there really isn’t much to the Mueller ‘investigation’.

I wrote here that calling Mueller’s endeavor an investigation is a stretch because it’s glaringly apparent that he hasn’t found anything against President Trump. If he had, he would’ve written the report and handed it to Congress so they could start pushing impeachment without hesitation.

That points us back to Mr. Brennan:

Mr. Brennan has taken credit for launching the Trump investigation. At a House Intelligence Committee hearing in May 2017, he explained that he became “aware of intelligence and information about contacts between Russian officials and U.S. persons.” The CIA can’t investigate U.S. citizens, but he made sure that “every information and bit of intelligence” was “shared with the bureau,” meaning the FBI. This information, he said, “served as the basis for the FBI investigation.” My sources suggest Mr. Brennan was overstating his initial role, but either way, by his own testimony, he as an Obama-Clinton partisan was pushing information to the FBI and pressuring it to act.

More notable, Mr. Brennan then took the lead on shaping the narrative that Russia was interfering in the election specifically to help Mr. Trump—which quickly evolved into the Trump-collusion narrative. Team Clinton was eager to make the claim, especially in light of the Democratic National Committee server hack. Numerous reports show Mr. Brennan aggressively pushing the same line internally. Their problem was that as of July 2016 even then-Director of National Intelligence James Clapper didn’t buy it. He publicly refused to say who was responsible for the hack, or ascribe motivation. Mr. Brennan also couldn’t get the FBI to sign on to the view; the bureau continued to believe Russian cyberattacks were aimed at disrupting the U.S. political system generally, not aiding Mr. Trump.

Earlier this week, Mr. Brennan emphatically said that President Trump’s statements at the Helsinki Summit rose to the level of “high crimes and misdemeanors” before saying that he considered President Trump’s words treasonous.

In this video, Alan Dershowitz emphatically stated that “You can’t just throw the term treason around”:

Apparently, Mr. Brennan hasn’t learned that lesson yet.

Just minutes ago, Tina Smith announced via this tweet that she won’t vote to confirm Gina Haspel as the next CIA Director. In the tweet, Smith said “I’ve been clear since the start. I will vote NO on Gina Haspel. We cannot have someone lead the CIA who has involvement with torture on her resume. That Bush-era legacy is not something to be proud of.”

Sen. Smith’s after-the-fact quarterbacking is insulting. After 9/11, everyone was certain there’d be another terrorist attack. There wasn’t another terrorist attack because the Bush 43 CIA discovered the intelligence that took out entire terrorist networks. That happened only because of the enhanced interrogation techniques employed right after 9/11.

Smith’s faux moral preening is sickening. If she wants to argue whether ‘torture’ is effective, that’s one thing. Arguing that it’s immoral to torture a terrorist to gain information that disrupts an entire network of terrorists tells me that Smith puts a higher priority on moral preening than on doing whatever is necessary to prevent terrorist attacks. People with that attitude are foolish. They shouldn’t be U.S. senators.


At the time that these techniques were used, they were perfectly legal. The ‘torture law’ didn’t get enacted until years later. Apparently, Tina Smith thinks it’s ok to punish a person for doing things that were perfectly legal at the time they were done.

Further, Smith apparently hasn’t considered whether Gina Haspel is qualified for the job. Unlike Smith, Haspel was on the front lines taking out terrorist networks and keeping America safe. After helping Walter Mondale lose to Norm Coleman in 2002, Tina Smith went to work for “Planned Parenthood of Minnesota, North Dakota, and South Dakota.” Wow. Talk about fighting on the front lines in the war on terror. Simply put, Tina Smith isn’t qualified to render an opinion on fighting terrorists. She’s a community activist. She isn’t a policy wonk by any stretch of the imagination. She’s a policy lightweight.

On the other hand, she’s perfectly suited to do what Chuck Schumer orders her to do. That seems to be the only thing she’s skilled at.

Technorati: , , , , ,

Last week, Sen. Kamala Harris pretended to be a legitimate presidential contender in 2020. Unfortunately for Sen. Harris, she looked more like a scold than a serious policymaker. While questioning Gina Haspel during Haspel’s confirmation to become the next CIA Director, Sen. Harris initially asked “One question I’ve not heard you answer is, do you believe the previous interrogation techniques were immoral?” When “Haspel began with a response about the tactics’ legality,” Sen. Harris interrupted, saying “I’m not asking do you believe they were legal, I’m asking do you believe they were immoral.”

Rather than backing down or throwing her fellow agents under the bus, Haspel stood her ground. Before she did that, unfortunately, Haspel had to endure an ill-informed lecture from Harris. Sen. Harris lectured Haspel about how the person they’ll vote for or against will inform our allies “about our values.” Sen. Harris also talked about “what we prioritize as our moral authority.”

Frankly, if that’s what’s important to Sen. Harris, then she’s disqualified to ever being commander-in-chief. Period. Long before Sen. Harris became California’s Attorney General, Gina Haspel was a successful CIA interrogator who prevented multiple terrorist attacks by gaining important information from terrorists. In the days following 9/11, when most Americans were certain that there’d be more terrorist attacks, President Bush made the right decision that preventing future attacks no matter what it took was his highest priority.

The vast majority of people agree with that decision. Moral preening doesn’t have a place in that conversation. Leadership mattered. Making the right decisions on the fly was required. President Bush provided both at a time of crisis. Sen. Harris hasn’t provided either quality:

The good news is that neither Sen. Harris or Sen. McCain will prevent Gina Haspel from becoming the first female DCI. She will be confirmed, though by a fairly tight margin.

That’s unfortunate because, in terms of qualifications, she’s the most qualified candidate in decades and it isn’t all that close. Gina Haspel will become one of the best DCIs. She won’t exceed Mike Pompeo but she’ll surpass John Brennan. Then again, a worn-out trench coat would be more qualified than John Brennan.

After President Trump officially announced that he was pulling out of the JCPOA, President Obama criticized him, saying “today’s announcement is … misguided. Walking away from the JCPOA turns our back on America’s closest allies, and an agreement that our country’s leading diplomats, scientists, and intelligence professionals.” Actually, the JCPOA wasn’t negotiated by “our country’s leading diplomats, scientists, and intelligence professionals.” It was negotiated by dimwits like John Kerry, John Brennan and Susan Rice. I’d hardly call them the best and brightest of our diplomats. I’d call them the Three Stooges.

Included in President Obama criticism was the statement that “First, the JCPOA was not just an agreement between my Administration and the Iranian government. After years of building an international coalition that could impose crippling sanctions on Iran, we reached the JCPOA together with the United Kingdom, France, Germany, the European Union, Russia, China, and Iran. It is a multilateral arms control deal, unanimously endorsed by a United Nations Security Council Resolution.” That’s precisely what it was. It wasn’t a treaty ratified by the Senate. If it had been a negotiated treaty, it would’ve been subjected to a humiliating bipartisan rejection of President Obama’s national security policy towards Iran.

John Brennan criticized President Trump in this barely lucid diatribe:


Again, this wasn’t US agreement. That status is only conferred with treaty ratification. Without the Senate’s advice and consent, the agreement is nothing except an agreement between an idiot masquerading as a commander-in-chief and a room full of Islamic theocrats.

Further, President Trump’s decision instructs the world’s despots that he won’t tolerate wink-and-a-nod deals that don’t protect the American people. Like Charles Krauthammer once said, “it isn’t that there’s a new sheriff in town. It’s that there’s a sheriff in town.” President Trump’s official announcement sends the strong message that he’s putting a higher priority on national security than on weak-kneed diplomacy.

This paragraph illustrates how big of a liar President Obama is:

Third, the JCPOA does not rely on trust – it is rooted in the most far-reaching inspections and verification regime ever negotiated in an arms control deal. Iran’s nuclear facilities are strictly monitored. International monitors also have access to Iran’s entire nuclear supply chain, so that we can catch them if they cheat. Without the JCPOA, this monitoring and inspections regime would go away.

The inspection regime was virtually nonexistent. Inspectors couldn’t go anywhere at any time. They had to get permission from the IRGC. Then there was a thirty-day waiting time. That isn’t the definition of “far-reaching inspections.” That’s the definition of wimpy inspections agreed to by a weak-kneed American president and his pathetic ‘national security team’.

Technorati: , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,