When we at Long Island Life & Politics editorialized about NSI Director Tulsi Gabbard’s report on the nefarious actions by Obama’s intelligence agencies and the Clinton campaign to derail the Trump administration, some readers questioned how this could be true.
It’s understandable that those who only get their news from The New York Times, CNN, MSNBC or the mainstream media would not be aware of their actions. So, for the edification of these readers, we are providing the damning information and factual backup they would likely not see at these biased outlets. Here they are:
- In October 2016, candidate Donald Trump questions the intelligence community’s statements that Russia was trying to hack the election. He goes further and criticizes the intelligence community for their failures during the Iraq war.
- Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer warns Trump to be careful about attacking the intelligence community. A week before unverified documents emerged undermining President-elect Donald Trump, Schumer predicted that intelligence officials would “get back at” Trump for challenging their credibility.
“Let me tell you, you take on the intelligence community, they have six ways from Sunday to get back at you. So, even for a practical, supposedly hard-nosed businessman, he is being really dumb to do this,” Schumer said in a Jan. 3 MSNBC interview.
Asked what intel officials could do to Trump, Schumer said, “I don’t know, but from what I am told, they are very upset with how he has treated them and talked about them.” - FBI Deputy Peter Strzok and his paramour Lisa Page in 2016 were frightened that Trump could possibly win the election. They were avid Trump haters. Page pondered what would happen if Trump won. Strzok responded not to worry since they have “an insurance policy”. Many believe this insurance policy was Operation Crossfire Hurricane, which sought to destroy Trump based on debunked intelligence.
The text exchange was so outrageous that soon-to-be Trump turncoat Liz Cheney claimed they might’ve committed treason and were engaged in a coup. - The campaign of Hillary Clinton hired the law firm of Perkins Coie, which then paid a substantial sum to former British spy Christopher Steele to dig up dirt on Donald Trump.
Steele reached out to a Russian associate to see if he had anything on Trump. Needing to deliver something to earn his payday, the associate gives him unverified information that the Russians have evidence of Donald Trump urinating on prostitutes in a Moscow hotel.
Not only is there no further substantiation of this, but the dossier is quickly discredited when part of its collusion theory centered on a meeting allegedly held with then-Trump ally, Michael Cohen, in Prague. The FBI and CIA knew this to be false because a check of Cohen‘s passport clearly showed that Cohen was never in Prague, let alone on that date. - One of the lawyers from Clinton‘s firm, Michael Sussmann, contacted a lawyer he knows at the FBI seeking a meeting. He discloses to the agent that there is this important information that shows the Russians will have leverage over Donald Trump if he is elected president. The lawyer did not disclose to the FBI that his firm was hired by Clinton to dig up this dirt on Trump. Instead, he tried to make it appear that he was an independent credible source (even though he billed the Clinton campaign for his FBI visit).
The lawyer was eventually indicted by the John Durham special investigative team. Remarkably, the Democratic-leaning Washington D.C. jury enacted jury notification of his lie to the FBI (James Baker, the FBI agent Sussmann spoke to, testified Sussmann lied to him) on the theory that it just wasn’t that important. Asked if she thought the prosecution was worthwhile, the foreperson said:
“Personally, I don’t think it should have been prosecuted because I think we have better time or resources to use or spend on other things that affect the nation as a whole than a possible lie to the FBI. We could spend that time more wisely.”
Sussmann argued he couldn’t be lying because his friend Baker knew he was affiliated with Clinton. So either Sussmann committed a crime by lying to the FBI or the FBI played along with the dirty tricks operative to advance the opportunity to spy on the Trump campaign.
- The intelligence community started to investigate these claims. Strzok, the avid Trump hater at the center of the investigation to link Trump to the Russians, conceded in private texts to his girlfriend that as to the collusion there was no there there. But that didn’t stop his team from spying against Trump.
- Internal documents circulate within the intelligence agency, noting that there was no credibility or verification attached to the Russia hoax.
- The emails and documents concede that despite rumors to the contrary, the Russians had no significant program in place to try to hack the 2016 election to help Trump win. In fact, they realized very early that the whole matter was concocted by candidate Hillary Clinton’s campaign. This was evident in John Brennan’s handwritten notes dating back to August 2016. The notes read:
“We’re getting additional insight into Russian activities from [REDACTED],” Brennan notes read. “CITE [summarizing] allegedly 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.”
Brennan briefed former President Obama on Hillary Clinton’s purported “plan” to tie then-candidate Donald Trump to Russia as “a means of distracting the public from her use of a private email server” ahead of the 2016 presidential election.
THEY ALL KNEW IN AUGUST 2016 THAT THE TRUMP/ RUSSIA STORY WAS A FABRICATION.
9. Further exculpatory information was given to President Obama and his team and was slated to be included in the written daily briefing that goes to the president on December 8, 2016. It included statements by National Security Director James Clapper that “foreign adversaries did not use cyberattacks on election infrastructure to alter the U.S. presidential election outcome.”
There was no mention of the Russians seeking to help Trump, only that any Russian activities “probably were intended to cause psychological effects, such as undermining the credibility of the election process and candidates.” It concluded, “We assess that Russian and criminal actors did not impact recent U.S. election results by conducting malicious cyber activities against election infrastructure.”
10. But remarkably, in an extremely unusual and possibly unprecedented event, the Obama inner circle decided against issuing a daily brief that day. It is common practice that these briefings go not only to the president in office, but also the president-elect, who would be Trump. The intelligence community did not want Trump to see this exculpatory evidence on his behalf, so they held it back.
11. The next day, December 9, Obama held a meeting with FBI Deputy Andrew McCabe, Obama operative Susan Rice, DOJ Director Loretta Lynch, Brennan and Clapper. At this meeting, Obama ordered the intelligence agencies — not to pursue the prior intelligence findings that there was no Russian hacking — but instead ordered them to create a memo with a new narrative that highlights “the tools Moscow used and actions it took to influence the 2016 election.” Rice sought to cover their tracks on this unusual turnabout by suspiciously memorializing her claim that everything was “by the book.”
12. When many career FBI staffers got the directive, they pushed back against the CIA chief, claiming that this directive is contrary to their findings and was inappropriate. They were told to proceed nonetheless.
13. A short time after the meeting, Clapper is reported to have leaked the dossier and Russian hacking scenario to the Washington Post that the Russians were indeed responsible for hacking the election.
The Obama team, in an extremely unconventional manner, also gave the order to spread out the Russia/Trump collusion info throughout numerous departments. Obama’s team says it was to preserve evidence. Critics claim it was to ensure further leaks to the media.
Thereafter, almost every mainstream media outlet repeated this as fact over and over again. It had a significant impact on the public given that about half of the American public thereafter believed that Russia was holding negative information over Trump.
Sixty-six percent of Democrats inaccurately believed “Russia tampered with vote tallies in order to get Donald Trump elected President.”
It gave fuel to partisans seeking to advance the discredited Russia Hoax as fact. Adam Schiff, then a member of the House Intelligence Committee, said in 2017, “Mr. President, the Russians hacked our election and interfered. No one disputes this now but you.”
14. Back in 2016, James Comey‘s FBI sought to initiate a spying operation on the Trump campaign. To do so, they needed a warrant to begin surveillance on Trump operatives. They did so by getting a warrant against Trump political ally Carter Page.
The lawyer for the FBI seeking the warrant felt the only way the judge would grant it was if he were to lie to the judge that Page had never been an information source for the government. He, in fact, presented that lie to the court and got his warrant to start spying on Page.
The lawyer eventually pled guilty to a felony for doing so, but received no jail time from the liberal judge assigned to the case.
Equally damning is the fact that Comey himself allowed on three successive occasions the incorporating of the dossier, then known to be bogus, as a basis to the FISA court to continue spying on the Trump team.
When Brennan appeared before Congress, he apparently provided false testimony to then-Congressman Trey Gowdy (R-Texas) that the dossier was not relied upon in their investigation or FISA applications that produced surveillance warrants against the Trump team.
15. Comey’s hatred for the Trump team was so intense that he and his staff set up a plot to entrap General Michael Flynn, whom Trump brought in as his National Security Advisor.
This came after a meeting held in Obama‘s office with Department of Justice attorney Sally Yates, Comey and Andrew McCabe, his high-ranking deputy. Vice President Joe Biden was present as well and reportedly recommended that the group pursue an investigation against Flynn to possibly bring charges for his supposed violation of the Logan Act. (This was gleaned from Peter Strzok’s notes that stated “VP: Logan Act.”)
This was a never used and probably unconstitutional relic of a law that holds that non-administration officials cannot meet with foreign leaders to conduct foreign policy. But Flynn was not just anyone off the street. He was the incoming advisor to President Trump. It was quite common for the incoming administration to meet with other officials from foreign countries before they actually took office. It happened with John Kerry years later who negotiated with Iran regarding various foreign policy matters, though he had been out of office for years. Nothing happened to him.
In any event, Comey boasted to the public that he had Peter Strzok and another FBI operative go unannounced to Flynn‘s office to interview him, knowing that the new administration was probably naïve enough to take the interview. The hope was to catch him in a lie. Indeed, this was proven through pre-interview investigator’s preparation. In the handwritten notes dated January 24, 2017, provided to Flynn’s defense attorneys, one entry states: “What’s our goal? Truth/Admission or to get him to lie, so we can prosecute him or get him fired?”
“If we get him to admit to breaking the Logan Act, give facts to DOJ & have them decide. Or, if he initially lies, then we present him [redacted] & he admits it, document for DOJ, & let them decide how to address it.”
Flynn met with them, and ironically, Strzok, the arch anti-Trumper, conceded in his initial report that Flynn did not seem untruthful. But Strzok, with the aid of Lisa Page, kept modifying the original exculpatory 302 report, which was held back from Congress and others questioning their tactics.
But the heat was nevertheless increased on Flynn, with Obama operative Susan Rice improperly unmasking Flynn to expose the private investigation. Alarmingly, reports surfaced that prosecutors started asking questions about his son, hinting they might be prosecuting him for various reasons. Thereafter Flynn resigned his post. The DOJ’s case against Flynn was so flimsy it eventually had to drop the case.
16. Brennan, McCabe and Comey all wanted the dossier and the story of Russia favoring Trump included in Obama’s report. When long-term career FBI agents pushed back claiming that it was unverified and should not be included, Brennan overruled them, insisting that it be included anyway. Even though the agents warned it was unverified, Brennan responded: “Yes, but doesn’t it ring true?”
17. Comey met with Trump as he was taking office and told him that within his files are allegations of Trump urinating on hookers in a Moscow hotel. Comey passes it along, knowing it is totally unverified. Could he have been pulling a J. Edgar Hoover maneuver of hinting to Trump to not cross him or he might disclose the contents?
Comey later admitted to passing along sensitive information about Trump to a friend, who later leaked it t the media. The Inspector General excoriated Comey for his actions, yet no action was taken against the FBI chief.
The report stated:
“Former Director Comey failed to live up to this responsibility. By not safeguarding sensitive information obtained during the course of his FBI employment, and by using it to create public pressure for official action, Comey set a dangerous example for the over 35,000 current FBI employees — and the many thousands more former FBI employees — who similarly have access to or knowledge of non-public information.”
Comey not only refused to dispel the public and media that the pee tape was unsubstantiated, but kept it alive by smugly announcing that he “just didn’t know” whether it was true or not, when all the intel at his disposal indicated it was fabricated. He even called it “possible“ knowing there was absolutely zero evidence to support it.
18. Obama allies have responded that they were simply pointing out that the Russians were trying to influence our election. Well, that wouldn’t be news. We know that foreign actors are always trying to influence our elections, just as we have tried to influence other elections. (Remember Barack Obama put a lot of resources into knocking off Benjamin Netanyahu in the Israeli elections.)
There is no doubt that the Russians did get into Hillary Clinton‘s email. But it’s not as though they did this because they feared Clinton and wanted Trump. They simply fell across it because John Podesta, Clinton’s campaign manager, was very lax with the account’s security.
Moreover, Russia had surveillance information on Clinton, indicating she was suffering from psycho-emotional problems requiring tranquilizers, but held it until after the election to hold over her, since they were convinced she would be the likely winner. If their goal was to help Trump, one would think they would have had it disclosed prior to the election.
- In July 2016, Brennan briefed Obama on how Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign had engaged in an attempt to distract from her email scandal, and had sought to “vilify” Trump by accusing him of collaborating with Russian President Vladimir Putin.
We already know that, despite having this information in hand, Obama withheld intelligence about Russia from the Trump transition team and ordered agencies to compile a new and different assessment of the situation.
- The conspiracy between Obama, Clinton, the FBI and the CIA was so pervasive and successful that, at one point, Democratic Rep. Adam Schiff (D-California) appeared before the cameras after intelligence briefings, claiming that he had definitive proof that Trump was guilty of colluding with the Russians. This was a flat-out lie, but it was allowed to linger as truth as the intelligence community remained silent, not refuting Schiff’s falsehoods.
19. The House of Representatives report casting doubt on the entire alleged Russia collusion plot was known to the intel community, but not made public, and was ignored by the biased conspirators because it did not fit their narrative.
20. In fact, the intelligence community’s leaks and other measures continued to stoke the flames about the idea that Trump was a Russian asset and that the Russians had tried to hack the election. Numerous videos are available on social media to find one mainstream media outlet after another confirming as fact that the Russians hacked the 2016 election.
It all eventually led to Trump‘s acting attorney general to appoint Robert Mueller as a special prosecutor. Of course, we all know now that even Mueller’s biased crew, led by Trump hater Andrew Weissmann, could not find any proof of Trump/Russia collusion.
But that was only after years were wasted on this ruse, along with the tens of millions of dollars that went into the investigation based on bogus debunked intelligence.
It eventually led to Democrats taking over the House in the midterms and thereafter impeaching Donald Trump.