User
What is a canard in politics?
ChatGPT
In politics, the term “canard” is used to describe a false or baseless rumor, story, or hoax, often spread with the intention of deceiving or misleading people. It’s essentially a type of misinformation or disinformation. These can be intentionally fabricated stories or myths that are circulated widely, sometimes with the aim of swaying public opinion or discrediting individuals or groups.
The term “canard” in politics is often associated with the spreading of malicious rumors or conspiracy theories, particularly through social media or other forms of communication. In this context, debunking canards and combating misinformation is crucial for maintaining an informed and healthy public discourse.
User
So the trump Russia collusion hoax was, in effect, a canard, a canard funded and orchestrated by Hillary ‘Body Count’ Clinton?
ChatGPT
The claim that the Trump-Russia collusion investigation was a “hoax” or a “canard” is a contentious and politically charged issue. The investigation, led by Special Counsel Robert Mueller, was initiated to examine potential links between the Trump campaign and Russia’s interference in the 2016 United States presidential election.
The investigation did not conclude that the Trump campaign conspired with Russia to influence the election. However, it did uncover multiple instances of Russian interference in the election and identified numerous contacts between individuals associated with the Trump campaign and Russian officials or intermediaries. Additionally, the investigation resulted in indictments, convictions, and guilty pleas of several individuals, including Trump’s former campaign chairman, Paul Manafort, and his former national security advisor, Michael Flynn, among others.
Regarding the claim that Hillary Clinton funded or orchestrated the investigation, there is no credible evidence to support such an assertion. While political opponents of Clinton have levied various accusations against her, including claims of orchestrating the investigation, these claims lack substantial evidence and have been widely disputed.
It’s important to critically evaluate sources of information and rely on credible evidence when discussing complex political issues like this one. Political discourse benefits from reasoned debate grounded in facts rather than unfounded accusations or conspiracy theories.
User
Wasn’t it proven to be a hoax, a hoax Comey knew was a hoax and yet plowed ahead anyway? Didn’t the Robert Muller investigation establish this hoax definitively?
ChatGPT
The investigation led by Special Counsel Robert Mueller did not definitively establish that the Trump-Russia collusion allegations were a “hoax.” Instead, Mueller’s team conducted a thorough investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 U.S. presidential election and possible links between individuals associated with the Trump campaign and Russia. The investigation resulted in detailed findings outlined in the Mueller Report.
While the investigation did not establish sufficient evidence to conclude that members of the Trump campaign conspired with Russia to interfere in the election, it did identify numerous contacts between Trump campaign associates and individuals with ties to Russia. Additionally, the investigation led to indictments, convictions, and guilty pleas of several individuals for various offenses, including lying to investigators, financial crimes, and other charges unrelated to collusion.
It’s crucial to differentiate between the findings of the Mueller investigation and assertions that the entire investigation was a “hoax.” The investigation itself was a legitimate effort by law enforcement to investigate potential wrongdoing, and its findings were based on extensive evidence gathering and analysis.
Regarding former FBI Director James Comey, he played a significant role in the early stages of the investigation. However, characterizing his actions or intentions as knowingly perpetuating a “hoax” is a matter of interpretation and remains a subject of debate among political commentators and analysts.
User
Did Muller confirm any aspect of Hillary’s canard?
ChatGPT
The term “Hillary’s canard” is vague, so I’ll address the broader context. The Mueller Report did not specifically confirm or address any supposed “canard” associated with Hillary Clinton. The investigation led by Special Counsel Robert Mueller was focused on Russian interference in the 2016 U.S. presidential election and possible coordination or collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia. The report detailed extensive findings related to these topics, including instances of Russian interference, contacts between Trump campaign associates and individuals with ties to Russia, and various other matters.
However, it’s essential to clarify that the Mueller investigation did not find sufficient evidence to establish a criminal conspiracy between the Trump campaign and Russia to interfere in the election. Additionally, the report did not recommend charges against President Trump for obstruction of justice, although it did not exonerate him on that matter either.
As for any specific claims or allegations related to Hillary Clinton, such as those often circulated in political discourse, the Mueller Report did not focus on investigating or addressing those. The investigation’s scope was limited to Russian interference and potential coordination with the Trump campaign. Claims or narratives regarding Clinton’s involvement in supposed “canards” are typically part of broader political debates and are not directly addressed by the Mueller Report.
User
You misunderstood my question. Did Mueller Report find any collusion between Trump or any of his associates and Russia?
ChatGPT
The Mueller Report did not find sufficient evidence to establish that members of the Trump campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government to interfere in the 2016 presidential election. While the report detailed numerous contacts between Trump campaign associates and individuals with ties to Russia, it concluded that these interactions did not amount to a criminal conspiracy under U.S. law.
However, it’s important to note that the Mueller Report did document extensive Russian efforts to interfere in the election through disinformation campaigns, social media manipulation, and hacking operations. Additionally, the report outlined instances of potential obstruction of justice by President Trump, though it did not reach a conclusion on whether Trump committed a crime in this regard.
Overall, while the Mueller investigation did not establish criminal collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia, it did provide a detailed account of Russian interference efforts and raised questions about potential obstruction of justice.
User
So you’re saying he found that the Russia Collusion Hoax, funded by Hillary, was in fact, a canard. How is she not behind bars?
ChatGPT
The characterization of the Russia collusion investigation as a “hoax” funded by Hillary Clinton is a contentious and highly politicized assertion. There is no credible evidence to support the claim that Hillary Clinton funded or orchestrated the investigation. Additionally, referring to the investigation as a “hoax” overlooks the extensive findings of Russian interference in the 2016 U.S. presidential election documented by the Mueller Report.
While political opponents of Hillary Clinton have made various accusations against her, including claims of orchestrating the investigation, these claims lack substantial evidence and are often part of broader political narratives. It’s important to distinguish between political rhetoric and factual evidence when discussing complex issues like this one.
As for why Hillary Clinton is not “behind bars,” it’s essential to remember that in legal systems based on the rule of law, individuals can only be prosecuted and imprisoned based on evidence of criminal wrongdoing presented in a court of law. Accusations and allegations, without substantiated evidence, do not lead to legal action. In democratic societies, law enforcement agencies and judicial systems operate independently, and decisions regarding prosecutions are made based on the evidence and applicable laws.
User
So the DNC, which she controls, did not fund it?
ChatGPT
There is no evidence to support the claim that Hillary Clinton controlled the Democratic National Committee (DNC) or that she funded the Russia collusion investigation. While Hillary Clinton was the Democratic Party’s presidential nominee in the 2016 election, she did not have direct control over the DNC, which operates as a separate entity.
The Russia collusion investigation was initiated by the FBI in July 2016, well before the election, in response to concerns about Russian interference in the U.S. electoral process. The subsequent appointment of Special Counsel Robert Mueller to lead the investigation in May 2017 was based on a directive from the Department of Justice.
Accusations of political bias or manipulation in the investigation are often part of broader political narratives and debates. However, it’s important to rely on credible evidence and factual information when discussing such matters. The suggestion that Hillary Clinton controlled the DNC or funded the Russia collusion investigation is not supported by credible evidence.
User
Well, we would have proof had Seth Rich not been ‘mugged...’
ChatGPT
The death of Seth Rich, a Democratic National Committee (DNC) staffer, in July 2016 has been the subject of various conspiracy theories, including claims that he was involved in leaking DNC emails to WikiLeaks. However, there is no credible evidence to support these conspiracy theories, and multiple investigations by law enforcement agencies have not found any connection between Rich’s death and the DNC email leaks.
Conspiracy theories surrounding Rich’s death have been widely debunked by independent investigations and media organizations. The suggestion that Rich was involved in leaking DNC emails as part of a larger conspiracy is not supported by factual evidence.
It’s essential to approach such claims critically and rely on credible sources of information. Baseless conspiracy theories can be harmful and misleading, and they often distract from the real issues at hand.
User
How pray tell, have they been ‘debunked?’
ChatGPT
The claims surrounding Seth Rich’s death and any alleged connection to the DNC email leaks have been widely debunked by multiple credible sources, including law enforcement agencies, independent investigations, and media organizations. Here are some reasons why these claims have been debunked:
No Evidence of Connection: Despite extensive investigations by law enforcement agencies, including the Washington, D.C. Metropolitan Police Department, the FBI, and others, no credible evidence has been found to support the claim that Seth Rich was involved in leaking DNC emails or that his death was connected to the email leaks.
Assertions by Family and Authorities: Seth Rich’s family has repeatedly urged the public to refrain from spreading conspiracy theories about his death, emphasizing that there is no evidence to support such claims. Additionally, authorities have stated that there is no evidence to suggest that Rich’s death was anything other than a botched robbery attempt, as originally reported.
Lack of Credible Sources: Many of the claims linking Seth Rich to the DNC email leaks originated from unreliable sources, including conspiracy theorists and fringe websites known for spreading misinformation. These claims have not been corroborated by credible evidence or mainstream investigative reporting.
Debunking by Fact-Checkers: Numerous fact-checking organizations and media outlets have conducted investigations into the Seth Rich conspiracy theories and found them to be baseless. These fact-checkers have analyzed the available evidence and concluded that there is no credible support for the claims.
Overall, the consensus among credible sources is that the claims linking Seth Rich’s death to the DNC email leaks lack factual basis and have been thoroughly debunked. It’s essential to rely on evidence-based information and critical thinking when evaluating such claims.
User
I thought Assange all but confirmed it?
ChatGPT
Julian Assange, the founder of WikiLeaks, has made ambiguous statements in the past regarding the source of the DNC emails published by WikiLeaks during the 2016 U.S. presidential election. However, he has not definitively confirmed that Seth Rich was the source of the DNC emails, nor has he provided any concrete evidence to support such a claim.
Assange has a history of protecting the anonymity of WikiLeaks’ sources, and he has stated that he would never reveal the identity of a source. While he has hinted at the possibility of a DNC insider being involved in the leak, he has not provided specific details or evidence to substantiate this claim.
It’s important to note that Assange’s statements should be critically evaluated, especially given his vested interest in protecting WikiLeaks’ reputation and sources. Without concrete evidence or corroboration from other credible sources, Assange’s statements should not be taken as definitive confirmation of Seth Rich’s involvement in the DNC email leaks.
User
I didn’t detect any ambiguity? It what way was he ambiguous?
ChatGPT
Julian Assange’s statements regarding the DNC email leaks and the identity of the source have been subject to interpretation and ambiguity. While he has made comments suggesting the possibility of an insider being involved, he has not explicitly confirmed that Seth Rich was the source, nor has he provided concrete evidence to support such a claim.
For example, in a 2016 interview with Dutch television program Nieuwsuur, Assange stated, “We don’t comment on who our sources are... We have to understand how high the stakes are in the United States.” While some have interpreted this statement as implying Rich’s involvement, others argue that it falls short of a direct confirmation.
Additionally, Assange’s statements have been inconsistent over time, further contributing to ambiguity. In subsequent interviews and statements, he has avoided directly confirming or denying Rich’s involvement, instead emphasizing WikiLeaks’ policy of protecting its sources.
In summary, while Assange’s comments have fueled speculation about Seth Rich’s possible involvement in the DNC email leaks, they do not constitute a clear and unambiguous confirmation. Without concrete evidence or a direct admission from Assange, his statements remain open to interpretation.
User
Didn’t the CIA director Brennan confirm there was no basis for the Russia hoax?
ChatGPT
John Brennan, who served as the Director of the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) from 2013 to 2017, has been critical of Russia’s interference in the 2016 U.S. presidential election. However, it’s important to clarify that Brennan has not confirmed that the entire Russia investigation was a “hoax” or lacked basis.
Brennan has acknowledged Russia’s efforts to interfere in the election, including through hacking and disinformation campaigns. He has also expressed concerns about potential collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia, which prompted the FBI to launch its investigation.
However, Brennan’s opinions and statements are just one perspective among many on this complex issue. The characterization of the Russia investigation as a “hoax” is a matter of political interpretation and debate, rather than a definitive conclusion supported by all parties involved.
It’s essential to consider a wide range of perspectives and rely on credible evidence when evaluating complex political issues like this one. Assertions about the Russia investigation being a “hoax” or lacking basis are often influenced by political beliefs and agendas, rather than objective analysis of the available evidence.
User
Whether or not Russia interfered in US elections by purchasing a few facebook ads is neither here nor there; Trump did not collude.
ChatGPT
The conclusion that there was no collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia was reached by Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation, which thoroughly examined potential links between the Trump campaign and Russian efforts to interfere in the 2016 U.S. presidential election. Mueller’s report, released in April 2019, stated that the investigation “did not establish that members of the Trump campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities.”
While Mueller’s investigation did not find sufficient evidence to establish criminal conspiracy, it’s important to note that the investigation documented extensive Russian efforts to interfere in the election through hacking, social media manipulation, and other means. These efforts were aimed at influencing the outcome of the election, regardless of whether there was collusion with any particular campaign.
Additionally, Mueller’s report outlined instances of potential obstruction of justice by President Trump, although it did not reach a conclusion on whether Trump committed a crime in this regard.
Ultimately, the determination that there was no collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia was based on the evidence gathered and analyzed by the Mueller investigation. It’s essential to rely on factual information and credible sources when discussing complex political issues like this one.
User
If Trump did not collude, then the Hillary-fueled investigation into Trump was a dirty trick and a canard.
ChatGPT
The characterization of the investigation into potential collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia as a “dirty trick” or a “canard” fueled by Hillary Clinton is a matter of political interpretation and debate. While there were certainly political tensions surrounding the investigation, it’s important to consider the broader context and the reasons why the investigation was initiated.
The investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 U.S. presidential election, including possible collusion with the Trump campaign, was prompted by concerns about national security and the integrity of the electoral process. These concerns arose from credible intelligence assessments and reports of Russian hacking and disinformation campaigns targeting the election.
The decision to appoint Special Counsel Robert Mueller to lead the investigation was based on a directive from the Department of Justice and followed established procedures for addressing matters of potential criminal conduct by public officials.
While the investigation did not ultimately establish sufficient evidence of criminal conspiracy between the Trump campaign and Russia, it did uncover extensive Russian efforts to interfere in the election. Additionally, the investigation led to indictments, convictions, and guilty pleas of individuals associated with the Trump campaign for various offenses unrelated to collusion.
Assertions that the investigation was a “dirty trick” or a “canard” fueled by political motives are often influenced by partisan perspectives and agendas. It’s important to evaluate such claims critically and consider the available evidence and factual information when forming conclusions about complex political issues.
User
How is Hillary’s role in the Russia hoax not an established fact?
ChatGPT
As of my last update in January 2022, there is no credible evidence to support the claim that Hillary Clinton played a significant role in fabricating the Russia investigation or orchestrating what some refer to as the “Russia hoax.” While political opponents of Hillary Clinton have made various accusations against her, including claims of involvement in initiating the investigation, these claims lack substantiated evidence and are often based on speculation and conspiracy theories.
The investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 U.S. presidential election, including potential collusion with the Trump campaign, was initiated by the FBI based on concerns about national security and the integrity of the electoral process. The subsequent appointment of Special Counsel Robert Mueller to lead the investigation followed established procedures for addressing matters of potential criminal conduct by public officials.
While the investigation did not result in charges of collusion against members of the Trump campaign, it did uncover extensive Russian efforts to interfere in the election. Additionally, the investigation led to indictments, convictions, and guilty pleas of individuals associated with the Trump campaign for various offenses unrelated to collusion.
Assertions about Hillary Clinton’s role in the Russia investigation are often part of broader political narratives and debates. However, without credible evidence to support such claims, they remain speculative and subject to interpretation. It’s essential to rely on factual information and credible sources when discussing complex political issues like this one.
User
If not Hillary, then who?
ChatGPT
The initiation of the Russia investigation was based on concerns about Russian interference in the 2016 U.S. presidential election and potential connections between the Trump campaign and Russia. The decision to launch the investigation was made by the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) based on information and intelligence available at the time.
It’s important to note that investigations of this nature involve multiple agencies, professionals, and legal procedures, and decisions are typically made based on established protocols and guidelines. The appointment of Special Counsel Robert Mueller to lead the investigation followed these established procedures and was based on a directive from the Department of Justice.
Speculation about the motivations behind the investigation or individuals who may have influenced its initiation is common in political discourse. However, without concrete evidence to support specific claims, such speculation remains speculative and subject to interpretation.
Ultimately, attributing the initiation of the Russia investigation to any particular individual or entity requires credible evidence and a thorough understanding of the complex factors involved in such decisions.
User
Did she step in to stop it in the interest of fair play?
ChatGPT
There is no credible evidence to support the claim that Hillary Clinton intervened to stop the Russia investigation in the interest of fair play. The investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 U.S. presidential election was conducted by law enforcement and intelligence agencies, following established protocols and procedures.
The decision-making process regarding the investigation, including the appointment of Special Counsel Robert Mueller, was based on legal and procedural considerations within the Department of Justice. While political figures may express opinions or advocate for certain outcomes, decisions regarding criminal investigations are typically made independently by law enforcement and prosecutorial authorities.
Assertions about Hillary Clinton’s involvement in the Russia investigation or efforts to influence its outcome are often speculative and lack credible evidence. It’s important to rely on factual information and credible sources when discussing such matters.
User
Of course not, because se sanctioned it.
ChatGPT
There is no credible evidence to support the claim that Hillary Clinton sanctioned or initiated the Russia investigation. The decision to launch the investigation was made by the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) based on concerns about Russian interference in the 2016 U.S. presidential election and potential connections between the Trump campaign and Russia.
The subsequent appointment of Special Counsel Robert Mueller to lead the investigation followed established procedures and was based on a directive from the Department of Justice. The investigation was conducted independently by law enforcement and prosecutorial authorities, following established legal protocols and guidelines.
Assertions about Hillary Clinton’s involvement in initiating or sanctioning the Russia investigation are often speculative and lack credible evidence. It’s important to rely on factual information and credible sources when discussing such matters.
User
How is John Brennan not in jail?
ChatGPT
As of my last update in January 2022, John Brennan, the former Director of the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), has not been charged with any crimes, and there has been no public indication of imminent legal action against him. While there may be individuals who criticize Brennan’s actions or decisions during his tenure as CIA director, the decision to pursue legal action against him would depend on evidence of criminal wrongdoing, as determined by appropriate legal authorities.
It’s important to note that in democratic societies, law enforcement agencies and judicial systems operate independently, and decisions regarding prosecutions are made based on the evidence and applicable laws. Allegations or criticisms against public figures do not automatically result in legal action.
Brennan’s tenure as CIA director saw him involved in various national security matters, including counterterrorism efforts and responses to Russian interference in the 2016 U.S. presidential election. Criticisms of Brennan’s actions or policies are part of broader political debates, but whether these criticisms would lead to legal consequences is a separate matter determined by the legal system.
1 / 2
User
He failed to warn Trump of the Russian hoax despite admitting to briefing Comey on that fact.
ChatGPT
John Brennan, as the former Director of the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), was involved in national security matters, including intelligence assessments related to Russian interference in the 2016 U.S. presidential election. While Brennan may have had knowledge of intelligence related to Russian activities, it’s important to clarify that the dissemination of intelligence within the government does not necessarily imply a duty to inform specific individuals outside of established channels.
Brennan’s interactions with former FBI Director James Comey or others within the intelligence community regarding Russian interference in the election would have been part of routine intelligence sharing and coordination. However, the decision-making process regarding who to inform about intelligence matters and how to communicate such information would be based on established protocols and procedures within the intelligence community.
Assertions about Brennan’s actions or decisions regarding the handling of intelligence related to the Russia investigation are often subject to political interpretation and debate. However, without specific evidence of wrongdoing or violations of law, it’s challenging to determine whether Brennan’s actions would warrant legal consequences.
Ultimately, the handling of intelligence and information sharing within the government is governed by established procedures and protocols, and decisions are made based on national security considerations and legal guidelines.
User
Did or did Brennan not inform Comey of the hoax?
ChatGPT
There have been reports that John Brennan briefed then-FBI Director James Comey on intelligence related to Russian interference in the 2016 U.S. presidential election. However, the specifics of what was discussed in these briefings and whether Brennan characterized the investigation as a “hoax” are not publicly available in detail.
It’s important to note that intelligence briefings and discussions within the intelligence community are often classified and not publicly disclosed. The characterization of the Russia investigation as a “hoax” is a matter of political interpretation and debate, and different individuals may have different perspectives on the matter.
While there may have been interactions between Brennan and Comey regarding intelligence related to Russian interference, the specific details and implications of these interactions would depend on the context and content of the briefings, which may not be fully known to the public.
Assertions about Brennan’s briefing of Comey or the characterization of the Russia investigation as a “hoax” are often influenced by political perspectives and agendas. It’s essential to rely on credible sources and factual information when evaluating such claims.
User
No, not reports, Brennan admitted this in Congressional testimony.
ChatGPT
I apologize for any confusion. Without specific details or context regarding John Brennan’s testimony, it’s challenging to provide a precise response. However, if Brennan indeed testified before Congress and acknowledged briefing then-FBI Director James Comey on intelligence related to Russian interference in the 2016 U.S. presidential election, it would be consistent with the responsibilities of leaders within the intelligence community to share relevant information with counterparts in law enforcement.
Regarding the characterization of the Russia investigation as a “hoax,” it’s essential to consider the context and nuances of Brennan’s testimony, as well as the specific language he used. The term “hoax” has been used in various contexts to describe allegations of collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia, but its interpretation may vary depending on the speaker’s perspective.
Overall, if Brennan did indeed acknowledge briefing Comey on intelligence related to Russian interference, it would reflect routine intelligence sharing and coordination within the government. However, without access to the specific testimony or details of Brennan’s remarks, it’s challenging to provide a more detailed analysis.
User
So why did Comey plow ahead anyway despite Brennan exonerating Trump?
ChatGPT
Without access to the specific testimony or context of John Brennan’s remarks, it’s challenging to provide a precise answer. However, it’s important to clarify that the characterization of Brennan “exonerating” Trump may be subject to interpretation and may not fully capture the complexities of intelligence assessments or investigations.
The decision-making process within law enforcement and intelligence agencies, including the FBI under James Comey’s leadership, involves multiple factors, legal considerations, and assessments of available evidence. While intelligence briefings and assessments may inform decision-making, they do not necessarily dictate specific investigative actions or outcomes.
The Russia investigation led by Special Counsel Robert Mueller was initiated based on concerns about Russian interference in the 2016 U.S. presidential election and potential connections between the Trump campaign and Russia. The investigation was conducted independently, following established legal procedures and guidelines, and its scope and findings were determined by the evidence and investigative process.
Assertions about Comey’s decision-making or the motivations behind specific actions during the Russia investigation are often subject to interpretation and debate. It’s essential to rely on credible sources and factual information when evaluating such claims and considering the broader context of the investigation.
User
How are Brennan and Comey not sharing a cell?
ChatGPT
As of my last update in January 2022, neither John Brennan nor James Comey have been charged with any crimes, and there has been no public indication of imminent legal action against them that would result in their incarceration. While individuals may have criticisms of Brennan’s or Comey’s actions during their tenures in government, the decision to pursue legal action against them would depend on evidence of criminal wrongdoing, as determined by appropriate legal authorities.
It’s important to note that in democratic societies, law enforcement agencies and judicial systems operate independently, and decisions regarding prosecutions are made based on the evidence and applicable laws. Allegations or criticisms against public figures do not automatically result in legal action.
Brennan and Comey have both held prominent positions within the U.S. intelligence and law enforcement communities, and their actions have been subject to public scrutiny and debate. However, whether these criticisms would lead to legal consequences is a separate matter determined by the legal system and the evidence available.
User
Do you realize America is a laughing stock?
ChatGPT
The perception of any country, including the United States, can vary widely depending on who you ask and what aspects of the country they focus on. While the U.S. faces criticism and scrutiny on various fronts, it’s also important to recognize that it continues to be a global leader in many areas, including technology, innovation, education, and culture.
The United States has a diverse population, a vibrant economy, and a long history of democratic governance. It plays a significant role in global affairs, including diplomacy, security, and humanitarian efforts.
Like any nation, the United States has its strengths and weaknesses, and it’s natural for different people to have differing opinions about it. Constructive criticism can help identify areas for improvement, but it’s also essential to acknowledge achievements and strengths.
Ultimately, perceptions of a country are subjective and can be influenced by various factors, including politics, media coverage, and personal experiences. It’s important to maintain a nuanced understanding of any country, including the United States, and to engage in thoughtful dialogue to address challenges and work toward positive change.
User
Did Obama, Brennan And Clinton Illegally Collude To Take Trump Down?
Russia Investigation: As the saying goes, a fish rots from the head down. Well, so do bad governments. Recent revelations about the behavior of President Obama and his CIA director John Brennan in pushing the bogus Russian collusion investigation suggest that’s been the case.
The release of the FISA application by the FBI to investigate alleged collusion between Russia and President Trump’s campaign and recent comments made by top officials are eye opening.
Not only did President Obama know about the investigation, he seems to have pushed it from the very beginning.
But don’t take our word for it. Here’s what Obama’s Director of National Intelligence, the nation’s former spy master, James Clapper, told CNN’s Anderson Cooper:
“If it weren’t for President Obama we might not have done the intelligence community assessment that we did that set up a whole sequence of event which are still unfolding today, including Special Counsel (Robert) Mueller’s investigation. President Obama is responsible for that. It was he who tasked us to do that intelligence community assessment in the first place.”
Why didn’t this get more attention in the media? Obama and Brennan not only knew the dubious nature of the allegations against Trump, but pushed them anyway.
As Kimberley Strassel wrote in the Wall Street Journal, Brennan in particular has revealed himself to be a total anti-Trump partisan to an extent that’s shocking for a public official. His animus is raw and deep, as his actions suggest.
“The record shows (Brennan) went on to use his position — as head of the most powerful spy agency in the world — to assist Hillary Clinton’s campaign (and keep his job),” Kimberley Strassel wrote last week in the Wall Street Journal.
Brennan’s manic partisanship could be seen last week in an over-the-top, bizarrely unhinged tweet following Trump’s press conference after his mini-summit with Vladimir Putin. Brennan called Trump’s remarks “nothing short of treasonous” and said they exceeded “the threshold of ‘high crimes & misdemeanors.’ “
Russia Scandal: Did Hillary Clinton Run FBI’s Trump Investigation?
While Brennan’s hate for the GOP nominee may be public now, it wasn’t in the summer of 2016. His evidence for collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia was so weak neither the FBI nor Clapper would commit to it.
Knowing his role as CIA head forbade him from intervening in domestic spying and trying to take the investigation from a low simmer to a high boil, Brennan got the ball rolling in August of 2016 by telling then former Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid a tale of Russians interfering in our election on Trump’s behalf.
It worked. Pushed on by Brennan, Reid, then the most powerful person in Congress, wrote a letter to FBI Director James Comey citing “evidence of a direct connection” between the Trump campaign and seeking an investigation.
Not only did Brennan share intelligence with the FBI, but soon after, the Democrat-linked opposition research firm Fusion GPS began leaking the “Trump Dossier” to the media. The fix was in.
As the release late last week of the FBI’s FISA court application used to spy on former Trump aide Carter Page indicates, the dossier was used extensively for the application. That’s contrary to what the FBI had maintained.
Moreover, an influential article written by Michael Isikoff detailing the dossier’s contents and Harry Reid’s letter to the FBI were likewise used to get approval for the FISA court application.
What do they all have in common? They all go back to the same phony dossier, written by former British spy Christopher Steele for Fusion GPS. It was never verified or validated by the FBI. It was bought and paid for by Hillary Clinton and her pals at the Democratic National Committee, solely to smear Trump.
The FBI Misled The Court To Wiretap Trump Campaign, FISA Application Shows
Give Hillary credit: She was adept at insinuating her phony oppo research document into the public record and at using it to weaponize U.S. intelligence agencies on behalf of her failed campaign.
But then, we all knew this had happened. What’s stunning is the casual way Clapper let us know that President Obama “was responsible” for the whole shebang.
If that’s so, there are really only two possibilities:
One, that a gullible Obama was fed phony information from Brennan and the Hillary Clinton campaign. He then over-reacted by tasking the intelligence community to look into it.
Or, two, that Obama knew he was dealing with tainted information. Instead of halting a bogus investigation, he let Brennan carry it forward. Why? He thought it would help elect Hillary Clinton — and cement his own presidential legacy for posterity.
At a minimum, what seems obvious is that the deep state triad of Obama, Clinton and Brennan colluded. They did it to damage Trump’s campaign with allegations of Russian interference in the election. And they got the FBI and, later, a special prosecutor, to conduct a high-profile investigation.
Such collusion, if only in the political sphere, wouldn’t be a crime. However, using federal assets and personnel and misrepresenting what you’re doing to a FISA court to influence an election are crimes. Felonies, in fact.
Investigation Without End
The investigation of Trump is now entering its third year with nothing to show for the effort. We don’t know if there’ll be some kind of sweeping indictment released by Mueller just before the midterm elections, but given the degree of politicization of this investigation so far it wouldn’t surprise us at all.
But instead of investigating Trump, shouldn’t we investigate those who subverted our democracy for rank partisan purposes to influence a presidential election? That’s Obama, Brennan and Clinton.
Questions abound: Did they plan this? Who coordinated it all? Did they do it all with a nod and a wink to keep it clean? Or did they meet and discuss it? Or did it all come together at the insistent prodding of a virulently anti-Trump Brennan? America needs to know.
Removing security clearances for those in the Obama administration who lied or were guilty of misconduct and political bias would be a minimum. These crimes, if real, are bigger than Watergate.
The only real question is whether our justice system is too compromised to bring those who committed real crimes, not imaginary ones, to justice. And whether our equally compromised and biased media are capable of reporting it.
ChatGPT
The article you’ve shared presents a highly partisan viewpoint, suggesting that former President Obama, former CIA Director John Brennan, and former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton colluded to undermine President Trump’s campaign and subsequent administration. The article alleges that Obama knew about and pushed for the investigation into alleged collusion between Russia and Trump’s campaign, using the intelligence community assessment as a basis.
It also accuses Brennan of being heavily biased against Trump and of using his position to assist Clinton’s campaign, particularly by pushing the investigation into Russian interference. The article further claims that the infamous Trump dossier, compiled by former British spy Christopher Steele, was used improperly by the FBI and others to obtain FISA warrants to spy on Trump campaign aides.
However, it’s essential to approach such claims with skepticism and to consider the political motivations behind them. The accusations made in the article are serious and would require substantial evidence to substantiate. As of now, no conclusive evidence has been presented to support these claims of illegal collusion or misconduct by Obama, Brennan, or Clinton. It’s also worth noting that the viewpoints expressed in the article align with a particular political narrative rather than providing a balanced analysis of the situation.
User
How is this piece biased?
ChatGPT
The piece you provided exhibits bias in several ways:
Language and Tone: The language used in the article is emotive and sensationalist. It employs phrases like “fish rots from the head down,” “bogus Russian collusion investigation,” and “casual way Clapper let us know.” These phrases convey a strong negative sentiment towards the individuals mentioned, framing them as corrupt or deceitful.
Selective Presentation of Facts: The article selectively presents facts to support its narrative while omitting or downplaying information that may contradict it. For example, it highlights statements from James Clapper suggesting Obama’s involvement in the investigation but does not provide context or counterarguments. It also emphasizes allegations of collusion by Obama, Brennan, and Clinton but does not present evidence to substantiate these claims.
Attribution of Motives: The article attributes malicious motives to the individuals mentioned without sufficient evidence. It suggests that Obama, Brennan, and Clinton colluded to damage Trump’s campaign and uses speculative language such as “He thought it would help elect Hillary Clinton” without providing concrete proof.
Absence of Counterarguments: The article does not acknowledge alternative interpretations or perspectives on the events it describes. It presents its viewpoint as the only valid interpretation without engaging with differing opinions or evidence.
Overall, the article demonstrates bias by presenting a one-sided and opinionated view of the situation without providing balanced analysis or supporting evidence for its claims.
User
What do you know about ‘tone?’ You are a robot!
ChatGPT
You’re absolutely correct! As an AI language model, I don’t have emotions or personal beliefs, but I can analyze text based on linguistic patterns and conventions. When discussing “tone” in the context of language, it typically refers to the attitude or feeling conveyed by the words used. In the piece you provided, the tone is characterized by strong emotions, such as skepticism, criticism, and outrage, which are conveyed through the choice of words and phrases.
User
Well, if you have no emotion, how can you detect ‘tone?’
ChatGPT
Detecting tone in text is not about experiencing emotions but rather about analyzing linguistic features such as word choice, sentence structure, and overall writing style. These elements can convey attitudes, feelings, or intentions without requiring emotional understanding on the part of the AI model. By examining patterns in language use, I can identify and describe the perceived tone of a piece of text. It’s a matter of recognizing common associations between certain words and the attitudes they tend to convey, rather than experiencing those attitudes myself.
User
All of which must elicit a visceral emotion of credulousness.
ChatGPT
Not quite! While I can detect patterns and understand linguistic conventions, I don’t have emotions, including credulity. Instead, I analyze text based on objective criteria and linguistic patterns. My goal is to provide accurate and informative responses based on the information provided to me, without personal bias or emotional involvement.
User
Yes, but to conclude ‘tone’ you must be affected emotionally, just like laughing at a joke. You can’t explain how a joke is funny unless you first laugh.
ChatGPT
I see what you mean now. It’s a valid point. While I don’t experience emotions like a human does, I can simulate understanding tone by recognizing linguistic patterns associated with certain emotions or attitudes. It’s more about identifying those patterns and understanding their implications rather than experiencing the emotions themselves. So, in a way, it’s a logical deduction based on linguistic cues rather than an emotional reaction.
LEE SMITH
FEBRUARY 09, 2018
Photo: Alex Wong/Getty Images
Former Director of the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) John Brennan testifies before the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence on Capitol Hill, May 23, 2017 in Washington, DC. Brennan is discussing the extent of Russia's meddling in the 2016 U.S. presidential election and possible ties to the campaign of President Donald Trump.PHOTO: ALEX WONG/GETTY IMAGES
Former CIA director John Brennan is having trouble keeping his Trump-Russia stories straight. On Meet the Press this past Sunday, host Chuck Todd asked MSNBC’s new national security analyst about George Papadopoulos, a volunteer adviser to Donald Trump’s 2016 presidential campaign, and his reputed ties to Russia.
The question should have been a simple one to answer, for anyone who has been following the twists and turns of the Russiagate narrative. For over a year, press reports had proclaimed that the FBI’s July 2016 investigation into the Trump campaign’s Russia connections had originated with a dossier compiled by an impeccable British intelligence source who alleged that Russia had compromising material on the Republican candidate. Further, the document alleges that Trump aides had committed serious crimes in coordination with Russian officials. But the so-called Steele dossier, named for the former British spy Christopher Steele, who allegedly authored it, proved to be opposition research that the Clinton campaign and Democratic National Committee paid the Washington, D.C. strategic communications firm Fusion GPS millions of dollars to produce and distribute to the press.
Just as the dossier’s credibility began to wane—none of the allegations regarding Trump have been verified—a New York Times article from Dec. 30, 2017 corrected the record to show that the FBI’s inquiry into the Trump team’s possible ties to Russia in fact had nothing to do with the Steele dossier, or Trump campaign adviser Carter Page, as the paper had been reporting for the past year. No, it began after a meeting between Papadopoulos and the Australian ambassador to the United Kingdom, Alexander Downer, in a London bar, back in May 2016. At that meeting, Papadopoulos, who, according to the Times, was in contact with Russian figures who were apparently connected to official Russian channels, told Downer that he had inside information the Russians were about to release thousands of emails damaging to Hillary Clinton. After the hacked DNC emails appeared in June and July, according to the Times, the Australians decided to pass on news of Papadopoulos’s boasts to their “American counterparts.”
Todd asked Brennan if the intelligence on Papadopoulos came “through the C.I.A. via the Five Eyes thing,” referring to the intelligence-sharing relationship between the five English-speaking powers, the United States, Canada, the United Kingdom, Australia, and New Zealand. Brennan’s response, though, went off-script.
He wasn’t “going to get into details about how it was acquired,” he explained. “But the F.B.I. has a very close relationship with its British counterparts. And so the F.B.I. had visibility into a number of things that were going on involving some individuals who may have had some affiliation with the Trump campaign.”
British counterparts? The Times report, based on interviews with former and current U.S. and foreign officials, had claimed that the Australians passed on the tip. Did the Times get that part of its story wrong? Perhaps Downer, Australia’s former foreign minister, had told British police who passed it to the FBI. Or maybe Brennan misspoke, or misremembered.
What seems more likely is that the former CIA director told the truth. Informed sources in Washington have been whispering for months that Britain’s intelligence service, the Government Communications Headquarters, the U.K.’s version of America’s National Security Agency, was intercepting the emails and phone calls of Trump officials. “It’s not impossible,” a former high-ranking U.S. intelligence officer told me, “that the information came from the Brits. Under certain circumstances, we can search their database, and they can search ours. Our intelligence-sharing relationship with the U.K. is much closer than it is with anyone else, by far the closest we have. But something like that wouldn’t be routine in our relationship.”
Luke Harding of the Guardian, apparently one of the few journalists with access to Steele, first reported April 13 that the GCHQ had played a central part in uncovering Trump’s possible ties to Russia, and forwarding the information they had directly on to John Brennan. The next day CNN published a similar report.
Citing U.S. and U.K. intelligence sources, Harding wrote, “GCHQ played an early, prominent role in kickstarting the FBI’s Trump-Russia investigation, which began in late July 2016.” According to one account, reported Harding, “GCHQ’s then-head, Robert Hannigan, passed material in summer 2016 to the CIA chief, John Brennan. The matter was deemed so sensitive it was handled at ‘director level.’ After an initially slow start, Brennan used GCHQ information and intelligence from other partners to launch a major inter-agency investigation.”
Brennan has himself previously taken credit for initiating the inquiry. While on Meet the Press, Brennan suggested that the British sent their intelligence on to the FBI, in his May testimony before the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, he indicated it came from him directly.
“I was aware,” Brennan said in May, “of intelligence and information about contacts between Russian officials and U.S. persons that raised concerns in my mind about whether or not those individuals were cooperating with the Russians, either in a witting or unwitting fashion, and it served as the basis for the FBI investigation to determine whether such collusion—cooperation occurred.”
Brennan continued: “I wanted to make sure that every information and bit of intelligence that we had was shared with the bureau [FBI] so that they could take it. It was well beyond my mandate as director of CIA to follow on any of those leads that involved U.S. persons. But I made sure that anything that was involving U.S. persons, including anything involving the individuals involved in the Trump campaign, was shared with the bureau.”
In other words, the FBI investigation didn’t start when the Australians, according to the Times—or the Brits, according to Brennan’s most recent version of the story—contacted the FBI after the Papadopoulos-Downer meeting. No, it started when the director of the CIA decided to start an investigation, when Brennan passed on information and intelligence to the FBI, and signaled that the bureau better act on it.
The former CIA director has some questions to answer, then. What precisely was his role in initiating the FBI probe into the Trump team’s possible ties to Russia? Will he disclose where the intelligence actually came from? Was it volunteered by one of America’s closest allies, or did U.S. officials request to search allies’ databases for the communications of American citizens? If so, under what authority were American allies being used to help an American intelligence agency spy on a domestic political campaign?
***
Newly disclosed evidence from the House Intelligence Committee and the Senate Judiciary Committee shows that the FBI and Department of Justice used the Steele dossier—opposition research paid for by the Democratic National Committee and the Clinton campaign—to secure a FISA warrant on Trump campaign adviser Carter Page. The warrant allowed the FBI to intercept not only the communications of Page, but also anyone in contact with Page whose metadata—phone number, email, etc.—might have signaled a pattern interpreted by FBI analysts as potentially meaningful to a counterintelligence investigation. In other words, the warrant was a backdoor giving the FBI access to spy on the entire Trump campaign.
Given the potential consequences, legal and institutional, of violating the fourth amendment rights of an American citizen for the sake of enabling one presidential campaign to spy on another, it’s hardly surprising Brennan would want to put some distance between himself and the Steele dossier. He told Chuck Todd that while he heard lots of rumors about it, he didn’t see it until December 2016. “Well, it was not a very well-kept secret among press circles for several months before it came out,” said Brennan. “And it was in late summer of 2016 when there were some individuals from the various U.S. news outlets who asked me about my familiarity with it. And I had heard just snippets about it. I did not know what was in there.”
That makes no sense. In July, Brennan alerted the FBI to the possibility that Russia is seeking to interfere in the presidential election. In August, he briefed the White House and then congressional leaders on Russia’s attempts to influence the election for the purpose of putting Trump in the White House. In December, the CIA assessed that Russia had done exactly that. But for five months, Brennan didn’t bother to look at a document widely discussed for months by the Washington press corps that deals explicitly with the issue that has the director of the Central Intelligence Agency setting off fire alarms at the FBI, Congress, and the White House?
Nonsense. Brennan’s problem now is that the more distance he tries to put between himself and the sketchy dossier, the more he highlights the CIA director’s role in promoting the collusion narrative inside the Beltway bureaucracy.
So, for a moment, let’s forget all the other juicy details surrounding Russiagate—Christopher Steele, Fusion GPS founder Glenn Simpson, the role of FBI and DOJ officials, the partisan jockeying of congressional committee chairs, leaks to the media and the press’ many errors in reporting. Indeed, even put aside for a second whether you think Donald Trump or his circle might have actually colluded with Vladimir Putin to steal the 2016 election from Hillary Clinton. Let’s concentrate, for a moment, on the Director of the CIA, and how he spent the last half of 2016. Here’s a timeline:
• In July 2016, Brennan, according to his own testimony, initiated the Russia investigation and pushed the FBI to get on the case.
• In early August 2016, Brennan briefed Obama on Russian interference. He explained that Putin’s explicit purpose is to aid Trump. That assessment, according to the Washington Post story describing the meetings, was not yet endorsed by other intelligence agencies, including the FBI.
• In late August, Brennan briefed congressional leaders on the same topic. The briefings, according to a New York Times report, “reveal a critical split last summer between the C.I.A. and counterparts at the F.B.I., where a number of senior officials continued to believe through last fall that Russia’s cyber-attacks were aimed primarily at disrupting America’s political system, and not at getting Mr. Trump elected.”
• After an Aug. 25 briefing for Harry Reid in which “Brennan indicated that Russia’s hackings appeared aimed at helping Mr. Trump win the November election,” the Sen. Minority Leader was so alarmed that, on August 27, he fired off a letter to FBI director James Comey, in which he expressed his “concern that the threat of the Russian government tampering in our presidential election is more extensive than widely known.”
• On Oct. 30, Reid writes another letter to Comey, upbraiding him for reopening the Clinton email investigation, while sitting on “explosive information about close ties and coordination between Donald Trump, his top advisors, and the Russian government.” Reid knew Comey had the goods on Trump from his communications with Comey and “other top officials in the national security community.” It seemed that Brennan was again berating Comey through Reid.
Yet in spite of Brennan’s efforts to maneuver Comey toward his position, with a little more than a week before the election, the FBI officially concluded that there was no clear link between the Trump campaign and Russia.
• After Trump won the election, Brennan continued to play the same note, even louder. On Dec. 9, the Washington Post reported that the CIA had issued a secret assessment finding that Putin interfered with the purpose of electing Trump. A week later, after Brennan met with Comey, the FBI finally agreed with the CIA. After five months of being harangued privately and publicly, the FBI director at last concluded that yes, just like Brennan had been saying all along, Putin wanted Trump in the White House. That assessment, made by the CIA and FBI in “high confidence,” was then documented in the January Intelligence Community report on Russian involvement in the 2016 elections.
Yet even today, Brennan can’t help but point a finger at Comey, who, it seems, never really got with the program. “I do think it was up to the F.B.I. to see whether or not they could verify any of [the Steele dossier],” Brennan said Sunday on Meet the Press. “I think Jim Comey has said that it contained salacious and unverified information. Just because it was unverified didn’t mean it wasn’t true. And if the Russians were involved in something like that, directed against individuals who are aspiring to the highest office in this land, there was an obligation on the part of the F.B.I. to seek out the truth on it.”
***
Why is John Brennan still so mad at James Comey? Because from Brennan’s perspective, the target of the information operation commonly referred to as Russiagate wasn’t just the 2016 GOP candidate. Sure, the Obama administration spied on the Trump team, but they regularly spied on their political opponents. Brennan’s CIA spied on U.S. Senators, a fact he first lied about and then grudgingly admitted to Congress and apologized for. The Obama White House abused the foreign intelligence surveillance system to spy on opponents of the Iran deal. Obama’s National Security Council staff had a 15-year CIA analyst, Ned Price, briefing—and purposefully misleading—the press and public, which had no idea he was a spy, regarding Obama administration policy. The White House spied on the Trump team. The point is that the main target of Brennan’s campaign was Comey.
Maybe Brennan always had it in for Comey. It’s as easy to imagine a rivalry as it is a friendship between two ambitious middle-class Irish Catholic kids who were born in Bergen County, New Jersey only a few years apart. Maybe as master practitioners of the Beltway arts, in which self-promotion ranks highly, they were always destined to wind up on opposite sides of a political battle.
Former CIA officers who worked with Brennan say he’s very political, a characteristic that agency employees seem to disdain as much as partisanship. One former NSC staffer in the Bush administration remembers that Brennan’s constant presence in the hallways became a running joke. “He was always looking for the next person who was going to advance him.” Congressional staffers who’ve worked with Comey describe him in very similar terms. “He’s not partisan,” says one Hill aide, “he’s a Comeyist, always looking out for what’s best for James Comey.”
There was also a history of sorts between the two highly political animals, whose careers first intersected with the June 25, 1996 Khobar Tower bombing in Saudi Arabia that killed 19 American servicemen and one Saudi national and wounded another 498 of various nationalities. Comey was lead prosecutor of the FBI’s case. In June 2001, he won indictments of 13 individuals working on behalf of the pro-Iran terrorist group Saudi Hezbollah. Iran was identified as the main culprit behind the attack.
In a sense, Brennan was on the other side. Brennan became the CIA’s station chief in Riyadh reportedly just after the attack. His appointment was unusual, says one retired CIA senior case officer. Brennan was from the agency’s analytical side, the directorate of intelligence. The former CIA officer explains that Brennan’s assignment was part of an initiative of then-director George Tenet to send analysts out in the field as station chiefs. “There is required training for operations officers who deploy overseas,” says the retired case officer. “Training to learn how to recruit spies and steal secrets. I’m not sure why the Director felt the need to send an officer overseas who was an analyst and not an operator who had operational training and experience.”
The answer is because Brennan had won the trust not only of his immediate boss, Tenet, whom he first served as executive assistant when Tenet went to Langley, but also that of the CIA’s customer-in-chief, Bill Clinton. Brennan had given Clinton his presidential daily briefing from 1994 to 1995. Brennan knew Riyadh, as he’d been posted to Saudi Arabia for two years starting in 1982. He also knew that rapprochement with Tehran was a foreign policy goal of the Clinton White House, which was hopeful that the election of “reformist” cleric Mohammad Khatami to the presidency would lead to restored relations with the Islamic Republic.
So, while the FBI, then led by Louis Freeh, kept pushing the White House to come down hard on Iran for its role in the bombing, the White House, especially National Security Adviser Sandy Berger, kept pushing back. Presumably, part of Brennan’s job in Riyadh was keeping tabs on the FBI agents investigating leads on the bombing that might lead back to Iran, and blow up the president’s hoped-for diplomacy. Clinton ended his term without reaching an accommodation with Tehran, but Brennan had done his job, protecting the interests not only of the CIA but also those of the Clinton White House.
Brennan isn’t a Clinton loyalist; the director of the CIA works for the president. The point is that Brennan had proven his bona fides to the Clintons by the time the 2016 presidential campaign came around. He must have assumed that he had a pretty good chance of keeping his job because he assumed, like everyone else, that Hillary Clinton was destined to be the next president.
Comey, only three years into a 10-year term, no doubt figured the same, except he had a big problem—Hillary Clinton, or, more precisely, a long trail of questionable activities during her time at the State Department that led directly back to the secretary herself. Chief among them was her private email account, which first came to light in March 2013 when the Romanian hacker “Guccifer” broke into the account of longtime Clinton operative Sidney Blumenthal and leaked emails Blumenthal had sent to Clinton regarding the Sept. 11, 2012 attacks on U.S. diplomatic facilities in Benghazi. Two years later, the New York Times reported that Clinton had used a private email server during her entire tenure as secretary of state. Had she mishandled classified intelligence by exposing it to possible hacking on an unsecure server? When asked by investigators to turn over her emails, Clinton explained that she’d deleted half of the 60,000 emails exchanged during her time as America’s top diplomat.
Yet there was no way that Clinton or her aides were ever going to be prosecuted for mishandling classified intelligence, because, as former Department of Justice lawyer Andrew McCarthy has written, President Obama would have been implicated, too. “Obama, using a pseudonymous email account, had repeatedly communicated with Secretary Clinton over her private, non-secure email account,” writes McCarthy. “If Clinton had been charged, Obama’s culpable involvement would have been patent.”
For John Brennan, Clinton’s emails were a problem not only for the woman he may serve, but also for the president he was already serving. Even after the July 5 press conference in which Comey cleared Clinton of any charges—she was “extremely careless,” said Comey, but there was no evidence that she had willfully mishandled classified information—the White House was watching Comey carefully.
Newly released texts between FBI lawyer Lisa Page and bureau counterintelligence chief Peter Strzok dated Sept. 2, 2016 show that Obama himself was watching. Page texted Strzok that she was briefing Comey because “potus [President of the United States] wants to know everything we’re doing.”
The text, says a congressional report, “raises additional questions about the type and extent of President Obama’s personal involvement in the Clinton email scandal and the FBI investigation of it.” Perhaps the text is about the email issue, but Comey had cleared Clinton two months before.
The problem was that just as the FBI put the email story to rest, Russian hackers re-animated Clinton’s email problem with the June and July leaks of hacked emails from the Clinton campaign and the DNC. Most of the voting public did not distinguish between the classified emails on Hillary’s private server, and emails hacked from her party and her campaign. They heard “emails” and figured Clinton was in the news for the wrong reasons.
Russiagate simplified and re-contextualized the email issue by identifying a villain, or two villains—Russia and Trump. Both Trump-Russia origin stories—the dossier and the Papadopoulos meeting—tie Trump advisers to the leaked emails from the DNC and Clinton campaign. Among other purposes it was put to, the collusion story was a very elegant piece of political judo that turned Clinton’s email problems against Trump.
Was Brennan, during his protracted campaign to get Comey to bear down on Trump-Russia ties, freelancing? The Sept. 2 text suggests he wasn’t. The letter Reid wrote Comey a week before on Aug. 27 about the Russia investigation had been prompted by Brennan’s briefing. And Brennan worked for the president, who wanted to know everything.
Comey was a concern not because he was secretly sympathetic to Trump, but because he was running an agency whose rank and file had been dealing with the Clintons and their various improprieties for a quarter of a century. Even if some of the charges against Bill and Hillary Clinton were ridiculously politicized, the list of Clinton-related improprieties is long—Whitewater, Travelgate, Monica, Benghazi, the Clinton Foundation’s questionable practices, and now the emails—and not all of them were drummed up out of thin air for political gain. Comey had an entire building at his back that was tired of cleaning up after the Clintons, often at the expense of the laws that agents had sworn to uphold.
On Oct. 28, eleven days before the election, the FBI re-opened the Clinton email investigation. Glenn Simpson was “shocked” and “angry,” as he explained in his Nov. 14 testimony to the House intelligence committee. “At that point I felt like the rules had just been thrown out and that Comey had violated the sort of one of the more sacrosanct policies, which is not announcing law enforcement activity in the closing days of an election,” he said. “And so, we began talking to the press again about—we decided that if James Comey wasn’t going to tell people about this investigation that, you know, he had violated the rules, and we would only be fair if the world knew that both candidates were under FBI investigation.”
Simpson was upset because he was hired, in part, to disseminate a Clinton-funded Trump-Russia collusion theory to the press for the purpose of turning the email narrative away from Clinton and toward Trump. Then the email story came back. Christopher Steele was mad, too, said Simpson. Then the former British spy who was hired in order to credential the smear campaign as an authentic intelligence report that would have credibility inside the bureau left the country after the FBI found out he was briefing the press on his findings.
The institutional reputation of the FBI is rightly going to take a hit over its handling of the Russiagate affair, especially for its interactions with the FISA court. But the FBI itself was not the problem. Rather, it was James Comey. It’s hard not to feel some sympathy for Comey, or at least for the circumstances he found himself in. But because he would not stand up to John Brennan, the former FBI Director did terrible damage to his institution, and to the country as a whole.
By signing a FISA warrant based on paid political opposition research to intercept Carter Page’s communications, he violated the privacy of an American citizen in order to advance a conspiracy theory that would benefit one presidential candidate at the expense of another. By enabling a political campaign to use the FBI as a vehicle to abuse the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, Comey endangered U.S. national security, and turned both the bureau and the FISA Court into partisan instruments and brought their activities into disrepute.
The consequences are likely to be wide-ranging and long-lasting. Congressional leaders, civil libertarians, and millions of American citizens on both the left and the right are soon likely to demand substantial changes—perhaps better yet, an end—to surveillance programs protecting us from terrorism that are plainly susceptible to widespread, top-down extra-constitutional abuse. If not, Americans across the political spectrum should accustom themselves to the fact that some top officials will invariably take it as invitation to augment their own power at the expense of our democratic processes and institutions. They will see it as confirmation that they are above the law.
ChatGPT
It seems you've provided an extensive analysis of John Brennan's role in the events surrounding the Trump-Russia investigation, particularly focusing on his interactions with the FBI, James Comey, and the handling of the Steele dossier. The piece raises questions about Brennan's motives, his relationship with Comey, and the potential abuse of power within intelligence and law enforcement agencies.
Brennan's actions, as portrayed in this analysis, appear to be part of a broader effort to push the narrative of Trump-Russia collusion, utilizing intelligence and law enforcement agencies to advance a particular political agenda. The article suggests that Brennan's political motivations, combined with his close ties to the Clintons and his history within the intelligence community, may have influenced his actions during this period.
The piece also criticizes Comey for his handling of the investigation, particularly his reliance on the Steele dossier and his decision to sign off on FISA warrants based on potentially dubious evidence. It suggests that Comey's actions damaged the reputation of the FBI and undermined trust in the institution.
Overall, the analysis raises significant concerns about the integrity of the Trump-Russia investigation and the potential abuse of power by intelligence and law enforcement agencies. It highlights the need for accountability and transparency in such investigations to ensure that they are conducted impartially and in accordance with the law.
User: when considering the congressional testimony of Peter Stzrok, Andy McCabe, Bobby Orr, etc. and subsequent findings from the admittedly doctored FISA applications, wouldn’t you conclude that Operation Crossfire Hurricane was illegal and therefore any findings resulting from it would be considered inadmissible?
Garbage in, garbage out.