BREAKING: DNI Declassifies Handwritten Notes From John Brennan, 2016 CIA Referral On Clinton Campaign’s Collusion Operation

• Collusion

On Tuesday, Director of National Intelligence John Ratcliffe declassified and released to Congress handwritten notes from former CIA Director John Brennan as well as a CIA investigative referral to James Comey and Peter Strzok requesting that they investigate Russian knowledge of Hillary Clinton's anti-Trump collusion smear operation.

By Sean Davis

October 6, 2020

Top U.S. intelligence officials were so concerned heading into the 2016 election that the Russians were aware of and potentially manipulating Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton’s plans to smear Donald Trump as a Russian agent that they personally briefed President Barack Obama on the matter, newly declassified Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) documents show. CIA officials also requested that the FBI investigate Russian knowledge of the Clinton campaign’s collusion smear operation.

Newly declassified handwritten notes from former CIA Director John Brennan show that the U.S. intelligence community knew in 2016 that Russian intelligence was actively monitoring, and potentially injecting disinformation into, Clinton’s anti-Trump collusion narrative. The intelligence concerning Russia’s knowledge of Clinton’s campaign plans was so concerning to Brennan and other national security officials that they personally informed Obama of the matter in the Oval Office in the summer of 2016. The handwritten notes from Brennan were declassified by Director of National Intelligence (DNI) John Ratcliffe and provided to Congress on Tuesday afternoon.

According to the declassified notes, Brennan and the U.S. intelligence community knew months prior to the 2016 election that the collusion smear was the result of a campaign operation hatched by the campaign of Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton.

“We’re getting additional insight into Russian activites from [REDACTED],” Brennan’s handwritten notes state. “Cite alleged approval by Hillary Clinton–on 26 July–of a proposal from one of her foreign policy advisers to villify [sic] Donald Trump by stirring up a scandal claiming interference by the Russian security services.”

The notes appear to have been prepared by Brennan to memorialize a meeting held at the White House with the president and his top national security advisers. Included in Brennan’s notes are the responses of other participants in the briefing — including those of former White House National Security Adviser Susan Rice, former White House Chief of Staff Denis McDonough, and former DNI James Clapper, but those responses are redacted.

At one point, Obama asked whether there was any evidence of collaboration between the Trump campaign and Russia, but any response that may have been recorded in Brennan’s notes is redacted.

Moreover, the CIA and other intelligence agencies also suspected early on that many of the key claims underpinning the collusion narrative could themselves be the product of deliberate Russian disinformation. Last week, Ratcliffe released a declassified memo, based in part on Brennan’s notes, noting that Russian intelligence was aware of the Clinton campaign’s plan, increasing the likelihood that it would be tainted by Russian disinformation.

While the Clinton campaign hired Christopher Steele, a foreign agent in the pocket of a sanctioned Russian oligarch, to concoct a dossier of allegations against Trump, the primary source of the most salacious and damning allegations of treasonous collusion came from a suspected Russian spy named Igor Danchenko. Last month, Attorney General William Barr informed Congress that the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) was so concerned about Danchenko, who had been dubbed the “Primary Sub-Source” used by Clinton campaign sub-contractor Christopher Steele in his thoroughly debunked Steele dossier, that it had previously deemed him a national security threat and investigated him to determine if he was a Russian spy. The bureau called off the investigation once Danchenko left the United States and was no longer within the purview of the FBI’s domestic counterintelligence mission.

Although Democratic lawmakers have claimed, without evidence, that the latest declassifications are themselves the product of Russian disinformation, multiple senior intelligence officials told The Federalist that the CIA remains convinced that Russian intelligence sincerely believed as early as summer of 2016 that the Clinton campaign launched its anti-Trump collusion smear operation to distract from Clinton’s e-mail scandal. In October of 2017, the top lawyer for the Clinton campaign and the Democratic National Committee finally confessed publicly that he had personally hired the Democrat opposition research firm Fusion GPS, which paid Steele to peddle allegations that Trump was a secret Russian agent working on behalf of Vladimir Putin.

Ratcliffe also declassified on Tuesday portions of a formal CIA investigative referral sent on Sept. 7, 2016, to fired former FBI Director James Comey and fired former counterintelligence official Peter Strzok asking them to investigate the Clinton campaign’s anti-Trump collusion smear operation in light of Russia’s knowledge of the plan and the likelihood it could be tainted by deliberate Russian disinformation. Rather than act on the CIA investigative referral in the same manner they had launched a full-blown counterintelligence investigation of the Trump campaign, Strzok and Comey refused to initiate an investigation.

“Per FBI verbal request, CIA provides the below examples of information the CROSSFIRE HURRICANE fusion cell has gleaned to date,” the memo states. “An exchange [REDACTED] discussing US presidential candidate Hillary Clinton’s approval of a plan concerning US presidential candidate Donald Trump and Russian hackers hampering US elections as a means of distracting the public from her use of private e-mail server.”

The cover note of the memorandum stated that the information within was provided to the FBI “for the exclusive use of your Bureau for background, investigative action, or lead purposes, as appropriate.”

There is no evidence the FBI ever took any action to ensure that Russian knowledge of Clinton’s plans did not lead to infiltration of that campaign’s operation by Russian intelligence agents. The CIA referral, specifically its reference to a “CROSSFIRE HURRICANE fusion cell,” suggests that the Obama administration’s anti-Trump investigation may not have been limited to the FBI, but may have included the use of CIA assets and surveillance capabilities, raising troubling questions about whether the nation’s top spy service was weaponized against a U.S. political campaign.

The CIA referral declassified and released by Ratcliffe shows that it was personally addressed to both Comey and Strzok. Because the CIA does not have legal authority to police domestic matters, it informed the FBI of the agency’s concerns about potential Russian knowledge of Clinton campaign’s plan to smear Trump as a Russian asset, especially given the FBI’s ongoing counterintelligence investigation of the Trump campaign. Not only did the FBI refuse to investigate whether the Russians were using the Clinton campaign to interfere in the 2016 national election, but Comey also claimed last week that he knew nothing whatsoever about the CIA investigative referral.

During a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on the matter last week, Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) asked Comey point blank whether he remembered receiving a referral from the CIA personally addressed to him. Comey claimed that he had zero recollection of the CIA asking him to investigate whether the Clinton campaign was potentially compromised by Russian disinformation artists.

“That doesn’t ring any bells with me,” Comey claimed under oath.

“You don’t recall this inquiry I just read about September 2016?” Graham followed up, referring to the CIA referral sent to Comey on Sept. 7, 2016.

“No, as I said it doesn’t…It doesn’t sound familiar,” Comey again claimed.

Following a lengthy investigation of FBI abuses of power under Comey’s watch, the Deparment of Justice (DOJ) Office of Inspector General (OIG) concluded in its summary report that Comey had repeatedly violated FBI policies and cast a cloud over the entire bureau, damaging its reputation and that of its 35,000 employees.

“Comey set a dangerous example,” the reported stated. Although the OIG referred Comey to DOJ for criminal investigation and potential prosecution, DOJ ultimately refused to hold Comey accountable. Comey’s deputy, Andrew McCabe, was similarly referred for criminal investigation after he repeatedly lied to DOJ officials under oath, but DOJ also refused to prosecute McCabe for lying under oath.

One of Comey’s attorneys at the FBI and a member of former Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s legal team recently pleaded guilty to charges of fabricating evidence in an application to spy on former Trump campaign affiliate Carter Page.

Sean Davis is the co-founder of The Federalist.

Photo Wikimedia Commons / White House

Copyright © 2021 The Federalist, a wholly independent division of FDRLST Media, All Rights Reserved.

'Wingman' Eric Holder orchestrated 'Obamagate,' says successor attorney general

Opinion: Washington Secrets

by Paul Bedard

 | May 15, 2020 07:14 AM

Then-Attorney General Eric Holder acted as President Barack Obama’s “wingman,” creating a highly politicized Justice Department that would steer investigations away from Democratic allies, including Hillary Clinton, and onto GOP foes such as President Trump, according to a successor.

Matthew Whitaker, a former U.S. attorney who served as a Trump's acting attorney general between Jeff Sessions and William Barr, claimed in a new book that Holder “created an above-the-law culture” in the department that led to the bumbled investigations that the president has dubbed “Obamagate.”

In Above the Law, provided in advance of its release, Whitaker described a department that was more political under Obama than any department since President Richard Nixon’s, one that sought to promote the efforts of partisans such as FBI chief James Comey, who has since been fired by Trump.

“What Holder is advocating for,” he wrote, “is a government full of Jim Comeys: government officials determining on their own what the Constitution demands, deciding which laws to prosecute and which to ignore, selectively releasing information to the media about Americans under investigation, and held accountable neither to the chief executive nor to voters.”

And as Obama’s “wingman” at the department, added Whitaker, Holder built a team that would remain after he left and that would eventually shut down a probe into Hillary Clinton’s email scandal at the State Department and eagerly build up an investigation into alleged Russian collusion with the Trump campaign in the 2016 election.

“There’s no doubt that Russia tried to influence the 2016 presidential election,” he wrote in the book from Regnery Publishing.

“But the political meddling within our own government, within the Justice Department, and within the intelligence community poses a far greater threat to Americans than any Russian internet troll farm. Without the rule of law, without respect for the Constitution, without honest administration in the Justice Department, we don’t have a republic,” he added.

The book is an indictment by a true insider of the “deep state” of liberal bureaucrats trying to protect their own and ignore Trump’s election.

It also highlighted the double standard of Obama-era officials, especially on recusals from cases they had an interest in. One that jumped out was of the case and conviction of former Trump national security adviser Michael Flynn.

The book noted that the judge who accepted Flynn’s guilty plea of lying to the FBI was a friend and neighbor of discredited FBI official Peter Strzok, who texted with his FBI lover about hoping Trump did not become president. Strzok did not recuse himself, and Judge Rudolph Contreras did only later.

In several passages, Whitaker wrote about how Holder and his successors refused to investigate Obama-era scandals, such as the IRS's targeting of conservatives and a case against the New Black Panther Party, and he recalled how Holder successor Loretta Lynch met with former President Bill Clinton before ending the department’s probe of the Hillary Clinton emails.

“As longtime professional staff of the Justice Department privately acknowledged to me, the arrogance characteristic of the Obama administration, personified by his first attorney general, Eric Holder, created an above-the-law culture inside the Justice Department,” wrote Whitaker.

DOJ Document Dump to ACLJ on Clinton Lynch Meeting: Comey FBI Lied, Media Collusion, Spin, and Illegality

By Jordan Sekulow

We have just obtained hundreds of pages in our ongoing investigation and federal lawsuit on former Attorney General Loretta Lynch’s tarmac meeting with former President Bill Clinton while the Department of Justice (DOJ) and FBI had an ongoing criminal investigation into Hillary Clinton’s emails. The results are shocking.

First, the Comey FBI lied to us. Last July, we sent FOIA requests to both the Comey FBI and the Lynch DOJ asking for any documents related to the Clinton Lynch plane meeting. The FBI, under the then directorship of James Comey, replied that “No records responsive to your request were located.”

The documents we received today from the Department of Justice include several emails from the FBI to DOJ officials concerning the meeting.  One with the subject line “FLAG” was correspondence between FBI officials (Richard Quinn, FBI Media/Investigative Publicity, and Michael Kortan) and DOJ officials concerning “flag[ing] a story . . . about a casual, unscheduled meeting between former president Bill Clinton and the AG.” The DOJ official instructs the FBI to “let me know if you get any questions about this” and provides “[o]ur talkers [DOJ talking points] on this”. The talking points, however are redacted.

Another email to the FBI contains the subject line “security details coordinate between Loretta Lynch/Bill Clinton?”

On July 1, 2016 – just days before our FOIA request – a DOJ email chain under the subject line, “FBI just called,” indicates that the “FBI . . . is looking for guidance” in responding to media inquiries about news reports that the FBI had prevented the press from taking pictures of the Clinton Lynch meeting. The discussion then went off email to several phone calls (of which we are not able to obtain records). An hour later, Carolyn Pokomy of the Office of the Attorney General stated, “I will let Rybicki know.” Jim Rybicki was the Chief of Staff and Senior Counselor to FBI Director Jim Comey. The information that was to be provided to Rybicki is redacted.

Also of note several of the documents contain redactions that are requested “per FBI.”

It is clear that there were multiple records within the FBI responsive to our request and that discussions regarding the surreptitious meeting between then AG Lynch and the husband of the subject of an ongoing FBI criminal investigation reached the highest levels of the FBI.

However, on October 21, 2016, the Comey FBI replied to our legal demands that “No records responsive to your request were located.”  This is in direct contravention to the law, and we are preparing further legal action to force the FBI to come clean and turn over ALL documents related to this matter to us in a timely manner.

Second, the hundreds of pages of (heavily redacted – more on that below) documents paint a clear picture of a DOJ in crisis mode as the news broke of Attorney General Lynch’s meeting with former President Clinton. In fact, the records appear to indicate that the Attorney General’s spin team immediately began preparing talking points for the Attorney General regarding the meeting BEFORE ever speaking with the AG about the matter.

Third, there is clear evidence that the main stream media was colluding with the DOJ to bury the story. A Washington Post reporter, speaking of the Clinton Lynch meeting story, said, “I’m hoping I can put it to rest .” The same Washington Post reporter, interacting with the DOJ spin team, implemented specific DOJ requests to change his story to make the Attorney General appear in a more favorable light. A New York Times reporter apologetically told the Obama DOJ that he was being “pressed into service” to have to cover the story. As the story was breaking, DOJ press officials stated, “I also talked to the ABC producer, who noted that they aren’t interested, even if Fox runs with it.”

Two days after the meeting, DOJ officials in a chain of emails that includes emails to Attorney General Lynch herself stated that the media coverage of the meeting “looks like all or most are FOX” and that “CBS . . . just says a few lines about the meeting.”

Fourth, DOJ bureaucrats have redacted all the talking points, discussions of talking points, a statement on the meeting that was apparently never delivered because there was not enough media coverage on the meeting, and its substantive discussions with the FBI on the matter. They absurdly claim the “deliberative process exemption” to FOIA, which is only supposed to apply to agency rulemaking processes.

Discussions about Attorney General Lynch’s ethically questionable meeting with former President Clinton during her investigation into Hillary Clinton clearly has nothing to do with any rule making process. We will be taking these redactions back to federal court. The law is on our side. We will keep pressing on with our investigation of former Attorney General Lynch until we get to the bottom of this.

We will also keep you informed as our litigation continues.

The evidence the FBI doesn't have

https://twitter.com/RealJamesWoods/status/890684225611067392

Okay. Well, I think you are making my point when you say there is no evidence to establish that. Maybe not in the way she handled classified information, but with respect to obstruction of justice—and you have a pen here—I just want to make the sure the record is clear about the evidence that you didn’t have, that you can’t use to prove. So this comes from the FBI’s own report. It says that the FBI didn’t have the Clintons’ personal Apple server used for Hillary Clinton work emails. That was never located, so the FBI could never examine it. An Apple MacBook laptop and thumb drive that contained Hillary Clinton’s email archives was lost, so the FBI never examined that. Two BlackBerry devices provided to the FBI didn’t have SIM cards or SD data cards. Thirteen Hillary Clinton personal mobile devices were lost, discarded, or destroyed with a hammer, so the FBI clearly didn’t examine those. Various server backups were deleted over time, so the FBI didn’t examine that. After the State Department and my colleague Mr. Gowdy here notified Ms. Clinton that her records would be sought by the Benghazi Committee, copies of her emails on the laptops of both of her lawyers, Cheryl Mills and Heather Samuelson, were wiped clean with BleachBit, so the FBI didn’t review that. After those emails were subpoenaed, Hillary Clinton’s email archive was also permanently deleted from the Platte River Network with BleachBit, so the FBI didn’t review that. And also after the subpoena, backups of the Platte River server were manually deleted. Now, Director, hopefully that list is substantially accurate, because it comes from your own documents. My question to you is this: Any one of those in that very, very long list, to me, says obstruction of justice. Collectively, they scream obstruction of justice. And to ignore them, I think, really allows not just reasonable prosecutors but reasonable people to believe that maybe the decision on this was made a long time ago not to prosecute Hillary Clinton.