On Tuesday, Director of National Intelligence John Ratcliffe declassified and released parts of the documents underlying his earlier revelation about Hillary Clinton’s role in orchestrating the Trump-Russia collusion farce.
The new revelations are important, particularly in clarifying a suggestion, made last week by Ratcliffe, that U.S. intelligence agencies referred former Secretary of State Clinton to the FBI for investigation. That suggestion was then repeated by Senate Republicans and in media commentary (including my column, here).
There was no referral of that kind. That perhaps explains why, in his Senate testimony last week, former FBI director James Comey maintained that he recalled no such thing – to the seeming exasperation of Judiciary Committee Chairman Lindsey Graham (R., S.C.). In reality, when read in conjunction with other information that I addressed in Ball of Collusion, Ratcliffe’s disclosures underscore that the Obama administration, including its law-enforcement and intelligence agencies, was on the same page with the Clinton campaign in peddling the collusion narrative.
Ratcliffe’s revelation last week, in a letter to Senator Graham, related that, in late July 2016, Russian intelligence agents assessed that Clinton sought to blame Donald Trump, her opponent in the presidential race, for Russia’s suspected hacking of Democratic National Committee (DNC) emails. U.S. spy agencies “obtained insight” into this Russian assessment through some highly classified method. That explains, at least in part, why the documents Ratcliffe has disclosed are so heavily redacted (and probably why it has taken so long for the Trump administration to disclose this crucial information).
Clinton’s alleged objective was to divert attention from the scandal over her use of a non-secure homebrew server system to conduct State Department business. According to Ratcliffe, the U.S. intelligence community (IC) judged that the Russian assessment was authentic, in the sense that it really did come from the Kremlin’s intelligence services. The IC drew no conclusion, however, about whether the Russian government actually believed the assessment was true – i.e., as Ratcliffe put it, to some extent, “the Russian analysis may reflect exaggeration or fabrication.” For what it’s worth, I surmise that the Russians probably did believe Clinton had approved this political narrative because it lines up with contemporaneous events – it would not have taken a genius to figure it out. But that is a story for another day (coming soon).
In his letter to Graham, Ratcliffe elaborated that the existence of the Russian assessment was corroborated by two documents: (1) handwritten notes authored by Obama CIA Director John Brennan, who had briefed then-President Obama on the matter; and (2) what Ratcliffe described as “an investigative referral” to the FBI. The DNI indicated that the declassification of these documents (among other things) was under consideration. Parts have since been declassified and, on Tuesday, he disclosed them.
As I shall demonstrate, contrary to the (perhaps inadvertent) implication in Ratcliffe’s letter, the second document is not a referral requesting an investigation of Clinton. But let’s start with the Brennan notes, which indicate another discrepancy in Ratcliffe’s original letter: the incorrect dating of Clinton’s approval – which may be of only minor significance.
Brennan’s Notes
Brennan’s notes are said to document his briefing of Obama on the Russian assessment. There is no date given for this briefing, either in the notes or in Ratcliffe’s earlier letter to Graham. The heavily redacted notes suggest the possibility of communications among Brennan, Obama (referred to as “POTUS”), and three Obama officials identified as “JC,” “Denis” and “Susan.” It is certainly possible that these are references, respectively, to the FBI’s then-director James Comey, Obama chief of staff Denis McDonough, and Obama national security adviser Susan Rice, but Ratcliffe has not confirmed this. Because the relevant portions are blacked out, we cannot say whether Brennan’s notes reflect statements by, or observations about, JC, Denis and Susan.
Ratcliffe’s letter to Graham said that Clinton allegedly green-lighted the scheme to blame Trump on July 26, 2016. To this observer, Brennan’s notes appear to date the alleged approval on July 28, 2016. To be sure, Brennan’s penmanship is not crystal clear, so I wouldn’t bet the ranch on this – and, obviously, Ratcliffe has access to intelligence files not available to the rest of us.
Brennan’s notes appear to state: “We’re gaining additional insight into Russian activities from” – after which at least three or four lines, presumably referring to the source of the information, are blacked out. The notes then continue:
Cite alleged approval by Hillary Clinton on 28 July of a proposal from one of her foreign policy advisors to villify [sic] Donald Trump by stirring up a scandal claiming interference by the Russian security services.
There is an annotation next to this note, in the left margin. Such margin notes are where, in other places, Brennan appears to refer to people involved in the briefing (POTUS, JC, Denis and Susan). But on the above excerpted note, the annotation is redacted.
So are all the other assertions in the notes, with the exception of one that is attributed to “POTUS” (Obama), stating “Any evidence of collaboration between Trump campaign & Russians.” The salience of this is unclear – we don’t know whether Obama was asking a question or making a suggestion; we don’t know if Brennan is recording a statement the president made or an impression Brennan himself formed. We only know that, while most of the notes are redacted, Ratcliffe decided this statement could and should be disclosed.
That statement is one of three bullet points in the “POTUS” section of Brennan’s notes; the other two are redacted. Similarly blacked out are all the remaining bullet points attributed to (or related to) other briefing participants. Next to JC, there appear to be at least five bullet points. One bullet point is next to Denis. With respect to Susan, there appear to be five bullet points, and there is an asterisk written next to the third one – but, of course, we have no idea why (or why Ratcliffe included the asterisk but redacted the note it referred to).
Finally, it is worth observing that the Brennan notes Ratcliffe has disclosed appear to be two pages culled from a larger set. The pages are numbered “5” and “6.” There seems to be a header at the top of both pages that has also been blacked out. It is always risky to speculate, but I surmise that the CIA director’s meeting with the president and other officials involved other sensitive topics that have nothing to do with Clinton’s role in the Trump-Russia narrative, and have thus been withheld.
The So-Called Investigative Referral
In last week’s letter to Graham, Ratcliffe used the label “investigative referral” for what he further described as a communication, dated September 7, 2016, from what he called “U.S. intelligence officials” to two top FBI officials, then-director Comey and Peter Strzok, who was then a top counterintelligence agent (and, like Comey, has since been fired).
When we hear the term “investigative referral” in connection with a communication to the nation’s top federal law-enforcement agency, it usually indicates that another agency is passing along information that, it believes, warrants a criminal investigation by the FBI, with an eye toward prosecution by the Justice Department. That is not what this document is.
In fact, it is a memorandum from the CIA to the FBI, providing information previously requested by the FBI. The memo is on CIA letterhead, but no particular CIA official is identified as the author. Probably for reasons of agency-to-agency protocol, it is addressed to Comey, but directed to the “attention” of Strzok. There is also a request in the body of the memo that a copy be provided to another FBI agent whose name has been redacted. The CIA states that it is providing the information in the memo “per FBI verbal request” – I’d surmise: a request either by Strzok or by the unidentified FBI agent working under Strzok’s supervision.
Significantly, the information is described as having been generated by the “CROSSFIRE HURRICANE fusion cell.”
As we know, Crossfire Hurricane was the codename that the FBI gave the Trump-Russia investigation when it was formally opened at the end of July 2016 – which so happens to have been exactly the time when Hillary Clinton is said to have approved the plan to blame Donald Trump for Russia’s hacking of the DNC emails.
I argued in Ball of Collusion that the Trump-Russia probe was not just an FBI investigation. It was based on several strands of intelligence, much of it from foreign intelligence agencies, that came into the CIA. In the early stages, Brennan was the main driver; the FBI’s role became more consequential in the latter stages (particularly when FISA warrants were sought).
By Brennan’s own account, outlined in his congressional testimony and public statements, he played the role of a clearinghouse. That is, he took information from foreign services, put his own analytical spin on it, and packaged it for the FBI. As Brennan put it in House testimony:
Gee… and how did the Russians know that Hillary was running this scam? Oh… yeah. Hillary went to the Russians for dirt on Trump, via Steele. Were they also in her campaign? Were there Russian sympathizers on Hillary’s staff? Most certainly.
Does any of this outrage Democrats? Is there a Democrat outraged about being made a complete and massive fool by the Democrat’s and media’s lies? Nope. Not a one. They LIKE to be lied to.
@Deplorable Me:
And, in another thread, greg tried reversing the known facts that are not in dispute. What is being revealed as to what the obama regime did at this point is only the tip of the spear. I am of the belief that the DOJ including the Durham investigation has and is uncovering a substantial amount of factual data that makes every other scandal pale in comparison.
greg really will have a hard time making any cogent argument that is the antithesis of what we are learning and have yet to learn.
@July 4th American: But, the worst part is that NO DEMOCRAT give a damn. They don’t care what their “leaders” do to the country, the government or the Constitution. They simply don’t care.
@Deplorable Me:
Apparently nazi pelosi, in her weekly presser just told everyone to show up tomorrow because they intend to invoke the 25th amendment.
She clearly does not understand the 25th amendment. The House of Representatives can not invoke the 25th amendment.
Section 4.
Whenever the Vice President and a majority of either the principal officers of the executive departments or of such other body as Congress may by law provide, transmit to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives their written declaration that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, the Vice President shall immediately assume the powers and duties of the office as Acting President.
@July 4th american: The Friday comments were hilarious!
“I’m not talking about it today except to tell you, if you want to talk about that, we’ll see you tomorrow,” she said. “But you take me back to my point, Mr. President, when was the last time you had a negative test before you tested positive? Why is the White House not telling the country that important fact about how this made a hotspot of the White House?”
Geeze maybe a urine and fecal sample should be sent directly to her office daily.
@July 4th american:
When was the last time you saw Pelosi and the Democrats respecting the Constitution?
@kitt: Perhaps a thorough and in depth investigation of where the infection of those in the White House came from.
Have u seen this?
Trump’s handpicked political tool, Director of National Intelligence John Ratcliffe, is full of it. He selectively released just enough heavily redacted material to provide an excuse for b.s. reporting such as McCarthy’s article in the National Review. The centerpiece of Ratcliffe’s “relevation” is an “analysis” created by Russian Intelligence that he himself initially acknowledged might be an exaggeration, or total fabrication.
So here’s a Trump appointee, providing an assist with a Russian Intelligence disinformation operation, right in front of your faces. He’s doing for the Russians what John Brennan had the intelligence not to do. Brennan kept the information contained within the channels where it would be considered and understood in its proper context—as totally unconfirmed information originating with a highly suspect source that had a known reason to deceive.
@Greg:
You are so full of shit it is not funny
@July 4th American, #9:
The analysis in question actually did originate with Russian Intelligence. There’s no other corroborating evidence. As Ratcliffe originally stated himself, it could be a total fabrication.
Ratcliffe has made public what Brennan recognized as probable Russian disinformation. Ratcliffe did this because making the report public would be useful to Donald Trump. Our Director of National Intelligence has just demonstrated that he puts political expedience ahead of national security. That will not go unnoticed by our foreign adversaries. Russian Intelligence is in the business of identifying and exploiting our vulnerabilities.
This is what happens when you put an egocentric, self-promoting reality television host at the head of an enormously complex governmental bureaucracy that he has no understanding of whatsoever. This was the initial stupidity that has enabled all that followed.
@Greg:
And yet it was used as a false basis for an illegal investigation of an American citizen, onw who just won the election against a padded-Democrat adversary?
I don’t want Russia to decide our President. Hillary lost because she was breaking the law and the acts were leaked. She manufactured a false scandal and we know it was false.
I also don’t want China to decide our President, which is why Biden isn’t a viable candidate to begin with.
Nope. The Russian Intelligence “analysis” was intended to discredit Hillary Clinton, not Donald Trump.
@Greg:
Bullshit
The flies are reliable indicators of what’s bullshit and what isn’t. If you want additional corroboration, you can take a look at the national polls.
@Greg: discredit her, or merely investigate since she was suspected of a crime?
There’s a big difference there.
She commissioned a sham investigation to discredit Trump, out of spite.
Clinton earned her loss of credit.
President Trump did not.
the harris defeat last night has gregs panties in a wad…
@Greg: So in the face of so many turning on the Democratic Party, your tactic is to double down on the notoriously inaccurate and biased polls?
And don’t get too uppity about that fly and Pence. There’s plenty of video footage of Obama as the lord of flies.
Pence was clear, factual, and made a much better case for the Trump administration than, remained for Biden.
Is that all you have left? Insects and disinformation?
Trump wins the EC and popular vote in November.
@July 4th American:
Biden has a 10 point lead in the latest FOX News general election poll. Biden has now passed the 270 mark in all Electoral College projections.
@Greg: Trump said to declassify it all so the heavily redacted argument falls as flat as Harris debate performance. Ze is such a liar! Sep 5, 2019 — Sen. Kamala Harris (D-Calif.) endorsed a federal ban on hydraulic fracturing during CNN’s seven-hour town hall event on climate change.
You are such a tool.
@July 4th American: Greggies still has yet to remove what is not a wad of his panties but in his panties. So full of —-
@Greg:
greg steps on the thread again. Geesh man, were are talking about hillary paying the Russians for dirt on President Trump.
@Greg: For well over 4 years, we have suffered through lying, treacherous scumbags like Schiff having the TRUTH suppressed under “classified” designations, allowing him to go out and LIE about the facts. Now, the shroud of that false classification is being removed. Like the lies and corruption revealed by the exposure of the DNC emails, you can cry and whine about the facts being exposed, but they are still the facts.
Wait… are you talking about the information Ratcliff revealed or Hillary’s Steele dossier, which ALL the bullshit Russian collusion hoax was based on?
If he considered it “disinformation”, why did the White House, FBI and IC pursue the probable hoax for three years? Why don’t you think about some of the things you write before you hit “Post Comment”?
Nope. Read the memos and this.
Is that why one landed right on Obama’s mouth and Hillary’s face? The one on Pence landed where Kamala’s lying bullshit was being stored in his brain.
@July 4th American:
And what Comrade Greggie will never point out is that Hillary actually broke federal law by paying a foreign source (Christopher Steele) money for a thing of [perceived] value, dirt on Trump. And worse than that, she laundered the money thru Perkins Coie law firm, claiming it was some other kind of campaign expense.
But then we all know that Hillary views the law as for the little people, not her or her husband.
The problem comes when something of value is provided to a campaign at no cost, which can turn that thing of value into an unreported campaign contribution. There’s no law against a campaign paying someone to do opposition research. Most campaigns do.
@Greg:
By paying a foreign source (Christopher Steele) money for a thing of [perceived] value, dirt on Trump. He just happened to find exactly what fit in to her plot. It was discredited by Steels source he said it was drunken talk no truth to it when the FBI checked, but admitted he said it, so they changed it to he corroborated the info.
They lied and spied, got caught, they just got caught plotting election interference in the White house.
@Greg:
I know you fancy yourself some kind of legal eagle, but sorry, Comrade Greggie, but paying a foreign national for something of value, is most certainly against federal law. Didn’t Lawfare Blog tell you that?
@Greg:
Except, when you made up the story that Trump used a foreign source for campaign dirt, you all denounced it as treacherous. Or, is this yet another of those actions that are only illegal when someone other than a Democrat does it?
July 15, 2021 – Kremlin papers appear to show Putin’s plot to put Trump in White House
—
Vladimir Putin personally authorized a secret spy agency operation to support a “mentally unstable” Donald Trump in the 2016 US presidential election during a closed session of Russia’s national security council, according to what are assessed to be leaked Kremlin documents.
The key meeting took place on 22 January 2016, the papers suggest, with the Russian president, his spy chiefs and senior ministers all present.
They agreed a Trump White House would help secure Moscow’s strategic objectives, among them “social turmoil” in the US and a weakening of the American president’s negotiating position.
Russia’s three spy agencies were ordered to find practical ways to support Trump, in a decree appearing to bear Putin’s signature.
By this point Trump was the frontrunner in the Republican party’s nomination race. A report prepared by Putin’s expert department recommended Moscow use “all possible force” to ensure a Trump victory.
Western intelligence agencies are understood to have been aware of the documents for some months and to have carefully examined them. The papers, seen by the Guardian, seem to represent a serious and highly unusual leak from within the Kremlin.
The Guardian has shown the documents to independent experts who say they appear to be genuine. Incidental details come across as accurate. The overall tone and thrust is said to be consistent with Kremlin security thinking.
The Kremlin responded dismissively. Putin’s spokesman Dmitri Peskov said the idea that Russian leaders had met and agreed to support Trump in at the meeting in early 2016 was “a great pulp fiction” when contacted by the Guardian on Thursday morning.
The report – “No 32-04 vd” – is classified as secret. It says Trump is the “most promising candidate” from the Kremlin’s point of view. The word in Russian is perspektivny.
There is a brief psychological assessment of Trump, who is described as an “impulsive, mentally unstable and unbalanced individual who suffers from an inferiority complex”.
There is also apparent confirmation that the Kremlin possesses kompromat, or potentially compromising material, on the future president, collected – the document says – from Trump’s earlier “non-official visits to Russian Federation territory”.
The paper refers to “certain events” that happened during Trump’s trips to Moscow. Security council members are invited to find details in appendix five, at paragraph five, the document states. It is unclear what the appendix contains.
“It is acutely necessary to use all possible force to facilitate his [Trump’s] election to the post of US president,” the paper says.
This would help bring about Russia’s favoured “theoretical political scenario”. A Trump win “will definitely lead to the destabilisation of the US’s sociopolitical system” and see hidden discontent burst into the open, it predicts…
—
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/jul/15/kremlin-papers-appear-to-show-putins-plot-to-put-trump-in-white-house
Yeah, I’m very skeptical about this one myself. It’s a bit too much like one of the Kremlin’s own disinformation operations or Rudy’s failed Ukrainian scam against Biden. But hey, Pulp Fiction was a good movie.