Brennan, MSNBC Can't Stop Lying About Trump and Russia

Attention, believers in the Trump-Russia conspiracy: you are being lied to. Side by side, here's what you've been told, next to the reality that's being hidden from you.

Last evening, former CIA director John Brennan made his first public comments since news broke that the FBI under Kash Patel has opened a criminal investigation into his conduct in the Trump-Russia investigation. He was interviewed on MSNBC, where he is a paid contributor. The one piece of salient information host and former Bush administration spokesperson Nicolle Wallace didn’t leave out is that Brennan is a “Senior national security and intelligence analyst right here at MSNBC.”

This was after Wallace interviewed former Hillary Clinton lawyer Marc Elias, who in 2016 was the point man responsible for hiring the “research” firm Fusion-GPS, which in turn hired former British spy Christopher Steele to compile reports on Donald Trump. Elias in other words paid the firm that shopped bogus reports to virtually every news agency in America, along with the FBI and politicians like John McCain, in an effort to kick-start a political investigation of a political rival.

What did Elias have to say about investigations into Brennan and Comey? Abandoning all self-respect, humorously hoping no one would remember his entire political raison d’être has been leveraging iffy information into legal trouble for antagonists, he said, “Like honestly, I’m just imploring the media, do NOT report” the news of the investigations. Priceless:

The amusing Elias video means people like the former Clinton lawyer are worried that not only conservatives, but friendly audiences at places like MSNBC might begin exploring what actually happened in 2016-2019. If those audiences put even minimal effort into learning the basics of these cases, it’s possible mainstream public opinion will finally turn — not on Trump, but on the concocted Trump-Russia mania of those years, which deserves a place in history next to or even above the WMD scandal as the biggest intelligence fiasco of our time.

The Wallace interview with Brennan was similarly comic. A summary of the segment is included for those who believe he’s innocent. This article isn’t paywalled, so Racket readers can circulate it to anyone who they feel may still be holdouts on Trump-Russia island. If that describes you, the MSNBC segment below is a small, jewel-like example of how you’ve been lied to by media and by officials like Brennan:

Note that Wallace early on says “exactly what conduct is being investigated is not clear.” That’s not strictly true. It’s been reported in multiple places (including here) that the FBI is looking at perjury and conspiracy charges. Wallace does say investigations are in connection with Brennan’s handling of a January 6th, 2017 Intelligence Community Assessment, but she doesn’t tell you why this is important.

Nor does the New York Times, whose headline read, “Administration Takes Steps to Target 2 Officials Who Investigated Trump,” as if the gravestone modifiers for Comey or Brennan might be, THEY INVESTIGATED TRUMP. The Times, like Elias, is going with a “misuse, abuse, [and] authoritarian takeover” theme, insisting these investigations signal only that “Trump’s appointees intend to follow through on his campaign to exact retribution against his perceived enemies.” The Washington Post used the same construction, highlighting Trump’s campaign-trail promise to “exact retribution against many of his political enemies.”

It’s probably true Trump is anxious for payback — he denounced Comey and Brennan as “very dishonest people” in the wake of the investigation news and suggested there may be a “price to pay” — but that doesn’t mean these goofs have no real exposure. Mainstream press audiences just haven’t been told what both men did, and specifically how both benefited from an illegal leak of material from their January 2017 Intelligence Assessment, material that was both bogus and classified.

In early 2017, it wasn’t inevitable that President-Elect Donald Trump was going to face years of exhaustive Russia investigations. Contrary to popular legend, as of January 6th, 2017, neither the FBI nor the CIA had developed intelligence supporting a conclusion that Vladimir Putin “aspired” to interfere with our presidential election specifically to help Trump. In fact, there was evidence in the opposite direction, suggesting Russia and Putin were less than thrilled by the prospect of a White House run by the “unreliable” Trump, and may have seen Clinton as “manageable and reflecting continuity.” However, the Democratic Party by the end of 2016 already committed publicly to the idea that Putin aided Trump’s win. On December 16, 2016, for instsance, Hillary Clinton blamed her loss on Putin’s “personal grudge” against her.

There was no reason government officials had to co-sign this conclusion in the Intelligence Assessment Barack Obama commissioned, but they did. To get there, they had to use material from Steele, who had already been dismissed as a source by the FBI on November 1st, 2016, after he leaked reports for a Mother Jones story by David Corn.

Without Steele material, there would have been no pre-inauguration report saying “Putin and the Russian Government aspired to help President-elect Trump’s election chances when possible by discrediting Secretary Clinton.” In order to keep that storyline, the FBI had to take seriously Steele’s assertions about the existence of a “well-developed conspiracy of cooperation” between him and Russia. With Trump about to enter the White House and FBI investigations into Carter Page, Michael Flynn, and Trump stalling, this “Assessment” was the whole ballgame, the last chance to keep Trump-Russia going. Two actions were crucial: the controversial internal decision to include the Steele stuff, and the near-immediate leak of the report’s classified contents to the public before Trump was sworn in.

Here’s how first Wallace, then Brennan handled this:

1. Nicolle Wallace (at 2:22 above):

   “But the report or the Note doesn’t dispute the conclusion of the intelligence community. And that conclusion is that Russia interfered.”

   This is a silly mischaracterization of John Ratcliffe’s “Note,” which didn’t even look at the question of whether or not Russia “interfered.” Ratcliffe and the CIA instead “focused particular attention on the ICA’s most debated judgment— that Russian President Vladimir Putin ‘aspired’ to help then-candidate Donald Trump win the election.” Ratcliffe did “dispute” that conclusion, repeatedly.

   The CIA chief said that “placing a reference to the [Steele] material” as a “supporting bullet for the judgment that Putin ‘aspired’ to help Trump… elevated unsubstantiated claims to the status of credible supporting evidence.”

   He also noted the CIA and FBI should not have said they had “high” confidence in the notion that Russia aspired to help Trump, given that multiple quality sources are required for “high” confidence, and they didn’t have those. As reported last year, the ICA authors — like the authors of the original WMD report — also suppressed “credibly sourced reporting” that “suggested Putin was more ambivalent about which candidate won the election.”

2. Nicolle Wallace (at 4:34 above).

   “In fact, a report authored in part by Donald Trump's current secretary of state and current national security advisor, then-Acting Chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, Marco Rubio, actually did look into the process of how the intelligence community came to this conclusion that Russia interfered in the 2016 election. And that report… says this: “Every witness interviewed by the committee stated that he or she saw no attempt, no attempt to pressure or politicize the findings.”

   Wallace is describing a five-part Senate Intelligence Committee Report on the 2016 election. She’s right that it’s odd Marco Rubio took part in a report concluding Russia engaged in an “extensive” campaign to meddle for Trump. What Wallace didn’t mention is that the Senate relied on different evidence than the CIA/FBI’s 2017 Assessment to come to the same conclusion, a transparent indictment of the 2017 report.

   If Brennan and Comey got it right in 2017, why was a second report with all-new evidence necessary? The Senate report was a repair job, designed to replace Comey and Brennan’s car-wreck of a 2017 paper with a Senate product whose chief assertions — particularly around former Paul Manafort aide Konstantin Kilimnik, whose tie to Trump they said posed a “grave” intelligence threat — were not even reviewable, since lines like “Konstantin Kilimnik is a Russian intelligence officer” were not backed by visible evidence.

3. John Brennan (at 10:27)

   “But you’re supposed to be interviewing the people involved in this to try to get a better understanding of the context for a lot of the actions that were taken.”

   Brennan’s unintentionally hilarious complaint is that John Ratcliffe didn’t bother interviewing him for the 8-page note released last week.

   This is the same Brennan who included an explosive “annex” of classified material from ex-spy Christopher Steele that upended American politics for years without interviewing Steele, his “Primary Sub-Source” Igor Danchenko of the Brookings Institute, or any of the Russian sources who ostensibly provided the pillars of Steele’s reports: tales of Trump “employing a number of prostitutes to perform a ‘golden showers’ (urination) show,” the “well-developed conspiracy” between Trump and Russia, and the notion that “Russian authorities had been cultivating and supporting… Donald Trump, for at least five years.”

   When Justice Department Inspector General Michael Horowitz put out his review of these issues in 2019, he pointed out that nobody interviewed Steele’s “Primary Sub-Source” until January of 2017, i.e. after the Assessment was released. When the FBI finally did talk to Steele’s sources, they disavowed almost every key point of Steele’s: the prostitute romps (“rumor and speculation,” the sub-source said), the “well-developed conspiracy” (there was “nothing bad” in communications between the Kremlin and Trump, per the source), and the notion that Trump and Page had been offered “the brokerage of up to a 19 percent (privatized) stake in Rosneft” in exchange for lifting sanctions (the sub-source “never stated that [Rosneft] had offered a brokerage interest”). Beyond that, no American official during this entire process ever picked up the phone to call key players/suspects like Julian Assange or Konstantin Kilimnik. It’s rich for Brennan complain no one interviewed him.

4. John Brennan (10:40).

   “That’s why we went to extraordinary lengths to protect the sensitive intelligence that really undergirded the assessment that was extensively footnoted in the assessment. But also, as I said, to protect individuals involved, including Donald Trump. To make sure that none of this intelligence that could have been seen as inflammatory and as something that was, you know, very damning, would get out. And so that’s why we wanted to make sure it was done in a very appropriate and meticulous and diligent manner...”

   In a wounded tone, Brennan notes that he and James Comey went to extraordinary lengths to “protect the sensitive intelligence that really undergirded the assessessment” and “also… to protect individuals involved, including Donald Trump.”

   The timeline on this: Brennan, Comey, Director of National Intelligence James Clapper, and NSA chief Michael Rogers decided to present a 2-page summary of the classified Steele material to Trump on January 6th, 2017. It was decided Comey would tell Trump the bad news that “Russians allegedly had tapes of him and prostitutes” at the Ritz-Carlton in 2013.

   “I said media like CNN had them and were looking for a news hook,” Comey explained. “I said it was important not to give them an excuse to say the FBI has the material or [redacted] and that we were keeping it very close-hold.”

   Four of the nation’s most senior intelligence chiefs gave a briefing of classified information to the President-Elect of the United States on January 6th, 2017. One might expect that experienced intelligence officials handling classified information might be able to keep a lid on for at least a week.

   No luck. The whole story was on every front page and every TV station within four days. Here’s the CNN headline from January 10:

   

   The lede of the CNN piece contained details only someone with advanced knowledge of the meeting would know. “Classified documents presented last week,” the four CNN writers said, included “allegations that Russian operatives claim to have compromising personal and financial information about Mr. Trump” and that “there was a continuing exchange of information during the campaign between Trump surrogates and intermediaries for the Russian government.” Material was presented in “a two-page synopsis that was appended to a report on Russian interference in the 2016 election,” and “came, in part, from memos compiled by a former British intelligence operative.”

   That’s what Brennan means by going to “extraordinary lengths” to protect information. The CNN story in one swoop outed classified intelligence, blew its source (all of Washington knew which “former British intelligence operative” CNN meant, which is why Buzzfeed could publish Steele’s dossier within hours) and betrayed the target, Trump. That’s a rare trifecta of incompetence. A coked-up Tourette’s patient would have done a better job guarding information. Are there really people left who believe these people?