Emergency Episode: Sean Davis And Mollie Hemingway Dissect Latest Russia Hoax Bombshells

On this emergency edition of "The Federalist Radio Hour," Federalist CEO Sean Davis and Federalist Editor-In-Chief Mollie Hemingway break down the declassified reports debunking lies from Democrats, intelligence agencies, and corporate media claiming that Russian President Vladimir Putin took measures during the 2016 election to help put President Donald Trump in the White House.

If you care about combating the corrupt media that continue to inflict devastating damage, please give a gift to help The Federalist do the real journalism America needs.

Episode Transcript

Speaker 1 (00:19):
Welcome to an emergency edition of the Federalist Radio Hour.
This is Molly Hemingway, editor in chief at the Federalist.
Here for a very special, rare occurrence is our CEO
and the wind beneath our wings Sean Davis. Welcome, Sean,
Thank you for having me. So why are we doing this?

Speaker 2 (00:37):
Yes, we got big news today, so d and I.
Director of National Intelligence Tulci Gabbard released a declassified version
of a report that many of us have known about
and been waiting to see four years. And it is
a report from the House Intel Committee that was put
together over many years in Trump's first term, and then

(00:57):
given to the CIA for review I think September of
twenty twenty. And what this document and what this investigation
does is it digs into what's known as the ICA,
the Intelligence Community Assessment that was issued by the Obama
admin in late December twenty sixteen. And it sounds very

(01:18):
academic and weighty and hefty, but it's a really important
document because this became the basis for the entire Russia
collusion hoax. And if you'll recall, the Russia collusion hoax
had two main aspects to it. One that Putin personally
wanted Trump to win and was going to do everything
he could to interfere in the election to help Trump win.

(01:39):
And number two that Trump was aware of this and
actively colluded with Putin during the twenty sixteen election to
steal it from Hillary Clinton. So I think it's been
pretty conclusively debunked the collusion aspect of it. We had
a long Special Council investigation from Robert Mueller which turned
up absolutely nothing having to do with Trump Russian collusion.

(02:00):
They spent tens of millions of dollars in many years
and never found anything. So we pretty conclusively shown over
many years that Russia collusion was a hoax. But this
right here has to do with the claim from the
beginning that Putin actively wanted Trump to win and took

(02:20):
took measures specifically throughout the twenty sixteen campaign to help Trump.
And what we learned from this exact document is that
foundational claim is false.

Speaker 1 (02:32):
And it is false in many different and exciting ways,
and that's what we will go through. But one more
little piece of background before we do that is that
recently other documents released by TULCA Gabbard show that there
was a backstory here. After the election, intelligence showed that

(02:54):
in fact, yes, Russia had done what it always does,
which is kind of like pokem prod and try to meddle,
probably nowhere near what some other countries do to each other,
but that it hadn't had an effect on the election.
And this was going to be put in an official
readout called the Presidential Daily Brief that would have gone
not just to Obama but also to President elect Trump

(03:20):
and his incoming National security advisor, Mike Flynn. This is
completely at odds with the narrative that will be set
soon thereafter. And so what we know from previous document
releases is that people conspire to kill that Presidential Daily
Brief and prohibit it from being shared with everyone, and

(03:42):
instead President Obama orders an intelligence community assessment. As you say,
it sounds really legit and says we're going to put
everything in there that needs to be in there, wink wink, nudge, nudge,
and could you get it out in such a rush
timeline that it's almost absurd. And I say that because
normally a real intelligence assessment would involve a ton of people,

(04:05):
it would take time to not only draft, but review
and scrutinize for lack of political influence or credibility of
the sources, and instead of spending months or even like
a year on this, they rush it out in two weeks.
And this report that we're about to go through looks
at how at the problems with the eventual product. That

(04:28):
eventual product is briefed to President Trump on January fifth,
I think it is, and to President elect Trump on
January sixth, in.

Speaker 2 (04:37):
Obama on the fifth and then Trump on the sixth.

Speaker 1 (04:39):
Right, Obama on the fifth, Trump on the sixth, and
almost immediately leaks to Jake Tapper and his buddies as if,
and we've done a lot of reporting to substantiate this,
as if the entire point of the ICA and its
briefing was precisely so that Jake Tapper would do his
role in this conspiracy of getting it out there to

(05:01):
perhaps prevent Trump's inauguration and if that failed to destroy
his presidency.

Speaker 2 (05:07):
Yeah, and it's fascinating going back to that Presidential Daily
Brief for PDB that had been put together said that
Russia had not hacked the election, set it conclusively that
was supposed to go to Obama and Trump, and it
was after that or right, around that where Obama suddenly
orders a brand new intel assessment of what happened. And

(05:32):
that's really where the Russia collusion hopes from the perspective
of the federal government begins. It was in that moment
where Obama ordered this new assessment, which was completely cooked
up and based on false premises, that was then used
as the basis to launch this actual coup against Trump.

Speaker 1 (05:52):
And let's also remember that the same day that Obama
orders this ICA this assessment, are placed with co conspirators
at the Washington Post and New York Times to substantiate
what would become the central claim of this ICA, central
and false, I will note, which is that Russia aspired

(06:14):
to help Trump. So the first thing the Washington Post leak,
based on anonymous sources, says that the CIA has conclusively
determined or something like that, you know, like really strong language,
that Russia aspired to help Trump. In fact, nothing of
the kind had happened. And then the New York Times
does its part in the hoax. By the way, every

(06:37):
single reporter involved in this conspiracy received, as a reward
for their participation in it, a Pulitzer prise. The New
York Times says that the reason why, the reason why
the CIA has conclusively determined that Russia wanted to help
Trump is this thing that I'm about to say, which

(06:57):
is actually false, which is that Russia had hacked both
the DNC and RNC and only released information on Hillary.
Now that is false in almost every way. It's possible
to be false that, for one thing, the RNC actually
kept saying we weren't hacked. And this report that we're

(07:20):
about to go through explains why the Republicans had so
much less vulnerability than Hillary, someone who'd been on the
public stage for a long time. But also so they
didn't have information on Trump that they didn't release based
on what we know, and then they did have explosive
information about Hillary that they didn't release. So these media,

(07:42):
the media involvement leading up to the creation of the
ICA is extremely corrupt as well. So let's go into it.

Speaker 2 (07:49):
What do you what do you?

Speaker 1 (07:49):
What should we start with for the document itself?

Speaker 2 (07:53):
Yeah, so I think we should just start with and
that we can use this to kind of set a
roadmap for the conversation. The summary at the beginning of
this House Intel assessment of the ICA, So they had
what I think were five really damning findings about the
process used to create the ICA in the claims made

(08:14):
in it. So the first one was that the Director
of CIA, Brennan, ordered the post election publication of fifteen
reports containing previously collected but unpublished intelligence, three of which
were substandard, containing information that was unclear, of uncertain origin,
potentially biased, or implausible, and those became foundational sources for
the ICA judgments that Putin preferred Trump over Clinton. The

(08:36):
ICA mis represented these reports as reliable without mentioning their
significant underlying flaws. So that's number one. Number two one scant,
unclear and unverifiable fragment of a sentence from one of
the substandard reports constitutes the only classified information cited to
suggest Putin aspired to help Trump win. One stant, unclear

(08:58):
and unverifiable fragment. Just wait till you hear about it.
But okay, what's the next one? So the third is
the ICA ignored or selectively quoted reliable intelligence reports that
challenged and in some cases, undermined, judgments that Putin sought
to elect Trump. Number four, the ICA failed to consider
plausible alternative explanations of Putin's intentions indicated by reliable intelligence

(09:21):
and observed Russian actions. There's some doozies in there when
we get into the specifics. And then finally, Brennan handpicked
five CIA analysts to write the ICA and Russia's production
in order to publish two weeks before President elect Trump
was sworn in. Hurried coordination and limited access to the
draft reduced opportunities for the IC to discover misquoting which

(09:41):
happened of sources and other trade craft errors.

Speaker 1 (09:47):
One of the things that's really helpful about this hipsy
that's the House Permanent Select Commitee on Intelligence, this report
on the creation of the ICA is they explain a
little bit about how you're supposed to put an intelligence
product together. And so what you're supposed to do is
describe whose sources are. You're supposed to talk about, how
reliable they are, what the level of their access to

(10:08):
information is. You're supposed to clearly identify uncertainty that you
might have about what they're saying, and distinguish between an
analyst's judgment and information to support that. And again, more
than anything you're supposed to say when you're uncertain about things.
That goes quadruple for high profile intelligence products. And this

(10:33):
was an intelligence product that even at its most secure,
like its most classified level, was being handed out like
candy to two hundred and fifty government officials. So this
was extremely high profile and intended to undermine an incoming administration.
So all of the normal rules you have for how
to how to describe something, it just ramps up really high.

(10:56):
Do you tell us how they failed, Sean, So.

Speaker 2 (11:00):
They failed in every possible way. So it's remarkable just
by itself that a fragment of a sentence, which could
be interpreted in multiple different ways, even if it were
accurate and verified, became the basis for the whole claim
that Putin wanted Trump to win. That by itself is remarkable.
But they dig into what was done in how that

(11:22):
was presented to They don't say it but to deliberately
mislead the reader or consumer of this intelligence so that
they would go and believe something that really had no
basis in reality.

Speaker 1 (11:35):
And I think there was before you get into it,
there was a footnote that describes how Brennan got access
to this information. And again, normally, when you get access
to or you have access to some information, you actually
put it through something of a formal review. You know,
you write down what it was that they said, and
how you assess it in terms of your confidence level

(11:55):
and he it says in this footnote. CIA officers also
said that Brennan personally directed two of the most important
reports not to be formally disseminated when he first learned
of them, supposedly because they were too sensitive to create
printed copies. And this report says we were unable to

(12:16):
explain to obtain a convincing explanation, however, for why Brennan
did this, since the CIA has a special reporting channel
for stuff like that, and experienced CIA officers noted that
publishing a written report creates a formal record copy vetted
by people not named Brennan, vetted by expert collection management

(12:36):
officers and linguists. Unclear or poorly sourced information would normally
be removed or else explained, and by briefing the information orally, however,
Brennan could have tailored his message to different officials unconstrained
by a consistent record copy.

Speaker 2 (12:57):
Yeah, and we see that kind of throughout the construction
of the ICA. So a lot of these intel pieces
they had kind of been floating around the CIA previously,
but they had never actually been a lot of them
had never been formally published as Intel reports because the
CIA officers that had reviewed them just didn't really have

(13:18):
any confidence in them. On page three of this report,
it says the CIA professionals had decided not to publish
for various reasons having to do with tradecraft standards. Most
of the fifteen reports were unremarkable, but three contained flawed information,
and these three became foundational sources. The ICA cided to
claim Putin's aspired Putin aspired to help Trump win. Senior

(13:41):
CIA officers said some of the information had been judged
who had not met various long standing IC standards for publication,
and that's why they had not been published when first acquired.
And yet it was Brennan who demanded that these go
into the ICA over the objections of career INTEL experts

(14:03):
and officers. And the main thing here, I think the
biggest blockbuster is this fragment of a sentence that became
the basis for the whole Russian hoax, and in this
report they actually include the whole paragraph, which is this
Putin had made this decision in paratheticals to leak DNC

(14:24):
emails after he had come to believe that the Democrat
nominee had better odds of winning the US presidential election,
and that parenthetical candidate Trump, whose victory Putin was counting on,
with whose victory Putin was counting on bolded, most likely
would not be able to pull off a convincing victory.

Speaker 1 (14:42):
And now I'll just to point out that fragment whose
victory Putin was counting on is the entire main basis
of the russiaclusion hoax. So this sentence fragment becomes really
really important.

Speaker 2 (14:56):
Go on, Yeah, And they noted here the ICA did
not cite any report where Putin directly indicated helping Trump
win was the objective. That judgment rested on a questionable
interpretation of this one unclear fragment of a sentence, and
a senior CIA operations officer quoting in this review said,
of that fragment, we don't know what was meant by that,
And five people read it five ways. So here's one

(15:19):
particular way. This information we're told was obtained, I believe
in early July around them of twenty sixteen. This was
before the Republican nominating convention, so Trump wasn't even the
nominee yet and normally.

Speaker 1 (15:34):
Would say, yeah, but he won the primary, so he's
totally we know he's the nominee. Except if you remember
in twenty sixteen, that's not true. There is a massive
and coordinated and well funded effort to keep Trump from
getting the nomination at the Republican convention. I wrote about it.
I was like, oh, Ted Cruse is so great for
trying to stop Trump. One of my more embarrassing pieces.

(15:57):
Do you remember this? Ted Cruz went to the convention
and tried to do a victory despite having not won
the primary. So, while it was true that the odds
of Trump securing the nomination were high, it was by
no means set in Stone and the media were very
much amplifying the idea that they might be able to
keep him from getting the nomination.

Speaker 2 (16:18):
Yes, so one way to interpret this is that putin
was counting on Trump's victory in the primary process and
was therefore assuming that he would be the nominee against Hillary.
So that to me would be a good faith interpretation.
There might be other ones. But you have a top
CIA operations officer saying we don't know what was meant
by that, and five people read it five ways and that,

(16:40):
by the way, assumes that they knew the exact source
of that paragraph and that assertion, and that they had
verified the accuracy of it and the reliability of that source,
which they never did so. In one paragraph below this,
they say, the significance of this fragment to the ICA
case that putin aspired for candidate Trump win cannot be overstated.

(17:02):
The major high confidence judgment of the ICA rests on
one opinion about a text fragment with uncertain meaning that
may be a garble and for which it is not
clear how it was obtained. This text, which would not
have been published without Brennan's orders to do so, is
cited using only one interpretation of its meaning and without

(17:22):
considering alternative interpretations. And the reason why is shocking.

Speaker 1 (17:26):
It's crazy, and you're one of the things that you're
required to do in the intelligence community when you're doing
an assessment is to consider alternate interpretations. And so they
put a high confidence rating on kind of a weird
interpretation of this and did not consider all the different things,

(17:47):
like the one like the one you and I just
said here. There are other problems with it too, right,
like we don't know anything about who the source is
But is he saying that someone heard Putin say he
was counting on Trump's fix? Is he's saying that he
thinks that people close to Putin know that Putin is
counting on Trump to win the nomination. Is he's saying,

(18:10):
you know what I mean, we don't even know if
it's like a sub source of a sub source, the
analysis from a sub source of a sub source, or
something direct, Like it's clearly not direct from Putin, but like,
this is how intelligence is gathered. Nobody's blaming people for
not having really good information. But the idea that you
would run an entire hoax on a fragment this shoty

(18:32):
is holy smoly, Like how can this not be massively illegal?

Speaker 2 (18:38):
But go on, well, yeah, And we actually have a
quote from the original raw intel report with that piece
of intel, and it said the identified sub source of
paragraphs two and three had authoritative insight into redacted, but
the exact circumstances in which the sub source obtains the
information on Putin's plans we're not explicitly clear. And so

(19:02):
the report said the ICA used an abbreviated description of
the source that without further mention of the problems associated
with the fragment misleads the reader to conclude that Putin
wanted Trump to win, contrary to written Intel Community directives
and guidance. The ICA failed to explain the misgivings of
CIA professionals about the lack of clarity of the fragment,

(19:22):
the possibility of other interpretations of it, That fragment does
not actually say Putin aspired to help Trump, or that
it is not known how the information was acquired. And
then on top of that, we learn later in this
review of the ICA that that particular source had clear
anti Trump bias, which was never made clear in the ICA.

Speaker 1 (19:40):
I mean, there's more, Sean, the source never says that
Putin preferred Trump, Like we're making the claim that Putin
preferred Trump based on this fragment that never says he
preferred Trump, which basic logic. Also, it's not known this
is a little deplicative of what you just said, but

(20:02):
how the subsource obtained the information and thus whether the
fragment reflected the sub source's opinion of Putin's inner thoughts,
Putin's actual statements made to the sub source or some
third person's opinions relate to the sub source who then
relayed these to the established source. But also it never says,
contrary to what Brennan is shopping around, that Putin launches

(20:25):
the leak operations. Oh wait this that might be a
different one. Yeah, that Putin launched the leak operations to
help Trump win.

Speaker 2 (20:36):
Yeah, And there's There's another interesting aspect of this is
that there were multiple versions of this ICA that had
been published and were not talking classified or declassified, like
completely different drafts that had been published, one on December twentieth,
one on December twenty eighth of twenty sixteen, the one
that was done on December twentieth, which was done at

(20:56):
the behest of Obama to go review all of the
intel collected and determine what Russia had been doing and
not doing. That original draft didn't have this bid in there.
It more hued to what was in that rescinded Presidential
Daily Brief that said, yeah, they did some hacking stuff,
but it had no effect. They didn't get into any

(21:17):
critical infrastructure. And that's it. Brennan ordered a new draft
to be done when this wasn't included in it. And
it's interesting if you go back and read news reports
from around the same time. He clearly was expecting that
to be in there, because leaks to the Washington Post
and other publications made it sound like there was going

(21:38):
to be this ICA that had concluded definitively that Trump
was being helped by Putin to win. And then it
doesn't show up in the report that he had hoped for,
so he basically trashes that report. Brennan does and orders
them to revise it again to put this nonsense in it,
And that one was the final version that was put

(21:58):
out on December twenty eighth.

Speaker 1 (22:01):
Yes, experienced CIA officers responsible for like the Russia House
basically is like, well, this obviously doesn't meet our standards,
so we're not putting it in there. And Brennan quote
countermanded their decision Comma. However, Comma and ordered that the
fragment be included so that it could be cited in

(22:23):
the ICA. So like, first off, these weren't even these
reports weren't even out there being like properly handled in
the normal CIA system. He after Obama orders this ICA,
was like, well, we should put these in some reports
so we can quote them in the ICA. The reporting
did not even meet the INTEL did not meet the

(22:43):
standards for being included in the report, and so Brennan's like,
I'm going to personally say, you have to put it
in there so that I can cite it in the ICA,
Like this is this is so much worse than we
even imagined.

Speaker 2 (22:58):
It gets better, it's better. So take yourself back again
to early winter, late fall of twenty sixteen. They're ticked
Trump one. They're trying to figure out what's going on.

Speaker 1 (23:09):
Twenty seventeen, twenty sixteen, Well, got it, got it?

Speaker 2 (23:13):
Sorry, Yeah, Trump has won, but he's not been inaugurated
and either late November actually I think it was early December,
you started seeing news reports that Obama's officials are trying
to get the head of the National Security Agency, the NSA,
Mike Rogers fired, which is weird because that's normally a
fairly i would say, a political job. That the NSA

(23:34):
does all of the mechanical digital spying and all that,
all the collection, they manage it. They're not doing the
same type of analytical work that say the CIA is doing.
So you have Brennan and Clapper trying to get Mike
Rogers fired, and you think, wow, that's odd. I wonder

(23:54):
why we actually know why now in reading through this report,
and it's because Mike Rogers, at the time this ICA
was being put together, objected to that fragment of a
sentence of intel the basis for the IICA. He objected
to that being described as having high confidence, and he
says NSA has moderate confidence in the assessment given a

(24:20):
limited source base, lack of corroborating intelligence, and the possibility
for an alternative judgment. Rogers testified around that time it
ultimately boils down to a human or human intelligence source
that did not have direct access. I didn't find the
level of corroboration that led me to high confidence. I
didn't see multiple sources.

Speaker 1 (24:40):
And there's something important that we should mention about high confidence,
moderate confidence, and low confidence. And they actually explain how
to define those different things. And I think the easiest
way to understand it is that what the intelligence community
refers to as high confidence is what a normal person
would say is like average confidence. What they say is

(25:02):
moderate confidence. Confidence is what we would say is low confidence.
And what they say is low confidence is what we
would say is extremely low. Okay, So high confidence the
definition generally indicates judgments are based on high quality info.
And multiple sources, not that it's been vetted and confirmed
or corroborated, just that like it's pretty good. Moderate means

(25:24):
the information is plausible and credibly sourced, but not of
sufficient quality or corroboration to warrant like saying much about it.
And low confidence means that basically it's made up. So sorry,
that's a that's a shorthand information to fragmented or poorly
corroborated to make solid inferences or reliability. So already, high

(25:46):
confidence is a nice phrase for something that does not
mean much.

Speaker 2 (25:50):
Yeah, And and so the fact that you have that,
they clearly are desperate to have this in there. It's
the basis of their entire cop operation. And incomes Mike Rogers,
one of the top intel officials, you know, tasked with
collecting so much intel, saying no, no, I do not
have high confidence in that. And then almost immediately we
see leaks starting to show up to get him fired.

(26:13):
At the same time he's trying to stand in the
way of this. And everyone had wondered at the time,
why on earth was Trump just meeting with Rogers? Why
were Brennan and Clapper trying to get Rogers fired? And
I think for the first time we actually have something
of a definitive answer, is that he was standing in

(26:33):
the way of them laundering garbage intelligence into this document.

Speaker 1 (26:39):
That's a really good point. So in general, the ICA
notes that the key judgments are based on this single
well established quote unquote well established source, and it's the
that single source is like what everything is resting on.
So it sounds like someone, you know, someone high up
that they're getting info from.

Speaker 2 (27:01):
Yeah, and then I think the next big thing. So
we've got this fragment of a sentence which could be
interpreted to a bunch of different ways and might not
have even been legit since they didn't really understand the
exact source or how.

Speaker 1 (27:14):
They just don't know.

Speaker 2 (27:15):
Yeah, we have them trying to get Mike Rogers fired
for saying, hey, I don't have high confidence in this.
But then we also have the thing that everyone's been
talking about for years, which is the Steele dossier.

Speaker 1 (27:28):
Okay, before we actually get to the part of steel,
which is its own huge thing, there is a second
source they that the ICA uses to allege that Putin
preferred Trump. Once again, this is something that was never

(27:49):
written up when it came in, probably because of the
low state the low like there was no reason to
kind of treat it very seriously. It comes in in
February twenty sixteen, and CIA operations officers declined to publish
it because they considered it quote odd quote and quote

(28:11):
lacking authoritativeness. Quote. It only gets disseminated once Obama says
you got to give me everything you got, no matter
how made up it is, okay, and it is subsequently
used without any caveats at all to source this claim
that Putin developed a clear preference for Trump. Now it

(28:35):
says that it's a plan of some kind. Well, let's
just quote from this document. The ICA bullet text is alarming,
implying the existence of a Russian plan for engagement with
the Trump campaign that most readers would see as strong
evidence of Putin showing a clear preference for Trump. But
the ICA omits critical report context, which would have made

(28:59):
it look for Dick. What I just said that people
thought it was odd and lacking authoritativeness.

Speaker 2 (29:04):
They also said.

Speaker 1 (29:07):
CIA officer said it would not have met the threshold
for dissemination, and they failed to clarify that this supposed
plan was not a plan, It was just an email
with no date, no identified sender, no clear recipient, and
no classification. CIA could not in any way vouch for
the sources vetting validation or access and station officers in

(29:30):
Ukraine and Russia. Is this sense you get here, could
not obtain further clarification from where they you know, from
the place where they'd gotten it.

Speaker 2 (29:39):
And that let me read. Let me read the actual note, Molly,
because it makes clear how absurd it is that they
how they interpreted it. As early as February twenty sixteen.
This is what was in the ICA. A Russian political
expert possessed a plan that recommended engagement with Trump's team

(30:00):
because of the prospects for improved US Russian relations, according
to reporting from Redactive government service, which context clused later
in here suggests it was from a Ukrainian security service. Yes,
so a Russian political expert possessed plan that recommended engagement
because of prospects for improved US relations with Russia. That's it.

Speaker 1 (30:23):
Oh yeah, what the ICA calls a Russian plan for
engagement was actually an anonymous email proposal to place somebody
on the Trump team to formulate like less hostile posture
toward Russia. There's no explanation of how it would be done,

(30:44):
why candidate Trump would want as they put a well
known pro Kremlin official on his campaign team to endure
what the media would put him through, and had the
bullet clarified where it came from, some readers would have
known of the anti Trump bias. Another anti Trump thing here.
There was no security justification for obscuring the identity of

(31:08):
the Foreign Service, as the intelligence community assessment was written
for the President, who was cleared for everything. So again
we've got these three layers of classification. There's the public view,
the declassified ICA, there's like a moderately classified one, and
then a super classified one. And the superclassified one obscures

(31:29):
where this comes from. And there's no reason for that
because it was just going to the president, supposedly the
president and vice president. And here's where the context clues are.
The ICA made no mention of Ukraine's documented objections to
candidate Trump. The ambassador to Washington had literally done this
very unusual thing of publishing an op ed attacking Trump,

(31:51):
so that should have also been mentioned in here.

Speaker 2 (31:57):
And then we had a third thing in there, so
we had the the fragment, we had the anonymous emailed
plan from some random guy who wasn't even in the government.
And then we had a third source here, which I
think is detailed on.

Speaker 1 (32:14):
Page ten, and the actual claim is the established source
was secondhand. Access noted that several members of Putin's inner
circle strongly preferred Republican over Democratic candidates because they judged
that Republicans had historically been less focused on democracy and
human rights. First off, that doesn't sound right. I just

(32:35):
want to say, like, do you think Russia is like,
we don't like democrats and we like Republicans because they
are not focused on democracy and human rights.

Speaker 2 (32:46):
They loved Reagan. The Russians famously loved Reagan. Everyone knows this.

Speaker 1 (32:50):
And I think if we know anything about George W.
Bush's foreign policy of spreading democracy in hostile lands, it's
that he was not focused on democracy. I think that'd
be fair to.

Speaker 2 (32:59):
Say, right, Yeah, what I love in here in this
review of the ICA where they tell us the phrase
strongly preferred Republicans never actually appeared in the raw intelligence
report that it was sourced to. I mean, that's there's
one thing to misquote something, and there's an entirely another

(33:20):
thing to just invent something that it never says, which
is historically nonsensical and just obviously wrong to the most
basic educated person. But the phrase strongly preferred Republicans does
not appear in the raw intelligence report. It's these three
things well forms the foundation of the claim that Trump

(33:42):
wanted that Putin wanted Trump to win.

Speaker 1 (33:45):
Once again, this is something that was only put into
the intelligence collection in mid December twenty sixteen, even though
they had gotten the information some earlier time in twenty sixteen,
and they have no idea who the ultimate source of
the information is. And it is once again in unclear
if this is like a personal opinion or not. And also, yeah,

(34:09):
so the phrase doesn't appear. And then he also says
historically that Republicans were less concerned with these issues. And
it says the ICA did not take the basic analytic
step of comparing the plausibility to the documented policies of
the past three Republican presidents, all of whom featured democracy
and human rights as cornerstones of their foreign policy. And

(34:32):
this analysis, says, reminds people that President Reagan's famous quote was,
mister Gorbachev, tear down this wall. So it doesn't even
like stand up to the most basic level of scrutiny
for being legit.

Speaker 2 (34:47):
Yeah, there's a great paragraph in this report where they
say it's unclear if the original source of this actually
had access to Putin's private statements or those of his
inner circle. That seems like an important thing to establish,
or if this was the sub sources personal opinions of
Putin's personal thoughts, if this was a garble or misunderstanding,

(35:08):
or if this reflected opinions of some other unknown person's opinions.
It's it's all of the things that we kind of
assumed were going on. Those were we didn't have good assumptions,
But finding out what actually happened makes me feel like
we were not nearly as skeptical and cynical as we

(35:31):
should be. As skeptical and cynical as we were, we
weren't enough. We weren't distrusting enough.

Speaker 1 (35:36):
Like I don't have high view of Russia, so I
kind of assumed they had something. At least I thought
they had something so much more than this. I will
also note that in the intelligence community assessment they will
sometimes say, like, we have corroboration for this in a
list of these other documents and This hipsy report notes

(35:57):
that the ICA claimed information for this report was corroborated
by liaison, diplomatic and press reporting, as well as sensitive
signals intelligence, but in following up every citation, none were
found to corroborate the ICA claims. And who's going to
like really look through all that, you know, like, hey,

(36:18):
you don't even have access to this supposed corroboration. But
even if you do, are you really going to go
and look through everything and be like, oh yeah, this
checks out, this checks out. But if you did, none
of the litany of support they claimed they had for
this checked out.

Speaker 2 (36:31):
Oh yeah, let me let me read what they had
in the report. So we had liaison, sigan and diplomatic
sources undergirding this claim. The sided Liaison reporting didn't mention
Trump at all and was from twenty fourteen, before Trump
was a candidate. The sided sigant also didn't mention Trump,

(36:51):
and the side of diplomatic report is a post election
overview of Moscow from the US ambassador that references a
media opinion him by a Russian pundit suggesting that Trump
and Putin should work together like businessmen, which is hardly
a corroboration of Putin's quote inner circle preferring Republicans or businessmen.

(37:12):
And then finally, it's one thing to falsely say that
they preferred Republicans, but the ICA also excluded direct intel
that they had that said they were actually, like, not
really wanting Republicans because those who would hold positions in
a Trump admin should he win, will likely adhere to conservative,

(37:34):
anti Russian positions. So not only did they misrepresent the
pro case, they didn't even include the opposite case. It's
like the entire thing was designed to mislead and then
to be leaked to the.

Speaker 1 (37:47):
Media, which, surprise, is exactly what happened. Yeah, so this
HIPSI report lists all of the many things that would
have been included if it were a real intelligence analysis.
For instance, the cited report that we just talked about
out actually quoted Trump, quoted Russians as saying, we do
not feel any euphoria about Trump's win. Then you've got

(38:08):
all this like private information, you know, significant intelligence that
says Putin told him he did not care who won
the election. Putin had often outlined the weaknesses of both
major candidates. Putin asserted that in either case, Russia was
strategically placed to out maneuver either one. Meaning just again,
we don't care if it's Clinton or Trump. We have

(38:30):
a way of controlling them no matter what, or you know,
going after them no matter what.

Speaker 2 (38:35):
Yeah. So then next we'll get to steal in a minute. Next,
we had all the dirt that they had on Hillary
Clinton that they never actually released, which you would think
that if they wanted Trump to win, and if they
had concluded, which according to the ICA, they had, that
Trump would not win absent some sort of last minute,

(38:55):
big mega dump of OPO on Hillary, you would think
if the Russians wanted Trump to win, they would have
dumped all that OPO on Hillary. But they didn't, and
some of that opo is really kind of shocking. They
had a whole bunch of stuff that they claim showed
she was in poor health, that potentially she was a

(39:18):
type two diabetic, that she was on medicines dealing with psychosis,
that she was physically and mentally ill. And if you
recall some of the videos that we saw towards the
end of the campaign, you know, one of them was
Hillary walking on the sidewalk and then she basically got

(39:38):
picked up like a bag of flower and thrown into
a van and then spared it off, and then we
were told later on, oh, she just had a fever
and was like a little dehydrated. Imagine what the effect
would have been if there had been information released in
the waning weeks of the campaign that she was actually
in dire physical health, and yet Russia never released that. So,

(40:00):
if they really wanted Trump to win, why didn't they
do that? That is a question an honest analyst would
ask or present so you could understand the full picture.

Speaker 1 (40:10):
Right, The central claim of this Ica Russia collusion hoax
is that Russia aspired to help Trump. They further say
that Russia never gave up hope of defeating Trump. Now,
the underlying reason for them saying this is completely ridiculous, right,
But also, as you note, if it were true that

(40:32):
they never gave up hope and that they aspired to
help Trump and they had absolutely explosive information on Hillary
Clinton that could have really hurt her, why did they
not release it? Remember back to that New York Times story,
we're told, based on anonymous sources to the corrupt media

(40:54):
that the reason why they make this assessment is because
they had negative information on Trump that they chose not
to release. In fact, they had negative information on Hillary
that they chose not to release. Now, if you're thinking
of alternate explanations, one of the obvious ones would be
they expect her to win and they want to use
this against her as president. Right, if they had never

(41:17):
given up hope that they could have defeated her, why
would they have not deployed it when the election was
down to like one and a half points, Right, It
doesn't make sense for a basic like my kids would
have hit this in you know, six grade logic levels.
They would have been able to figure out that this
didn't make sense. And yet this, this is the quality

(41:38):
of the report.

Speaker 2 (41:40):
All right, Can we move to the Steele dossier now?

Speaker 1 (41:42):
Yeah, but can you help me out by telling me
which page because I just for context, everybody, we have
forty four pages here.

Speaker 2 (41:50):
And I think we're in twenty three ish.

Speaker 1 (41:53):
That starts on page twenty four. Just so you guys know,
we're skipping over a lot of stuff that you might
find interesting if you want to reach it on your
own time. So, okay, let's get to Steal dossier.

Speaker 2 (42:04):
Go for it. Yeah, So we were told for a
long time once the Steele dossier kind of felled apart,
and props to Ben Smith of BuzzFeed, who unintentionally and
accidentally destroyed the entire Russia collusion hoax by publishing that
thing in January of twenty seventeen. Because remember it was
supposed to be something that was just whispered about and

(42:26):
referred to by like Jake Tapper on CNN, and it
wasn't something we were ever supposed to see. Because it
was such an amateurish, ridiculous document full of obvious nonsense.
They needed to have the innu window, they didn't needed
to have the raw intel out there. So Ben Smith,
you know, thinking he's helping the cause, accidentally puts it
out there and it blows up the whole thing. So

(42:48):
after that, after everyone understands what a joke that it is,
they everyone on the left, the Democrats, the media, they
were all trying to distance themselves from it. No, no, no, no,
the Rush investigation wasn't about the Steele dossier. You know,
Steele dossier wasn't in the FISA on Carter page, which
was a lie. We know it was. No. There there
was other intel. What they're pointing to is the ICA

(43:10):
and They were adamant for years that the Steele dossier
was not in the ICA. You know, Komee had wanted
it in, but he couldn't get it in, and so
they ended up including it as an annex or an appendix,
but it never appeared in the main body of the
ICA that was crammed down our throats for years.

Speaker 1 (43:30):
And so I will quote from the HIPSI analysis contradicting
the public claims by Brennan that the dossier quote was
not in any way quote incorporated into the ICA. The
dossier was referenced in the ICA main body text and

(43:50):
further detailed in a two page ICA annex. Let's see
what they say here. So on the central hoax claim,
which is that Russia aspired to help Trump, they listed
bullets of why they believe it. We've already gone through
three of them, and how they are not what you
would base any claim on. The fourth bullet that there
was evidence of Putin aspiring to help Trump says for

(44:13):
additional reporting on Russian plans and attentions, please see the
Steele dossier. So it's just a complete better life. It
was actually used as substantially completely manufactured fake thing that
Hillary Clinton paid for was cited in the most controversial

(44:34):
claim put here. Also, it says by devoting nearly two
pages of text to summarizing the dossier, because remember this
actual ICA is pretty short, but then they do to
two page summary of the Steele dossier, it suggested that
there was a lot of significance to it, and the
ICA referred to the dossier as Russian plans and intentions,

(44:56):
which implies to policymakers, to members of Congress that the
dossier had intelligence value for understanding Moscow's influence operations. It
did not. It was made up by Christopher Steele and
his sub source who we later learned like totally had
no access at all.

Speaker 2 (45:12):
It was made it up, and it was funded by Hillary, yes,
which they also lied about repeatedly. No, no, no, it
wasn't funded by Hillary. And then we find out right
as Devin Nunez was about to expose it that oh, yeah,
you know, mistakes were made, and yeah, Hillary and the
DNC totally funded it. So they lied about, Oh, they

(45:34):
lied about putting it in the ICA, but they even
did more chicanery. And we talked about the two different
drafts of the ICA. There was the December twentieth one
that didn't have the uncorroborated nonsense. And then there was
the kind of the final draft of December twenty eighth
that came out. But of that December twenty eighth one,

(45:55):
there were several different versions that were created that different
information in them. For example, says here in the report,
even though the dossier information was unclassified, the dossier summary
was only included in the highest classified version of the
ICA that was brief to President Obama and President Electroump

(46:17):
and was seen by various national security officials in senior
political appointees. It was omitted from both the top secret
version of the ICA released for Congress and the unclassified
public release version. So this gets to this wasn't just
mere dishonesty or forgetful memory. They knew it was in there,
especially Brennan, because he demanded it go in there. He

(46:40):
put it in there over the objections of career intell
officials who said that it shouldn't be included at all
because it failed to meet basic tradecraft. So he put
it in there, but he made sure that the versions
that might get out to the public, the one that
went to Congress in the unclassified public release version those
didn't have it in it, so then he could go

(47:02):
to Congress, he could go leak and say no, it
wasn't in there at all, because he knew they didn't
have access to it, So he was able to smuggle
in the information he wanted, which everyone knew was bogus,
but not have any accountability for it. And then he
knew he could lie about it because the versions that
everyone had access to wouldn't have it in it.

Speaker 1 (47:21):
There's more. I mean, it's all related to this. But
by relegating the dossier text to only the highest classified versions,
the authors were better able to shield the assessment from scrutiny.
And that's why your point about BuzzFeed publishing it being
like a total victory for you and me and for
most normal Americans. The moment we read the actual dossier,

(47:44):
we were like, oh, it's stupid. The only way that
they could use this to destroy a presidency was by
hiding the details, because it crumbled under just even the
least amount of scrutiny. A little, a little quite a
side trip here, which is all of the information that's
been coming out from Gabbard and Ratcliffe show that good.

(48:08):
You know, I think people have gotten such a bad
view of the intelligence officers, but it's just worth remembering
good people, good career bureaucrats were screaming from the rooftops
against including this material, and Brennan and Comy overruled them.

Speaker 2 (48:24):
Yeah, there's a great quote in here about Brennan's duplicity.
One Intel officer who objected to it being included because
it failed to be basic trade crest standards, said that
when Brennan had been confronted with the dossier's mini flaws,
he responded, yes, but doesn't it ring true? And that's

(48:46):
why it was included.

Speaker 1 (48:48):
Every CIA analyst and operations officer who was asked about
the dossier took pains to emphasize they had nothing to
do with the decision to include it, could not vouch
for it, did not believe it should have been included.
And then some CI officers blamed FBI officials for adding it,
which is fair because I have a piece coming out

(49:09):
about this soon. But Comy Struck and pre Step were
running a full on campaign to get it in there.

Speaker 2 (49:18):
Yeah. One person quoted in the report says, our instructions
were that anything we had was to be used. We
were to push this, So what does that tell you
about what Brennan and Clapper and Komy were actually up to.
They were told that this stuff was false. They were
told that it was poorly sourced. They were told that
there was no corroboration. They were told that it failed

(49:40):
basic standards. They were told that it violated I see
directives on how to put intel in here, and they
demanded it go in there anyway. They did it so
that the public would never see it, and then when
they were asked about it over and over and again,
they lied about it.

Speaker 1 (49:55):
So the next like ten pages are all about how
shoddy the Steele dossier was. And I don't know how
much we need to go into that, because I feel
like this is an area where we do have a
lot of public reporting now. The level of detail here
is great. I don't know if there's anything you want
to bring out from that.

Speaker 2 (50:13):
Sean well to say they failed to properly characterize Steel
and what he was doing when they cited it in
the ICA. At no point did they say it was
opposition research funded by a campaign. At no point did
they say the source who provided it himself was virulently
anti Trump and was furious at the FBI forever. Even

(50:37):
looking in the direction of Hillary's emails, it never says
that he had a history of providing information that hadn't
been corroborated. These are all things you would think you
would want to know as a consumer of Intel to
make sure you have the whole picture, And yet time
after time that information was denied and excluded from these
Intel assessments, And I think that tells you everything about

(51:00):
the motive and the intent of the people who forced
it in.

Speaker 1 (51:03):
There a few little things that made me laugh from
this Hypsi analysis. One is that Komi repeatedly lies about
how the reporting has been corroborated. Now, the way I
used to always describe it is like it's like they
would say, oh, yes, it's corroborated because Christopher Steele says
that Russia is a country, and in fact that's true.

(51:25):
Russia is a country, so his reporting is corroborated. Corroboration
assumes that we're talking about his salacious claims, not basic facts.
Some of the examples of the corroboration were that the
Steele dossier says Russia saw NATO expansionism as part of

(51:46):
a trend of Western hostility toward Russia. Sean, this is
like in every textbook, in every story, in every policy paper,
in the public statements of Russian officials. The idea that
Steele was credible because he noticed that Russia didn't like
NATO expansion is absurd. And yet this is the kind
of crap that we had to deal with, with media

(52:10):
people saying to us when we were like, we think
they used the Steele dossier, and they're like, uh no,
And also they did, and it was very credible. He's
a super spy. He doesn't speak Russian, but he's a
super Russian spy. He knows everything about Russia without speaking Russia,
and all of it was corroborated. For instance, he said
Russia thought NATO expansion was a threat. I mean, this

(52:30):
is what we had to deal with. But to see
it here is just like infuriating. Also, Komy lied when
he said he flat out told Trump and wrote that
he told Trump that much of the dossier had been
consistent with and corroborative of other intelligence. In fact, by
that point they not only knew that Steele was lying,

(52:50):
they had fired him as a source. They had reason
to believe the sub sources were also not true. And
then I just want to do a little note here,
which is they go out of their way to not
interview the subs even though they know him, but they
finally do it, I think on January twenty eighth or
something like this. So after Trump is inaugurated, by the
point they interview him, they now realize, oh, it's all

(53:12):
made up, like it's all gossip. We'll call it gossip
at innuendo, but really what it is is made up.
And at that point, so back to how you do
intelligence at the beginning, which I liked how they explained it.
You have to say what you know and what you
don't know. You have to be honest about weaknesses in
the intelligence. By January twenty seventeen, the FBI knows for

(53:35):
a fact that the Steele dossier is completely made up,
and they hide that for years, including by bringing on
the sub source as a confidential informant so that nobody
can look into him. This is seditious conspiracy, it's criminal.

Speaker 2 (53:55):
And when they describe Steel in the ICA, they just
him as an FBI source, which was false because they
knew that he had actually been fired two months prior
for lying about his leaks of the dossier, because the
little game he would do is he would give something
to the FBI and then he would go leak what
he gave the FBI to a media entity, and then

(54:17):
the media entity would report it, and then the FBI
would take that and be like, hey, look, this media
reporting corroborates what you said. They actually put that stuff
in a PHISA warrant on carter page. So when they
find out about this, do they go back and do
they modify their FISA warrants? No, they just leave him
as is. Do they tell everyone, hey, guys, you can't
talk to him anymore, we actually fired him because he's dishonest. Nope.

(54:40):
What they did is they said, you know what, we
should call him an FBI source in December of twenty
sixteen in this report, which is a total lie because
they'd actually fired him for being a dirty, unreliable liar.

Speaker 1 (54:54):
There are little easter eggs in this document for those
of us who are unnatural involved in this Russia collusion.
Hoaks are discovering what's wrong with it. One of my
favorite was on page thirty nine, and it's a segue
to what I want to talk about about how the
Hill handled this hoax. So on page thirty nine, it

(55:17):
notes that Brennan was briefing members of the Gang of
Eight about this fragment, this fragment which he takes and
just runs wild with it. He starts telling the Democrats
and the Gang of Eight that Russia prefers Trump.

Speaker 2 (55:34):
He happens to.

Speaker 1 (55:35):
Already note that Hillary Clinton, like he claims to know
from the Russians, knowing that Hillary Clinton is running an
operation to tie Trump and Russia together, So he already
knows that that's Hillary Clinton's goal, and then he sort
of like manages to help with that goal by briefing
all these members of Congress that Russia prefers Trump. Okay,

(55:56):
there's a note here which says it was not possible
to determine if and provided the same details in each briefing.
And it's so funny that it says that, because I
was just thinking about this as I was reading Brennan's
book about how he briefed these people. He says, in
early August he told all the Gang of Eight he
wanted to meet with them, and then he says, like
some of them he couldn't meet with until late September.

(56:17):
It's like, oh, hm, so you briefed all your Democratic
buddies early, and he kept the Republican ones to the end,
so that the Democratic buddies like Harry Reid, who once
he gets this briefing, he immediately writes a public letter
to Comy saying, I can't say what I know, but
I'm deeply concerned about Trump's ties to Russia? Right, could
you please start an investigation? And then he says he

(56:39):
tells Mitch McConnell, and Mitch McConnell is like, huh, it
kind of sounds like something you would say if you
were trying to hurt Trump's election chances. Now. Good on
McConnell for figuring out what Brennan was doing. Bad on
McConnell for being so bad on the Russia colusion hoax
in light of that. And then he says that he
briefed Devin Nuness. And what we know about Devin Nunez

(57:01):
at this time September of twenty sixteen, is that he's,
you know, the Republican leader on the House Permanent Select
Committee on Intelligence, and he's mostly known for being an
absolutely obsessed Russia hawk. He thinks Russia is very very,
very very bad. He's also working on the Trump or

(57:22):
like he's a surrogate on the Trump campaign. And Brennan
says that when he explained all this to Nunez that
Nuna's just like didn't respond. Isn't that weird that a
Russia hawk wouldn't care at all about what he was told,
or wouldn't ask for more details or things like that.
I've always kind of wondered was he actually given a

(57:43):
proper briefing?

Speaker 2 (57:44):
You know?

Speaker 1 (57:44):
It could just be that Nuna's already knew Brennan was
a complete Nutter liar, and so he just understood that
anytime Brennan's meeting with you, it's part of an info op.
So the less you say, the better. That's actually a
very reasonable inference. I just also wonder if with Harry
Reid it's a strategy session, how do we help Hillary win?
And with Nounas, it's like, how do I claim that
I'm briefing him without actually giving him any details?

Speaker 2 (58:08):
Or it could have been what the FBI did to Trump,
where you send in someone ostensibly to give him a
defensive briefing, and they're actually there to spy on Trump
and write up reports on his reaction so that they
can use that against him and investigations going forward. I mean,
it's the duplicity and dishonesty and corruption from these people

(58:28):
I think knows no bounds. And I know one thing
that a lot of people are frustrated about is they
feel like they understand the whole story. They may not
enjoy the minutia of it in the way we do,
because we followed it for so long. They believe they
understand the overarching goal there. They know the narrative, they
know there was a coup against Trump. All they care
about is people go into prison for it. And I

(58:50):
think I'm there with them. I've been there for a
long time. Years ago, I said, if people don't go
to prison for this, they're going to do it again,
and they're going to do it again, and they're going
to do it again. And so at this point, I
think it's fascinating as it is, is vindicating as it
is to learn these facts and that we were right
about all of them from the beginning. Somebody has to
go to prison. I would like somebodies to go to prison,

(59:12):
whether it's a conspiracy charge, a sedition or a treason charge.
What they did with seditious and treason is they took
our government hostage. They orchestrated a coup against our elected government.
They crippled our nation, they crippled the presidency, they crippled
our foreign policy. It will have ramifications for generations in
this country, and if nobody goes to prison for it,

(59:33):
it's going to happen again.

Speaker 1 (59:36):
So I agree, But I want to say one thing
about these recent documents, in particular, what we got from
Tulci Yabbert's previous release, Ratcliffe's release of the analysis of
the ICA, and then this Hipsie report really are substantially
different than everything we've known prior. And so when people

(59:58):
are like, I just want people held accountable, well, I'm
right there with you, okay, but it's actually hard to
hold people accountable. All of these reports show that this
conspiracy was done in such a way as to basically
make it impossible to hold people accountable. And that's why
learning about what they did to further their seditious conspiracy

(01:00:21):
is helpful for possibly holding them accountable for what they did.
We now know that so many people were trying to
do the right thing against the wishes of Komi and
Brennan and even and Clapper, we now know that while
the media were conspiring with the people trying to do sedition,

(01:00:43):
that there were people on the inside who were being
kept from Like one of the things that this talks about,
and it gets into it at the end of the report,
page thirty nine and so on, is that Brennan compartmentalized information.
He only had five people working on it, and then
even they didn't have access to all the information. I
wrote a piece with Margot Cleveland this week showing that

(01:01:04):
when the top Russia House people went to Brennan and said,
we have no evidence to support this claim, he said,
I have secret knowledge that you don't have. Okay, well,
what are you going to do? Then?

Speaker 2 (01:01:19):
What do you do?

Speaker 1 (01:01:20):
What should those people have done? When people are like,
why weren't they bowling the whistle? More, well, what are
you supposed to do? You know? And then he defamed
them in his book, and he defamed them in a
letter from his attorney to John Durmy's like they didn't
know what they were talking about. It's hard to bring
down a criminal conspiracy that involves literally the head of
the CIA. It's hard. And so rather than getting discouraged

(01:01:44):
at this time when we have better stuff than we've
ever had before. This is the time to put the
foot on the pedal. And just as another way of
example of talking about this, I was rereading Horowitz's report.
Horowitz was who Barack Obama picked to be the Department
of Justice inspector general, and in general, inspector generals are

(01:02:04):
what I like to think of them as the HR
department of a corporation. They may claim they're doing an
investigation into the wrongdoing at the company, but really they're
trying to just get out of it with the least
amount of liability. And so when Horowitz discovers this horrific plot,
he does write a four hundred and thirty five page reporter,
however long it was, and it does have a ton

(01:02:25):
of really interesting information, it's so dry. So when we
talk about what we just went through, like all of this,
he sums it up this way. A few people at
the CIA expressed concern, but the analysis was overall good,
Like that's the sum up of what we just talked about.
How are you supposed to press charges with that level

(01:02:49):
of information? Do you know what I'm saying? Like, what
are you supposed to do with that? And so people
should be very happy that this is out there, But
I want to say, can we talk about to other
things really quickly?

Speaker 2 (01:03:01):
Yeah? Of course.

Speaker 1 (01:03:02):
Okay. One is the Senate Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence.
So as the Russia collusion hoax became undeniable, bitter clingers
in the media and other parts of the Democrat Party
clung to this Senate report which said that Russia wanted

(01:03:26):
to help Trump. It's like, if you say, oh my gosh,
we got the conspiracy here, they go, well, even Marco,
Rubio and Burr agree that Russia was trying to help Trump.
And so you look at the report and they do
say that, right, they do say that, and their substantiation

(01:03:47):
is completely blacked out. I sure as heck hope that
the Senate has something other than what we just went through,
because if they were using this, and I think they
were to make that claim, holy crap, are they bad

(01:04:07):
at their jobs. I mean, we already knew they were
bad at their jobs. They already seemed to care so
much about being pipe artisan, and they didn't seem to
have the testicular fortitude that a Devin Nunaz had, because
like when Devin Nunez raised his head and said, I
think they're weaponizing intelligence. They tried to take him out completely,
sideline him completely. So did the Republicans in the Senate,

(01:04:30):
who really just wanted to run for president someday, want
to go down with Devin Nunez like everyone else went down.
It took so much courage, and I do say that
with personal experience that I know you understand so well
to stand up against the hysteria of DC and it
was courage that those Republicans on that committee never had.

Speaker 2 (01:04:49):
If they had it.

Speaker 1 (01:04:49):
And there's something I don't know, I sure as heck
hope they say it right now. But until they do,
this report from Hipsey makes the Senate Committee book so
bad I can't even describe it.

Speaker 2 (01:05:03):
No, it makes them look like lapdogs, which has always
been the impression that anyone in the know has about
the Senate Intel Committee. There's two ways to handle that committee.
There's what Devin Nunez did, which was a historical aberration,
and that he actually used his authority to conduct real
oversight on bad actors in the intel community. That never happens.

(01:05:26):
What actually happens, which is model too for running an
Intel committee, is you work for the CIA. The CIA
gives you intel it wants you to have, and sometimes
it takes you on fun trips and it lets you
into the world of spycraft and makes you feel like
you're a Jason Bourne and you're really read into these

(01:05:47):
ops and it flatters them and flies them around and
lies to them, and they all love it. The Senate
Intel Committee traditionally is nothing but a vassal for the
intel community, particularly the CIA, and it's we have all
assumed that for so long. To see it so out
in the open. After reading this report and seeing what

(01:06:09):
they had put together on the Senate side, they should
all be embarrassed if they're still even capable of feeling shame.

Speaker 1 (01:06:16):
Amen. The other thing I wanted to mention is the
role that the media played in this seditious conspiracy. And
I get the feeling that a lot of them are
claiming that they got to take part in the seditious
conspiracy because they have a get out of jail free
card of claiming to be journalists. When we look at
what the media did, like all of the things that

(01:06:37):
were done here would not have mattered at all without
a Jake Tapper being willing to get on his knees
in front of John Brennan, right, it just would not
have happened. So without the media, this hoax doesn't really work.
And they're all now claiming that this utterly explosive information

(01:06:59):
coming out is no big deal. Why because they are
co conspirators in a seditious conspiracy to take out a
duly elected government. If they were to cover it honestly,
they would be admitting their role. And so when Margaret
Brennan goes on TV and says, like, didn't Marco Rubio

(01:07:21):
say that Russia helped Trump, she's not doing journalism. She's
covering up for herself and for all of her buddies
who did this against the American people. And I think
creative legal minds, Oh, this is kind of related to
what you're saying about being frustrated and just wanting people
in jail. It's a difficult thing to prosecute when people
do this type of seditious conspiracy. Creative legal minds need

(01:07:43):
to look into this, not just for how to hold
these evil, evil people inside the government accountable, but also
the people who enabled it on the outside by pretending
to do journalism. I think they have some legal exposure.
I think some people should look into it, and I
think that every day that they cover it up by

(01:08:04):
downplaying it or ignoring it is further evidence in support
of their role.

Speaker 2 (01:08:09):
Amen. I mean, if you read any history of coups
around the globe, of coups in Third world countries, of
how intel agencies go and take over governments and takeover land,
you see one common thing, especially in the less technologically
developed nations, and it's that the first target they go

(01:08:31):
after and take over when running a coup is the
local radio station. Number one. They are in the local
radio station immediately, and they immediately start broadcasting the new
propaganda and telling people what they need to do and
what they need to hear. Our government operated in the
exact same method here. They used our media the exact

(01:08:52):
same way. These gorilla forces and warlords use the radio
stations that they take over when running a coup in
a country so they can take over their mining resources.
Our media. These were not just dough wide babes in
the woods. Oh, how was I to know that the
Steele dossier was fake? They were all in on it.
They all knew. They had motive, they had means, they

(01:09:15):
had opportunity, they had guilty minds and You can even
see it in how they are reacting now, which is
either straight up lying about it or just pretending it
doesn't happen. So yeah, I agree. Not only do bad
government actors have to go to prison, there have to
be legal consequences for people in the media who act
as co conspirators in a seditious, treasonous conspiracy against the

(01:09:36):
American people in the government they elected or ELM's going
to happen again.

Speaker 1 (01:09:40):
And it's worth noting Brennan, Comy, Clapper, Obama, Biden, they're
all out of government now, they're all gone, right, Jake
Tapper is still there. And by the way, some of
those people are now working with Jake Tapper or other
corrupt media entities. But the media are still the They're

(01:10:00):
still running hoaxes every day because they have not been
held accountable for things like this. And we do need
we do need a good media. That's why you and
I do what we do to be reporting on what's
actually going on and what our government is doing. Our
corrupt propaganda press is still in place and still running

(01:10:22):
hoaxes and nothing's been done to them. You can say, oh,
they've lost they've lost their prestige yeah, they have. They
still control so much of the information environment, and so
as people want accountability for Comy and Brennan and they
should be held accountable. What about the people who are
still operating and will still interfere in the next election

(01:10:45):
through their shoddy reporting.

Speaker 2 (01:10:48):
Yep, let's hope accountabilities coming.

Speaker 1 (01:10:50):
Okay, thank you so much for this special emergency emergency episode,
and we'll have much more to cover on this. I
do to just say at the Federalist, we have already
prior to today, had some absolutely explosive exclusive reporting on the
most recent revelations, and we will continue to be covering
it every day. You can trust us because we were

(01:11:13):
on top of it during the Russia collusion hoax. You
cannot trust the Washington Post, The New York Times, CNN, ABC,
NBC or any of the other outlets that participated in
the hoax to tell you about the quality of the
information we're getting now, but you can trust us. So
be lovers of freedom and anxious for the Fray. And
if you have any questions or comments, please feel free
to email us at radio at the Federalists dot com.