Most Read
Image 01 Image 02 Image 03

Declassified Docs: Clapper ‘Never Saw Any Direct Empirical Evidence’ of Trump-Russia Collusion

Declassified Docs: Clapper ‘Never Saw Any Direct Empirical Evidence’ of Trump-Russia Collusion

“But I do not recall any instance where I had direct evidence.”

The House Intelligence Committee released documents related to its investigation of possible collusion between then-candidate Donald Trump’s campaign and Russia.

Chairman Adam Schiff always said he had ironclad evidence Trump’s campaign had help from Russia.

Except he did not. In fact, none of the top people in President Barack Obama’s administration had any direct evidence of collusion.

Despite the findings in the transcripts, Schiff did not back down from his assertion that he was correct when he insisted they had ample evidence of collusion:

In a statement, Schiff did not back down from his contention — fiercely disputed by Republicans — that President Trump and his campaign “invited illicit Russian help” to win the 2016 election.

“Despite the many barriers put in our way by the then-Republican Majority, and attempts by some key witnesses to lie to us and obstruct our investigation, the transcripts that we are releasing today show precisely what Special Counsel Robert Mueller also revealed: That the Trump campaign, and Donald Trump himself, invited illicit Russian help, made full use of that help, and then lied and obstructed the investigations in order to cover up this misconduct,” Schiff said in a statement.

Here are excerpts from Obama officials and Trump’s former lawyer. None of them knew of direct evidence of collusion. Some saw information that raised their eyebrows, but nothing concrete. From Fox News:

The transcripts, which were released by House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff, D-Calif., revealed top Obama officials were questioned over whether they had or had seen evidence of such collusion, coordination or conspiracy — the issue that drove the FBI’s initial case and later the special counsel probe.

Director of National Intelligence James Clapper:

“I never saw any direct empirical evidence that the Trump campaign or someone in it was plotting/conspiring with the Russians to meddle with the election,” former Director of National Intelligence James Clapper testified in 2017. “That’s not to say that there weren’t concerns about the evidence we were seeing, anecdotal evidence. … But I do not recall any instance where I had direct evidence.”

UN Ambassador Samantha Power:

Former U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Samantha Power, according to the transcript of her interview, was asked about the same issue. Power replied: “I am not in possession of anything—I am not in possession and didn’t read or absorb information that came from out of the intelligence community.”

When asked again, she said: “I am not.”

National Security Adviser Susan Rice:

“To the best of my recollection, there wasn’t anything smoking, but there were some things that gave me pause,” she said, according to her transcribed interview, in response to whether she had any evidence of conspiracy. “I don’t recall intelligence that I would consider evidence to that effect that I saw…conspiracy prior to my departure.”

When asked whether she had any evidence of “coordination,” Rice replied: “I don’t recall any intelligence or evidence to that effect.”

When asked about collusion, Rice replied: “Same answer.”

Deputy National Security Adviser Ben Rhodes:

Former Deputy National Security Adviser Ben Rhodes was asked the same question during his House Intelligence interview.

“I wouldn’t have received any information on any criminal or counterintelligence investigations into what the Trump campaign was doing, so I would not have seen that information,” Rhodes said.

When pressed again, he said: “I saw indications of potential coordination, but I did not see, you know, the specific evidence of the actions of the Trump campaign.”

Attorney General Loretta Lynch:

Former Attorney General Loretta Lynch also said that she did “not recall that being briefed up to me.”

“I can’t say that it existed or not,” Lynch said, referring to evidence of collusion, conspiracy or coordination.

FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe:

Meanwhile, former FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe was not asked that specific question but rather questions about the accuracy and legitimacy of the unverified anti-Trump dossier compiled by ex-British intelligence officer Christopher Steele.

McCabe was asked during his interview in 2017 what was the most “damning or important piece of evidence in the dossier that” he “now knows is true.”

McCabe replied: “We have not been able to prove the accuracy of all the information.”

“You don’t know if it’s true or not?” a House investigator asked, to which McCabe replied: “That’s correct.”

Trump’s former lawyer Michael Cohen:

Former Trump lawyer Michael Cohen – who later had a falling out with the president and was sentenced to prison after pleading guilty to several crimes – repeatedly told the House panel that he had no evidence of collusion between Trump and the Russian government

“Do you have any evidence or information of coordination between then-Presidential candidate Donald Trump to interfere with or influence the 2016 primary or general election?” then-South Carolina GOP Rep. Trey Gowdy asked Cohen.

“No, sir,” Cohen replied.

Another transcript revealed an unnamed FBI agent said the agency barred Christopher Steele “from assisting the agency with its inquiry” at one point during the investigation.

Steele compiled the dossier against Trump in 2016. The FBI never confirmed its accuracy, but that did not stop agents from using it to gain FISA warrants and renewals:

Rep. Eric Swalwell, D-Calif., questioned the unnamed agent about Steele’s involvement in the investigation during a Dec. 20, 2017, hearing. The agent claimed the bureau severed ties with Steele because of an article that ran on Mother Jones, according to the transcripts.

“I think it was November 2 or 3, there was an article in Mother Jones online magazine that was clearly problematic,” the agent said. “Basically, the source, the individual, who wasn’t named… but we all knew [it] was Steele, had went [sic] to the press to talk about what he had been doing. It was either that day or the very next morning I called him to confront him.”

The unnamed agent claimed Steele admitted he was the source for the article, which caused the agency to cut ties.

“I told him, you know, you are no longer considering — don’t consider yourself being tasked by us,” the agent continued. “You are not working on our behalf. You are not to collect any information on behalf of the FBI. I said, you know, the relationship will end. You know, this was because of his violation of the agreement that we had made back on October 3.”

The agent added: “I also told him he was not being paid. There was a payment that he was expecting at that point, and I said that that’s not going to happen.”

Swalwell asked if Steele had shared his reasons for why he spoke to Mother Jones, and the agent said it might have been a matter of money or it could have been a response to former FBI Director James Comey’s decision to reopen the email investigation into then-presidential candidate Hillary Clinton.

“I assumed he was angry because of the money. He hadn’t been paid,” the agent explained. “He had made a comment maybe once or twice during the month like, you know, when is it going to happen, this and that. Nothing unusual.”

The agent added: “So I asked him, l said, ‘Was it because of the money?’ And he goes, ‘No. The money is secondary.’ And then l said, ‘Okay. Why?’ And this was over the phone. He goes, ‘l’m very upset with the actions of your agency and with the actions of your agency on Friday.’ The Friday before was when Director Comey came out and announced that he was reopening the email investigation. And so that was the first time I had heard anything of any type of leaning whatsoever in terms of his attitude or bias.”

DONATE

Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.

Comments

Indict all of these SOBs. Make them hire pricey lawyers and force them to defend themselves for YEARS.

It’s double secret evidence. Clapper and Brennan did not have clearance to see it.

Every word out of Schiff’s mouth is a lie.

Schiff is now claiming that releasing the “classified” (they’ve been declassified) not only doesn’t clear Flynn but incriminates Barr. So if the docs Schiff released do not agree exactly with those released moments by the DOJ, whose version will be correct?

I expect they are the same and Schiff will have to explain why they don’t clear Flynn. For that matter, he will have to explain why they don’t include him and his entire cabal of traitors. We all have the same documents now. Just show me where.

Somebody needs to match up Clapper’s testimony vs. his public statements, especially his cnn comments.

OH Deplorable | May 8, 2020 at 11:01 am

Clapper, Brennan, Schiff and Swallwell and the people they take their marching orders from ALL should be behind bars until HELL freezes over. Those dirty lying SOBs have created so many problems, for so many people, their lives will probably never recover from. In addition the lives of the people they’ve hurt, they’ve also done irreparable damage to the country. A hangmans rope or life imprisonment is the only way for justice to be served for the lives they’ve damaged.

The democrats would have been so much better off throwing comey, clapper, brennan, mccabe, yates et al under the bus in the very beginning. But they they couldn’t, because it was all ordered and orchestrated by their golden calf obama. hillary wanted to win so badly, she paid for the dossier and used fusion gps/the msm to inject the dossier into our criminal justice system via the United States intelligence community. All to spy on rival presidential campaigns. obama should have told hillary to stop whining and go out and get her own votes. Of course he didn’t, and it’s all coming out. Sorry democrats and msm hacks, you got caught.

    notamemberofanyorganizedpolicital in reply to CKYoung. | May 8, 2020 at 11:18 am

    Obama never in his life went out and got enough votes to win honestly.

    All those DEMS are up to their eyeballs in total correction of the worst sort and everything else.

Inference is the foundation of modern science and social justice.

Scum is too kind a word to describe these Traitors. They should all Hang but won’t.

Biden wants Obama’s Legacy – show the American People what a lying, scheming SH*tStain he is for his involvement in all this.

On the DNC mails:

Crowdstrike’s Shaun Henry: “There are times when we can see data exfiltrated, and we can say conclusively. But in this case it appears it was set up to be exfiltrated, but we just don’t have the evidence that says it actually left.”

Since they testified under oath that there was no collusion but publicly accused many people of it including Schitt outside of congress, should not all the victims including the President sue them and the network’s some work for for slander?

Yet all of them told the American public through the willing media a completely opposite story. Does the media not have any shame and are those media ghouls (MSNBC, CNN, ABC, NBC, CBS) not a bit angry that they were manipulated and lied to?

NavyMustang | May 8, 2020 at 4:25 pm

Check out the blog Ace of Spades. Ace is ON FIRE. Three separate entries on Dems who crowed in public about how they had evidence of collusion, but when put under oath they said the opposite.

They all deserve to swing from the highest yardarm!

Another Voice | May 8, 2020 at 5:21 pm

How, Where, When did this all begin:

The How and Where:
November 2004 when the Democrat Party in New York put her on the ticket for Senator. The “Game Plan” was now in place to achieve the beginning of the Clinton Foundation to finance her run to Presidency in 2008. When Hillary lost the bid to upstart Obama for President, she, using the connections and hubris of Bill, parlayed that to a default position as Secretary of State where she/they would have ample opportunity to accumulate international funding and connections. At the beginning of Obama’s 2nd term she bailed to begin her assault as did “Sherman’s March to the Sea”. It was a planned and had full financing of the campaign picked up by the bountiful Clinton Foundation and full backing by the Democrats. What could go wrong? Then as now, she lacks the ability to see herself in context of riding her political career on the tail coat of others. A leader she is not. A user and manipulator has always been her claim to fame.

The When will it End ?

Hopefully this has come to define the policies of the Democrats and their agenda for a global economy and removal of international boundaries which benefit those who have a place at the head of the table to “preach to the choir”. The best take away for the period since 2003 is it has pulled the curtain back in “Oz” on both of the Clintons and their “empire” and brings to the forefront just how self-centered and depraved they are in duplicity with all those in government who aline themselves with the Democrat Party.

It’s very ironic that the very thing which is in need of attention with a united front in our country right now in order to go forward and move past the situation, is finding Democrats on their soap box rather than working for a viable solutions. Rather than make hard decisions on how to achieve this they default to their top/down approach. They give no credit that the very people who they are claiming to want to help, are being hurt the most. How predictable the democrat leaders are more about control than resolutions.

Font Resize
Contrast Mode
Send this to a friend