Clapper Told NSA to Go Against ‘Normal’ Procedures to Push Russiagate
Clapper: “We may have to compromise on our ‘normal’ modalities, since we must do this on such a compressed schedule.”
Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard declassified an email from December 2016 that shows former DNI James Clapper pushing the intelligence community to break the rules to push Russiagate.
🚨Newly declassified Top Secret emails sent on December 22, 2016 complying with President Obama's order to create the manufactured January 2017 ICA about Russia expose how DNI James Clapper demanded the IC fall in line behind the Russia Hoax. Clapper admits that it was a "team… pic.twitter.com/fVHq9E1no7
— DNI Tulsi Gabbard (@DNIGabbard) August 13, 2025
According to the documents, then-Director of the National Security Agency (NSA) Mike Rogers told Clapper, then-CIA Director John Brennan, and then-FBI Director James Comey that his team needed more time to review the 2017 Intelligence Community Assessment (ICA) before publishing anything.
“Specifically, I asked my team if they’d had sufficient access to the underlying intelligence and sufficient time to review that intelligence,” wrote Rogers. “On both points my team raised concerns.”
Rogers stressed to Clapper that his team members “aren’t fully comfortable saying they have had enough time to review all of the intelligence to be absolutely confident in their assessments.”
Rogers assured Clapper that his position does not mean the team does not “disagree substantively” with the information. Instead, they just needed to be sure to stand behind any documents that come out.
The former NSA director continued:
I know that you agree that this is something we need to be 100% comfortable with before we present it to the President – we have one chance to get this right, and it is critical that we do so. If the intent is to create an integrated product that is CIA/FBI/NSA jointly-authored that we can all defend, we need a process that allows us all to be comfortable, and I’m concerned we are not there yet. In addition, if NSA is intended to be a co-author of this product, I personally expect to see even the most sensitive evidence related to the conclusion.
Rogers also said if Clapper only wanted the CIA or the CIA and FBI to author the assessment, then he would “stand down on these concerns.”
In other words, slow down and take a deep breath.
Well, Clapper insisted the ICA be a team effort between the NSA, CIA, FBI, and ODNI.
Clapper explained the agencies had to be on the same page and “supportive of the report – in the highest tradition of ‘that’s OUR story, and we’re stickin’ to it.'”
Then Clapper dropped it on Rogers:
We will facilitate as much mutual transparency as possible as we complete the report, but, more time is not negotiable. We may have to compromise on our “normal” modalities, since we must do this on such a compressed schedule.
This is one project that has to be a team sport.
No one gets an out of this situation.
But these emails confuse me because in March 2017, Clapper admitted their report did not show evidence of any collusion between Donald Trump’s campaign and Russia.
Notice what Clapper said, though, because it goes with that “team” emphasis in his email:
We did not include any evidence in our report, and I say, “our,” that’s N.S.A., F.B.I. and C.I.A., with my office, the Director of National Intelligence, that had anything, that had any reflection of collusion between members of the Trump campaign and the Russians. There was no evidence of that included in our report.
Man, Clapper has always wanted to ensure everyone knew about everyone’s involvement.
Gabbard has been on a roll with these drops to prove that the allegations of a Trump-Russia collusion in 2016 weren’t just accusations.
From what we’ve seen, former President Barack Obama’s administration cooked up the Trump-Russia story from the top down.
Those in charge bullied their staff, even firing people who wanted to do the right thing instead of toeing the line.
- 2016 Report on Russian Election Interference Was ‘Deliberately Corrupted’ by Top-Ranking Obama Officials
- Gabbard Releases Info Showing 2016 Russia Collusion Narrative Lacked Credible Intelligence
- Tulsi Gabbard: Whistleblowers ‘Coming Out of the Woodwork’ Since Document Release
- Whistleblower Claims Supervisor Threatened Them ‘to Go Along With Obama-Directed Russia Hoax’
- Whistleblower Claims Schiff Allowed Leaking Classified Intel Against Trump
- Tulsi Gabbard Demolishes Obama’s Weak Attempt at Damage Control
DONATE
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
Comments
Personally, I think Clapper would look much better in a denim prison uniform than he does in a business suit.
He, along with many more would look good wearing a rope-attached lamp post.
Be careful. The censors here on Legal Insurrection removed my comment for saying the same thing about Brennan.
The idea that this site claims to revolt against conformity to the leftist agenda is laughable.
The moto should be Conform or be Cast Out.
I want to see this Elmer Fudd look alike with a raincoat over his head as he’s perp walked out of his house by law enforcement.
Oh what a surprise.
Is vile, narcissist-incompetent-dunce, Obama, the black Nixon, or, is Nixon the white Obama?
I’ll add that what Obama and his lackeys pulled, here, is 1,000 times more serious and lawless than what Nixon’s lackeys — without his knowledge, I believe — did at the Watergate complex.
You are absolutely correct.
Nixon didn’t know about the break in till the rest of us found out. What got Nixon was the coverup. Note that the first and worst inclination of any politician or business executive is to coverup and that is always the worst thing to do. Better to just come clean and it’ll blow over quickly. Its the coverup that leads to the drip, drip daily drop of incremental news building to a crescendo followed by indictment.
We only assume that because we never know of the cover-ups that worked. What’s worst is a poorly executed cover.
Execution is highly dependent on news media cooperation.
Not to mention that the two clowns from the Washington Compost had a hard on for Nixon, and the rest of the lemming media piled on.
What were their names? Siskel and Ebert? Abbott and Costello? Martin and Lewis?
There were so many comedy Troupes at that time.
Oh, I remember Woodstein and Burward.
One of them, Woodward, was the Intelligence Community asset who began committing journalism only nine months before the break-in, when he was installed at the Washington Post. The other, Bernstein, was the red-diaper baby who had been at the Post for six years, a convenient fellow Woodward ran as his footpad.
Apparently no one remembers whose originally thought of the idea to break in. It was unlikely to be Nixon’s political advisors because they knew there was nothing left to steal at that point
It was a total coincidence that most of the members of the Plumbers’ group had CIA ties.
@hwnrybowman, Indeed. Were they patsies?
Depends on the definition of “is”.
What sank Nixon wasn’t the break in. He didn’t know about it. It was the cover up and trying to protect the people involved.
If he had thrown them under the bus, he would have finished his term and probably been seen as a successful president.
By the time he found out that his campaign had been involved in the break in he had already publicly denied it, and he thought it would be embarrassing to have to admit that his previous statement was incorrect. He thought that would sound shifty and hurt him in the election, so he decided the only way out was to stick to his story.
But he would not have been seen as a successful president, at least by us. He was an awful president. I’m not so sure he was better than 0bama; he certainly governed from the left and is responsible for a lot of the left-wing institutional damage that we suffer from to this day.
0bama doesn’t hold a candle to Nixon.
Correct. Obama was in a whole new level of corruption.
Nixon made the mistake of ruining his career to cover up criminality not of his doing.
Obama ruined the nation because he’s a racist who was not even an American. His corruption runs deep through the fabric of America, and like a cancer, is hard to remove.
I meant that, but I also meant that Nixon for all his flaws was a far better President than 0bama. I would like to think that the downvotes are from people who misinterpreted my comment.
That’s why I started my comment with “correct.”
I didn’t want you to think I was one of the downvotes.
There are times I like to add my unsolicited 2 cents (Bidenflation made that $2, but I digress).
Oh, thanks for explaining that. Your comment was ambiguous. I read it as meaning “doesn’t hold a candle as a crook.”
I’ve been wondering what crime Clapper et al might be charged with? Apparently, from what I’ve read it could be a civil rights infraction. I don’t think they will ever serve time in prison, most regrettably.
That’s a good question. But consider this – If you present a false report of a crime to the police of some podunk town in the middle of nowhere USA, you’d be in trouble.
How about civil rights violations that were perpetrated/attempted against the targets of their hoax? Maybe even an attempt to perpetrate civil and voting rights crimes against the American electorate. The conspirators’ acts were not victimless crimes.
Making a false report to police is itself an offense. That’s the only thing you could be in trouble for, and without that statute you wouldn’t be in any trouble at all. None of these people did that. None of them marched into a police station and made a formal report of any kind, let alone a false one. So there is no offense there.
One cannot analogize new offenses because they’re “similar” to existing ones! Either there’s a law against something or there isn’t; there’s no grey area
And there you go. Defending the indefensible.
What’s indefensible is inventing new crimes out of thin air. That makes you as bad as any MS-13 terrorist.
If he is tried before DC jury he walks
obama in handcuffs on his way to prison makes a nice christmas present
And now Yates tells the FBI to “shut down” looking at the Clintons. The hits keep coming. Another of the many minions of Obama, the American Robespierre.
And he verifiably lied to Congress under oath.
And yet RINOs let him walk.
Clapper said “go against normal procedures”? Tit for tat. I think we should go against normal due process procedures and just send him to the gallows tomorrow. Tit for tat!
Due process is not just a “normal procedure”. It’s the law, and it’s the foundation of our entire justice system. Without it there is no justice, and we are no better than the criminals we claim to be prosecuting — a claim that is likely to be false.
It’s perfectly legitimate to suspend normal procedure on a rush job; only you have to understand and accept that your normal procedure exists for a reason, and by suspending it you risk errors. But that’s just the nature of rush jobs.
The “rush job” was necessary in order to meet a deadline imposed by politics. Political considerations aren’t supposed to influence the enforcement of the law or the process of developing evidence of crimes even against actual perpetrators. The details of how these actors conducted themselves may support charges of criminal violations of civil rights law. So although they may have violated only internal procedures, the purpose of those processes is to protect the rights of those being investigated. If those rights aren’t protected when corners are cut, that’s very likely a crime.
There is the civil right to participate in the political process that was violated under color of law.
It morphed into conduct intended to interfere with the administration of government, foreign policy, and justice.
The results were tangible. Just look around, what was actually done to Trump, and at the last 4 years.
This was a conspiracy of magnificent proportions. They ALL know it was based on a lie, started by Clinton and adopted by Obama.
They will get due process, but they hardly deserve it, looking at the evidence to date. It will probably get even worse.
There is no amorphous “civil right to participate in the political process”. There is a right to vote, a right to assemble, etc. A person’s right is violated when they are prevented from doing these things. Nothing these conspirators did was anything even like that. What they did was certainly wrong, and if a charge can be found they should be charged. But I doubt there is any available.
Spare it, please. You are not a teacher. Taking most everything literally, imposing corrections, then drawing absolute conclusions leads to mistakes, like here.
The law applies to whoever “under color of any law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom, willfully subjects any person … to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States…”
According to the DOJ, the law: “incorporates by reference rights defined by the Constitution, federal statutes, and interpretive case law. … The Department has also prosecuted public officials for thefts, false arrests, evidence-planting, and failing to protect someone in custody from constitutional violations committed by others.”
https://www.justice.gov/crt/civil-rights-division-statutes-enforced
That’s only one section of federal law. Imagine what creative prosecutors can do. This is not an issue with black and white lines.
There is no right, defined by the Constitution, federal statutes, or interpretive case law, to “participate in the political process”. Nothing these conspirators did deprived anyone of an actual, defined, right under color of law. If you can find an actual law they broke, prosecute them. But you can’t just make one up. And absolutely nothing they did or could have done can ever justify denying them due process. Even literal Nazi mass-murderers are entitled to due process.
Again, you are no expert. You are adept at putting words in the mouths of others. So interested in being correct, you misinterpret and misunderstand. That is not a sign of intelligence or competence. You suffer from the Dunning–Kruger effect.
Sounds awefully like a conspiracy to deprive Trump of his civil rights eh. Now I’m pretty sure that’s a criminal activity and should be punished severely so as to act as a deterrent for future would be “criminals” who do the same shit!
No, it wasn’t. Nothing they aimed at would have deprived him of any civil right. There is no civil right to win an election, nor does a president have a civil right to be free of harassment and false accusations.
It seems to me, for the continuation of liberty to be both maintained and respected a stern example needs to be seen by the citizenry and a choice presented.
Bravo. Well said.
Of course he did. If they ran it honestly they’d have had nothing.
Clapper looks like someone who rises from his coffin at sunset and turns into a bat.
Did Admiral Rogers successfully stiff arm Clapper? I like to think so. I knew him professionally when I was in the USN. IMO, he was the absolute right man for that job at that time. A man chock full of integrity. I would be very disappointed if he knuckled under to Clapper and his cabal.