Mueller Exposes Spy Chiefs
Did our intel leaders have any evidence when they pushed the Russia
collusion line?
By
William McGurn
March 25, 2019 7:15 p.m. ET
Now that special counsel Robert Mueller has found that no one in the Trump
campaign colluded with Russia to steal the 2016 election, Democrats are busy
moving the goal posts. But this is a distraction from the real reckoning
that needs to come.
The one we need is for all the intelligence officialsincluding former
Director of National Intelligence James Clapper, former Central Intelligence
Agency chief John Brennan, and the Federal Bureau of Investigations former
Director James Comey and former Deputy Director Andrew McCabewho pushed the
Russia conspiracy theory. The special counsel has just made clear they did
so with no real evidence.
Mr. Mueller could have said he didnt have enough evidence to prosecute.
Instead he was categorical: The investigation did not establish that
members of the Trump Campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian
government in its election interference activities.
This wasnt for lack of trying on Moscows part. Despite multiple offers
from Russia-affiliated individuals to help their campaign, Mr. Mueller
reports, the Trump people didnt take them up on it.
So why do 44% of Americansaccording to a Fox News poll released
Sundaybelieve otherwise? Part of the answer has to be that the collusion
tale was egged on by leading members and former members of the American
intelligence community.
Intelligence professionals are trained to sift through the noise and
distractions in pursuit of the truth. In this case, however, they went all
in for a tale that the Russian government had somehow compromised Mr. Trump
or his close associates. In peddling this line, their authority rested on
the idea they had access to alarming and conclusive evidence the rest of
America couldnt see. Now it appears they never had much more than an
unverified opposition-research dossier commissioned by Fusion GPSs Glenn
Simpson on behalf of Hillary Clinton.
Nevertheless, they persisted. Start with the FBIs Mr. McCabe, who boasts
that he is the man who opened the counterintelligence probe into Russia and
President Trump. Today the question has to be: On what evidence was this
extraordinary step predicated, apart from Mr. Trumps saying things the
G-man didnt like?
As recently as three weeks ago, Mr. McCabesacked by the bureau for a lack
of candortold CNN that he still thought it possible President Trump was
a Russian asset. Again, on what evidence?
Ditto for Mr. Clapper, who said he agreed completely with Mr. McCabe that
Mr. Trump could be a Russian asset. He added only that he couldnt be
certain whether it was witting or unwitting. Coming from a former director
of national intelligence, this is a grave accusation. But on what evidence?
Or consider Mr. Brennan. After a presidential press conference in Helsinki
with Vladimir Putin in which Mr. Trump refused to acknowledge Russian
meddling in the 2016 election, Mr. Brennan tweeted that the presidents
behavior was nothing short of treasonous. Not wrong, not outrageous,
but treasonous.
It wouldnt be the last time he invoked the t word. Mr. Brennan also used
it after the president pulled his security clearance last August. During a
subsequent appearance on NBCs Meet the Press, host Chuck Todd suggested
that a former intelligence chief might wish to be a little more circumspect
with his accusations.
You are the former CIA director accusing the sitting president of the
United States, said Mr. Todd. Its not a private citizen. A lot of people
hear the former CIA director accusing the sitting president of the United
States of treasonthats monumental, thats a monumental accusation. Mr.
Brennan said he regretted nothing, and cited for his judgment his training
as an intelligence professional.
Finally theres Rep. Adam Schiff. As ranking member and now chairman of the
House Intelligence Committee, Mr. Schiff has been claiming for some time
that theres plenty of evidence of collusion or conspiracy in plain sight.
This past weekend on ABCs This Week, he said theres significant
evidence of collusion. Does anyone else think theres a credibility problem
when the chairman of the House Intelligence Committee starts sounding like
O.J. Simpson vowing to find the real killer?
In light of Mr. Muellers findings, there are only two ways to interpret
these actions and statements from senior members of the intelligence
community. The first is that they got played because they were incompetent.
Anyone who reads the compromising texts between FBI master spy Peter Strzok
and his FBI lover, Lisa Page, might well find the clown argument persuasive.
But theres something even worse than an intelligence community that has
been played. Its an intelligence community that chose to play along simply
because its members hated Donald Trump. For a full reckoning, America will
need an accounting of the evidence used to launch that counterintelligence
probe, the unmasking of officials, the leaks, and the likely abuse of the
Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act warrants.
The lesson here is this: Be careful what you wish for. Because the questions
this special prosecutor has unleashed might yet yield federal criminal
indictments. Just not for the people the fantasists of Russian collusion
expected.
EM -> { Trump for 2020 }
On the 49th Parallel
Thé Mulindwas Communication Group
"With Yoweri Museveni, Ssabassajja and Dr. Kiiza Besigye, Uganda is in
anarchy"
Kuungana Mulindwa Mawasiliano Kikundi
"Pamoja na Yoweri Museveni, Ssabassajja na Dk. Kiiza Besigye, Uganda ni
katika machafuko"
_______________________________________________
Ugandanet mailing list
[email protected]
http://kym.net/mailman/listinfo/ugandanet
UGANDANET is generously hosted by INFOCOM http://www.infocom.co.ug/
All Archives can be found at http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/
The above comments and data are owned by whoever posted them (including
attachments if any). The List's Host is not responsible for them in any way.
---------------------------------------
