The Russia hoax got another reboot on Friday thanks to the Deep State burrowed inside the office of the Director of National Intelligence with help from their partners, the New York Times and the Washington Post.
According to the reports, lawmakers on the House Intelligence Committee were told at a classified briefing last Thursday that Russia was trying to interfere in the 2020 election in order to help President Donald Trump win. It was conducted by Shelby Pierson, Intelligence Community election threats executive and aid to then acting Director of National Intelligence Joseph Maguire.
The president of the United States, elected by the people, only found out about the briefing from the ‘intelligence leak’ to the media. The administrative state is yet again trying to circumvent the president. These leaks help Democrats resurrect and legitimize already debunked claims that Trump is conspiring with Russians to steal the election.
On Wednesday, Trump announced that US Ambassador to Germany Richard Grenell would become the new acting DNI, replacing Maguire. Trump was reportedly angry that the House briefing was made before Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff, who led the impeachment proceedings against him.
“Another misinformation campaign is being launched by Democrats in Congress saying that Russia prefers me to any of the Do Nothing Democrat candidates …” Trump tweeted Friday.
Schiff was quick on the Twitter draw after the report was published on Thursday: “We count on the intelligence community to inform Congress of any threat of foreign interference in our elections,” he tweeted. “If reports are true and the President is interfering with that, he is again jeopardizing our efforts to stop foreign meddling. Exactly as we warned he would do.” Schiff provided a convenient link to the New York Times story.
How interesting! Schiff was part of the cabal in the House that has been working assiduously to get Trump thrown out of office by relentlessly peddling claims he tried to influence the 2016 election with the help of Russia. Their plan failed when they backed a special counsel criminal investigation that turned up zero evidence to back their claims.
These same lawmakers also failed to get Trump removed from office through a just-concluded impeachment process for unproven claims he was using Ukraine to influence the 2020 election.
The New York Times reported last April that Mick Mulvaney, Acting White House Chief of Staff, told former Department of Homeland Security Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen not to bring up Russian interference concerns around Trump because he was worried it cast doubt on the legitimacy of his electoral victory. Mulvaney denied the report through a spokesman: “I don’t recall anything along those lines happening in any meeting.”
This time some news agencies have decided they are not regurgitating the claims in the New York Times report without asking tough questions. CBS News Senior Investigative Correspondent Catherine Herridge reached out to a source familiar with the congressional briefing. She tweeted Friday “briefers pressed for evidence to back up claims Russia “trying to help POTUS in 2020.” Asked if there was signals intelligence — such as phone intercepts or “SIGINT” — to back up claims, source said briefers had none to offer.”
Maguire was following in the footsteps of Dan Coats, then Director of National Intelligence, who also told the media, “Russia conducted an unprecedented influence campaign to interfere in the U.S. electoral and political process” in August 2018 as the midterm election approached.
Former Director of National Intelligence James Clapper also drew the same conclusion based on findings of a report released in 2017, shortly before Trump took office. It provided details of a Russian campaign to influence the election which was an unclassified summary of a highly sensitive assessment from American intelligence and law enforcement agencies.
Back then we were told that the president of Russia, Vladimir Putin, was seeking to “denigrate” Hillary Clinton and had “a clear preference for President-elect Trump.” It just seems kind of odd that the only candidates that get ‘help’ from Russia happen to be people that are a threat to the Democratic Party establishment.
They are in mortal fear of Trump, who is surging as the November election approaches, and the Democratic frontrunner for the presidential nomination, Independent Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders. They are concerned that if the renowned Socialist wins their party primaries and becomes the nominee the party will lose control of the House. They fear it will lead to a wipeout of their candidates in the 2020 election.
Sanders confirmed that he was briefed a month ago that he too was being helped by Russians in a classified briefing. Intelligence officials also found evidence in 2016 that Russians used social media to boost Sanders’ campaign against then primary rival Hillary Clinton.
Both Democratic Rep. Tulsi Gabbard of Hawaii, who is also competing in the Democratic race, as well as 2016 Green Party candidate Jill Stein, are despised by Hillary Clinton, and she tarnished them as “Russian assets.”
Clinton said last October that Russia was attempting to “groom” Gabbard to run as an independent candidate in the general election. Last month, Gabbard launched a $50 million defamation lawsuit against her. Clinton also blamed Stein for her loss to Trump in 2016 after the outsider got backing from voters around the country at the polls for her third party candidacy.
Northeastern University Associate Professor and Quincy Institute Fellow Max Abrahms tweeted Saturday, “One of the best ways to undermine American democracy is for the media to constantly tell Americans that our democratic system is run by a foreign power, that polls & debate outcomes are based not on the appeal of our politicians but from the invisible hand of an enemy government.”
House lawmakers and the Senate will receive a briefing on election security March 10. Hopefully they will provide concrete evidence of Russian interference that will bring clarity to the issue in a way that the average voter can understand instead of the current media leak campaign.