Fox News: John Brennan Suppressed Intel Saying Russia Wanted Hillary Clinton to Win

“Fox News’ Ed Henry reported Tuesday evening that Acting Director of National Intelligence Richard Grenell has declassified information calling into question the conclusion that Russia interfered in the 2016 election to help Donald Trump.

Henry told Tucker Carlson on Tucker Carlson Tonight that the new information would suggested John Brennan, who headed the Central Intelligence Agency under President Barack Obama, “also had intel saying, actually, Russia wanted Hillary Clinton to win because she was a known quantity, she had been secretary of state, and Vladimir Putin’s team thought she was more malleable, while candidate Donald Trump was unpredictable.””






https://www.breitbart.com/national-security/2020/05/12/fox-news-john-brennan-russia-hillary-clinton/





What was long suspected is now proven true. This is bad news for Obama, Biden, Brennan, Clapper, Comey, and others. Brennan lied about the Russians and the intelligence regarding their preference

 

Lol...the desperation is palpable among the right these days as they watch their orange raccoon implode, felled by a little virus that didn’t care about his insulting, lying tweets.
He’s dragging all the cons down with him.

 

Good Luck with that.

 

Prosecutor Durham is going to be busy man the next few months putting former Obama Administration members in prison.

 

Did you hear a Republican is on track to win a CA special congressional election yesterday? First win for the GOP there since 1998.

What Brennan did is obstruction of justice, he suppressed this fact to gin up the Russia hoax.

 

Brennan buried intelligence showing that the Russians actually preferred that Hillary Clinton win the 2016 election

 

I think by lol, you actually meant *sob*.... lol

Maybe next year Hillary will be President.

 

If Russia had Hillary's emails, they could blackmail her if she won. It would make sense they would want her to win.

 

I think you mean the first congressional seat flip for a Republican in CA since 1998. Katie Hill beat a Republican to win the seat in 2018.

 

Yes, I stand corrected. Still bad news for Dems.

 

Video


“Fox News contributor Michael Goodwin argued on Wednesday that presumptive Democratic nominee Joe Biden will eventually have to address the alleged misconduct by the Obama-era Justice Department in its investigation of Michael Flynn and alleged Russian collusion.

Goodwin said Biden is benefiting from the coronavirus pandemic forcing him to stay largely absent from the campaign trail and conduct only at-home interviews. But he said this will not last until November.” https://www.foxnews.com/media/michael-goodwin-joe-biden-obamagate-russia-flynn

 

Truth is coming out.
Walls are closing in!

John Brennan and the Plot to Subvert an American Election.

John Brennan was Barack Obama’s director of the CIA. Once upon a time, he was an enthusiast for Gus Hall, the Communist candidate for president, for whom he voted in 1976. I can’t think of any better background for the head of the country’s premier intelligence service under Obama. Brennan spied on the Senate Intelligence Committee. He denied it indignantly. “Nothing could be further from the truth. We wouldn’t do that. That’s just beyond the scope of reason in terms of what we’d do.”

But that was before irrefutable evidence of the CIA’s spying transpired. Then Brennan apologized, sort of. Senators were outraged. They shook their little fists. “What did he know? When did he know it? What did he order?” asked one of the Lilliputians.

Guess what happened to John Brennan for spying on the Senate Intelligence Committee?

If you said “Nothing,” go to the head of the class and collect your gold star.

Nothing happened to Brennan for spying on U.S. senators.

If he could get away with that, what else could he get away with?

How about starting the bogus investigation into fictional “collusion” or “coordination” between the Russians and the campaign, and then the administration, of Donald Trump? How about that?​

How about that indeed?

 

Roger Kimball?

Most folks just don’t care. They have so many other concerns.

 

The Left doesn't.

The Right and the Middle have some real interest in just how invasive surveillance is and to what ends. And we damn sure aren't shrugging at deep state pukes using it against our political campaigns. Weird how some seem just fine with it. I wonder if they view those outside their bubble as less than human, and therefore not fully endowed with human rights. You know, much like how the DNC viewed Black Americans until the Republicans forced them to give up that despicable evil.

One of the things coming to light just this week, that may indicate systematic spying on political opponents by John Brennan and our intelligence agencies is that there is NO UNMASKING request for Gen Flynn in the aftermath of his perfectly lawful conversation with the Russian Ambassador.

Not that the POLITICAL appointees in the Spying Obama Administration didn't do one hell of a lot of unmasking of Flynn. 39 top Obama officials who made 53 requests to “unmask” Flynn’s name from intelligence reports between Election Day 2016 and the end of January 2017. Among the requestors were Joe Biden, James Crapper, Samantha Power (then U.S. ambassador to the United Nations), and Denis McDonough, Obama’s chief of Staff. Quick, what legitimate role does the UN Ambassador have in a counter-intelligence investigation?

https://amgreatness.com/2020/05/16/john-brennan-and-the-plot-to-subvert-an-american-election/

I hear crickets.

General Flynn made his famous call to the Russian Ambassador on December 29, 2016, the date that Flynn. Clearly the call was intercepted, clearly the entire top row of the Obama Whitehouse knew about the call and had access to transcripts, but, there is no unmasking request for this call. Yet they all know it was Flynn, indicating that Flynn's name was never masked and that he was systematically spied on with the fruit of the spying promptly shared with the top folks in the Obama/Biden Administration.

On what lawful basis is the Obama/Biden Administration eves dropping on the incoming NSA for the incoming Administration, following the election where Obama/Biden's favored candidate lost? Clearly this call wasn't picked up under FISA authority, so how did Obama obtain it? Likely, the CIA was monitoring him, or had arranged for a friendly foreign intelligence service to spy on his as the CIA isn't supposed to be spying on political opponents. You say that no one cares, I think your are wish-casting, but we'll see.

 

A week after that call, on January 5, Obama met with Susan Rice, his national security advisor that Flynn was slated to replace, Biden, Comey, Crapper, Sally Yates, and—yep—John Brennan to discuss the Russian inquiry in general and Flynn in particular.

On January 20, 2017, the day that Donald Trump was inaugurated, just moments before leaving her position, Susan Rice took the unusual step of writing an email for the file summarizing that January 5 meeting:

Obama stressing his continued commitment to ensuring that every aspect of this issue is handled by the Intelligence and law enforcement communities ‘by the book.’ From a national security perspective, however, President Obama said he wants to be sure that, as we engage with the incoming team, we are mindful to ascertain if there is any reason that we cannot share information fully as it relates to Russia.​

One more time with that last bit: “Obama said he wants to be sure that . . . we are mindful to ascertain if there is any reason that we cannot share information fully as it relates to Russia.”

Again: The outgoing president tells his senior intelligence staff to think about whether to tell the incoming administration the truth about a major national security issue.

It’s almost as if they didn’t believe there had been an election on November 8, 2016. Not a real election anyway, because, after all, the American people had chosen the wrong person. Fortunately, there they were to save the day by keeping the incoming fellow in the dark.

 

Undoing a Free and Fair Election

We know now that Brennan suppressed intelligence indicating that Russia wanted Hillary, a known quantity, to win, not Trump. That went against The Narrative they were crafting.

Why did Obama tell the FBI to hide its activities from the Trump administration?” Because those FBI activities were intended to undo the results of a free open and democratic election.

This is not typical jockeying between political foes, nor merely an example of Fake News media bias against political enemies. This entire operation was a deliberate and direct attack on the foundation of American governance. This is the biggest political attack since the Democrats fired on Fort Sumter because they did not accept the results of the Presidential Election that resulted in Abe Lincoln's presidency. This time, they mounted concerted effort to overturn the results of the election by stealth.

The central figures in this great evil—Comey and Crapper, Page and Strzok, Brennan, McCabe, Rice, Biden and Obama himself—said to themselves, “The people made a mistake. We know better. Let’s mobilize the police and intelligence power of the state to make sure that our political agenda—prevails.”

Those that hate our freedom and want to replace it with their tyranny, swaddled their great evil in the conviction of its virtue. The chief actors in this malignant farce may assure themselves that we secretly long to surrender our freedom and embrace their evil spying and unspeakable conspiracy against The American People. Our Liberty and Freedom now ride on the efforts of Attorney General William Barr and U.S. Attorney John Durham. This must never be allowed to happen again.

 

Of all the lowlifes in the democratic party, no one is lower than John Brennan. Not even Hillary, Wasserman-Schultz or Rahm Emanuel.

 

I don’t see much of the middle caring either. I only see the far right going on and on here. I see the middle trying to figure when they will see their next pay check.

 

I guess the left is hoping that the middle forget how hard the left is trying to make sure their next paycheck doesn't show.

Frankly one debate is all it will take, Biden will either forget the question or just fail miserably in general and trump will pounce on him.

In the meantime the trump ads about biden running steady on tv are absolutely tearing him to shreds. Which imo is actually a mistake, they should wait until after the dnc convention when they solidify the nomination of a man that should be in assisted living wearing a name tag, then rip him apart.

 

Breitbart is not a reliable source. You guys slam CNN, Breitbart is far worse;

 

So they are the the right wing CNN got it..

 

So they say. Those that produced that rating are themselves hate filled secular progressive so called pro science bigots. They are of no value to any sane rational human being. They openly admit their biases while claiming to be least bias and confess that they use no scientific basis in their totally subjective ratings. They are only a tool of no value for use by the intellectually lazy to be a gateway be a form of content control by some to delegitimize opposing points of view. MBFC is worthy of nothing but sheer and utter contempt.

 

CNN is further to the left than Breitbart is to the right. MBFC lists 11 conservative sites as questionable for every liberal 1 that they so rate.

 

Doesn't matter, right or left is not relevant to the point.

 

Left or right Bias, as long as it is not extreme, is not the factor I use to disregard a source. Moderate left or right bias ratings usually have to do with story selection. The issue is, are the stories they publish factual? Some news sources stick to the facts pretty much, though they may select stories that favor one side or the other, all I care about is the information published reliable? I don't expect perfection, but if the news source has mostly unrealiable information ,and its rated "mixed" or "questionable" it means they are using an excessive amount of weasel words, ad hominems, loaded language, are framing stories more to get a reaction than the are tying to get at the truth, Media Bias Fact Check will report on such things. A news source with a left or right of center rating, but the factual rating is 'mostly factual' or above, I would source it. Factual ratings with "mixed" or below, are unreliable. CNN is rated "mixed" Brietbart is near the bottom at 'questionable". NYtimes and WaPo have good ratings, and the 'bias" has more to do with selecting stories that the left are interested in. WSJ, Forbes, are fairly reliable, but selecting stories mostly the right is interested in. ( They didn't used to be that way before Murdoch, they were much less biased and Forbes, though a biz magazine, is probably closer to the center than most, I have to check ).

As for the ratio, I'm not convinced that that is true. But, lets assume that it is true ( for the sake of argument ) Either one of the following is true:

1. Either MBFC is biased for left leaning sources.
OR
2. The right has more unreliable sources.

My gut feeling is that the latter is true. It goes back to the old adage:

Truth and facts have a liberal bias.

Indeed, and that's true which means there will be more liberal publications that are rated higher for that fact alone. But it's surely not 10:1. It could be 5;3

But note that the right has a few good sources, like WSJ and Forbes ( and all sources, I fact check, because no one gets it right all the time.)

There are left of center publications I would never source, such as The Wonkette, but there are some extreme lefties I would never source, either ( anything to do with modern monetary theory, for example ) and there are lefties I would source only on a case by case basis.