Speaker 1: What's going on. Thank you so much for listening to
this podcast. It is heard live every day from noon
to three on WBT Radio in Charlotte. And if you
want exclusive content like invitations to events, the weekly live stream,
my daily show prep with all the links, become a patron,
go to dpeakclendershow dot com. Make sure you hit the
subscribe button. Get every episode for free right to your
smartphone or tablet. And again, thank you so much for
your support. New developments in the Russia collusion hoax storyline,
two different, two different developments. First, I'm gonna start with
the ICA. This was the Intelligence Community Assessment, right. You'll
recall you had this meeting in the White House over
the course of uh like two days, and there was
an ICA that was developed and it said that there
was low con confidence in any kind of connection between
Russia and Trump, and then that got pulled and rewritten,
and then it turned into a high confidence and the
Steele dossier got inserted into that as an annex, but
then it was classified so you couldn't see it that
they had used it. And then that got turned into
the President's Daily Briefing that went to Obama in one
of the you know, closing weeks of his term. But
also because Trump had won, he was now getting the PDBS,
the President's Daily Briefings too, and that's why they needed
to change the ICA, because now Trump was going to
see it. And so that's that's what this first story
is about, because now there is new information. Tulci Gabbert,
the Director of National Intelligence, declassified and made public a
letter and support material. Here is how the Federalist reported it.
They got this exclusive before everybody else did, which was
that a crony of then Director of National Intelligence. I've
not seen this person named yet. I don't know who
this person is, but somebody who worked for James Clapper,
the DNI at the time, had threatened to withhold a
promotion from a senior intelligence official unless he would concur
with this ICA on Russia's meddling in the twenty sixteen election.
The notes, so this official, this analyst, wrote a bunch
of notes and they've been made public now for the
first time, and it recounts a conversation. Again, these are
his notes, but he's writing down his recollection of a
conversation that he had as the top analyst in the
office of the Director of national intelligence that he had
with an unnamed supervisor or superior I should say, who
worked closely with Clapper Tulci. Gabbard revealed the senior intelligence official,
whom her office identified as a whistleblower, that he had
been charged with conducting a scrub, which is a review
of the intelligence in the ICA. According to a person
familiar with the notes the analyst document and these are
now available. By the way, the analyst documented his recollection
of the conversation on March thirty one, twenty twenty three,
And he did this he wrote these notes in twenty
twenty three, which is six years after the conversation occurred.
And so just keep that in mind because apparently like
he got some dates wrong, but like he or I
should say, he got some months wrong. He wrote like
January of twenty sixteen or something like that, and like that,
the timeline doesn't line up. The delay. According to this
source that spoke with the Federalist, the delay occurred because
his efforts to share his concerns first with the Inspector
General of the Intelligence Community and then later with Special
Counsel John Durham and Virginia Senator Mark Warner. His efforts
to talk with them all proved unsuccessful. Only later did
the analyst receive an inquiry for more information about his claims,
which then prompted him to draft the summary of his recollections.
So he claims that he tried to go to the
proper people and the proper positions and the proper departments
to blow the whistle, but nobody would call him back. Basically,
nobody seemed to want to talk to him until much later,
and then somebody is interested, and that's when he writes
the notes up. In early January, he said his supervisor
told him, quote, there is reporting you are not allowed
to see, and that if you saw it, you would
agree with the ICA. So why don't just sign off
on this? That's what that's the point of this conversation.
The superior wants this analyst to agree to everything that's
in the ICA, and the analyst is like, I can't
do that, he said, After noting that he concurred with
varying confidence with most of the ICA's key judgments. The
analyst explained that he would need to review any reporting
myself in order to consider it, and the superior said,
you need to trust me on this, stating to the
analyst that he would need to demonstrate his ability to
quote outgrow his refusal to sign off on assessments that
he did not share. If he wants to be recommended
for a promotion, you need to just start signing things
that you may not agree with if you're going to
move up in the ranks. Here, the analyst remained firm,
according to the notes, which led his exasperated superior to reply,
I need you to say you agree with these judgments
so the DA will go along with them. Why is
this important? Clapper was already on board with the Stele Dasier.
He was already on board, you know, with this Russian
collusion hoax. So why pressure your top analyst on this
because they need the DEIA to go along with them.
That's the Defense Department's Defense Intelligence Agency. Remember, as I've
been going over this whole week. Yeah, this week and
part of last week. The Pentagon was never brought in
on these matters, right, like the DNC hack. Right that
the Hillary Clinton campaign hired CrowdStrike to do their own analysis,
and they told the FBI, oh it was the Russians
and the Russians or the FBI said okay, well, where's
your evidence, and they're like, we're not going to give
you any You just got to take our word for it.
And so the FBI was like, yeah, we have low
confidence in this and we see no technical evidence of it.
And then somewhere along the line that low confidence got
flipped to a high confidence. Right, the Pentagon was not
part of it, nor was the State Department Intelligence Service,
So in order to get the DEIA to sign off
on it, they needed the CIA's top analysts to sign
off on it. And that's what the superior was trying
to get this whistleblower to do. The notes explained that
the DNI clapper sought to bring DA on board as
an additional intelligence community agency signing on to the Intelligence
community assessment. He wanted another agency there. The DNI whistleblower
then relayed that the conversation turned to the DIA's supposed
trust in me personally and the necessity of me proving
my corporate IC officer Intelligence Community officer, my corporate IC
officer bona fides by doing what it took to bring
DIA on board. The analyst refused, though, to alter his assessment,
and the DA did not join the CIA. The FBI,
and the National Security Agency or the NSA. In signing
off on the final non compartment versions of the ICA
the assessment, the analyst said, quote, I remember this conversation
very clearly. It was a difficult situation, and I listened
and I chose my responses with care. I was aware
that I was defying the National Intelligence Officer's direction to me,
that he wanted me to misrepresent my views to the DIA.
But he says he did so based on a conscious
decision to adhere to intelligence community standards, tradecraft, and ethics.
He said that the superior at one point said to him,
isn't it possible that Putin has something on Trump to
blackmail and coerce him? Like, is it possible? Then just
say yes? Yet another piece of evidence here that the
analyst involved in the review disagreed with the assessments, that
Putin aspired to help Trump, and that Brennan over ruled them.
And that's what we learned with the first batch of
declassified documents from Tulsi Gabbard. And so now you've got
a whistleblower who wrote these notes up two years ago
and in twenty three, and nothing ever came of this either.
It's only after Now everything is getting declassified with redactions.
Things are being redacted. That's why it's taking time for
them to release all of this stuff. But it again,
it supports the very thing that we were just made
aware of last week. The thing that the left is
trying to say is not news, which brings me to
the New York Times and their coverage of the Durham Annex,
which is the most recent declassified document dump, and the
New York Times says, I don't know why everybody thinks
this is such a big deal. It just proves that
Hillary wasn't involved, which is a take. That is a take.
Here's a great idea. How about making an escape to
a really special and secluded getaway in western North Carolina.
Just a quick drive up the mountain and Cabins of
Ashville is your connection. Whether you're celebrating an anniversary, a honeymoon,
maybe you want to plan a memorable proposal, or get
family and friends together for a big old reunion, Cabins
of Asheville has the ideal spot for you where you
can reconnect with your loved ones and the things that
truly matter, nestled within the breath taking fourteen thousand acres
of the Pisga National Forest. Their cabins offer a serene
escape in the heart of the Blue Ridge Mountains, centrally
located between Asheville and the entrance of the Great Smoky
Mountain National Park. It's the perfect balance of seclusion and
proximity to all the local attractions with hot tubs, fireplaces,
air conditioning, smart TVs, Wi Fi grills, outdoor tables and
your own private covered porch. Choose from thirteen cabins, six cottages,
two villas, and a great lodge with eleven king sized bedrooms.
Cabins of Ashville has the ideal spot for you for
any occasion, and they have pet friendly accommodations. Call or
text eight two eight three six seven seventy sixty eight
or check out all there is to offer at Cabins
of Aashville dot com and make memories that'll last a lifetime.
I did get an email from John who says, uh, Pete,
the first rule of the burn Bag Club is that
you actually burn the bag. That's yeah. I am kind
of curious to know why the burn bag that was
discovered by Cash Bettel when he came in as the
new director of the FBI and they found a what
they call it an unknown skiff or something like that.
It's one of the secure compartmentalized or whatever. It's like
the secret rooms where you go in and you store
stuff and then you can look at it and you're
not allowed to bring in any cell phones or any
or you know, uh, cameras or anything like that. And uh,
I think they called it an under disclosed skiff. So
they found this room and they then found all these
burn bags, which are bags where you stuff a bunch
of stuff into them and you destroy them. Like at
some point you're supposed to burn the burn bag and
all the stuff in it, you know, and it never
got burned. And so why why how did that happen?
Because that's where they found the the Durham Annex. And
the annex is just a report that gets, you know,
tacked on to the end of some other report as
like a source material. And but that was then classified
and so it was not tacked on. So when Brennan
issued or not Brennan, when Durham, John Durham, the Special Council,
when he issued his final report, the annex was not there.
It was in a burn bag. Well why was it
never burned. Did somebody forget about it? Did they forget
about this room? Why keep it? You know, unless somebody
was trying to preserve it somehow, and they hid it
in a burn bag in an undisclosed skiff because it
was undisclosed, and maybe you know, the powers that be,
maybe superiors, maybe they didn't know, I don't know. Maybe
it was kept around for insurance and then forgotten about.
I don't know, or maybe it was planted there for
somebody to find it when they came in. I don't know.
So this brings us to the Durham annex got dropped
the other day. I guess it was Wednesday, declassified and
released by Chuck Grassley's office, and then it's been ignored.
The other declassification about the DNC hack being pinned on Russia.
That declassification that hasn't gotten any reporting. I literally last
night I went through ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN, and I
did searches for Brennan, John Brennan actually and nothing turns
up in the last week. So they're just all just
blacking out this story. So credit to the New York Times,
and I understand the Washington Post has also done a
story now on the Durham Annex and what's in it
and unlike what you're seeing and hearing, like when I
covered this yesterday, if you're reading any of the reporters
that have been following this for years, for nine years,
guys like Matt Tayibi, Aaron Mate, Michael Schellenberger, Jerry On Levy,
when you follow them, you got a different analysis, which
is what I was working off of. The analysis was
that these emails were hacked by Russia from like the
Open Society, that's a foundation that's George Soros's operation. There
was also the Atlantic Council, the Carnegie Fund, so there
were a bunch of these nonprofits that got hacked. And
the Russians then had some information and they apparently stitched
together bits of intel and info from all these different
hacked emails and whatnot. And the Dutch, the Dutch spy guys,
their spies, they apparently exfiltrated what the Russians had compiled,
so they stole what Russia had stolen, and the Dutch
then handed it off to America. And what that laid
out was that there was a plan inside the Hillary
Clinton campaign to try to smear Donald Trump as a
Russian agent and that these plans had been developed in
like the spring of twenty sixteen. And what the New
York Times is reporting and the Washington Post is essentially
reporting as well, is that all of that's Russian disinformation.
They're literally going with the Russian disinformation explanation that the
Russians when they stitched together the emails, that I guess
they knew that they were going to be hacked or something,
or maybe knew that they already were exposed, and so
they put this together in order to what plant this
in the media to tarnish Hillary Clinton and ruin her
chances of beating Donald Trump. That's what the New York
Times is. That's their take on this, and I don't agree.
You know, stories are powerful. They help us make sense
of things, to understand experiences. Stories connect us to the
people of our past while transcending generations. They help us
process the meaning of life, and our stories are told
through images and videos. Preserve your stories with Creative Video
started in nineteen ninety seven and Minhill, North Carolina. It
was the first company to provide this valuable service, converting images,
photos and videos into high quality produced slide shows, videos,
and albums. The trusted, talented and dedicated team at Creative
Video will go over all of the details with you
to create a perfect project. Satisfaction guaranteed. Drop them off
in person or mail them. They'll be ready in a
week or two. Memorial videos for your loved ones, videos
for rehearsal, dinners, weddings, graduations, Christmas, family vacations, birth day
or just your family stories, all told through images. That's
what your photos and videos are. They are your life
told through the eyes of everyone around you and all
who came before you, and they will tell others to
come who you are, visit creative video dot com. Bain
says Pete. My point all along, you can't call a
community a community, albeit intelligence community, if all the members
of said community are not involved. Everything hinges on this
to me, this is similar to mostly peaceful protests or
being sort of pregnant. I have always found that the
best lies are ninety percent true, right, So the intelligence
community assessment was not the assessment of the entire intelligence community.
It was only the FBI, the CIA, and the nssay
Comy Clapper and Brennan. Jeff says, I wonder if by
chance the burn bag was left there by an honest
player that didn't want to out himself as a whistleblower,
but instead just put it there hoping it would be found.
I've thought the same thing, Jeff, but I don't know.
Maybe somebody will. We'll figure that out. We may never know,
but somebody definitely left it there, either to have it
burned or to have it found. All right, let's get
to this New York Times story. This is written by
Charlie Savage and Adam Goldman. I don't know if either
of them got a pulletzer for their Russia Gate collusion coverage.
I'm not sure if they were part of that New
York Times team that won, but I believe Charlie Savage
may have been. So always keep in mind here when
you're reading this stuff, that the intelligence agencies work with
journalists that cover them, right, And when you now have
an incentive, if you're the New York Times Washington Post,
you have an incentive not to uncover what might have
actually happened regarding the thing that you want a pulletser for,
because if it turns out all that reporting was incorrect,
then your pullets are is garbage. Spoiler alert it already is,
but they have an incentive to protect their narrative. So
here's their story. An annex to a report by the
Special Council John Durham was the latest in a series
of disclosures about the Russia inquiry as the Trump team
seeks to distract from the Jeffrey Epstein files. That's their
first sentence, So like, you know the angle they're coming
at this from, right, So it's like, just keep in
mind that we're only covering this and any of this
is just being talked about because it's all just a distraction.
Everything is a distraction from the Epstein files, right, everything, Okay,
thanks a lot New York Times for that thumb on
the scale in a completely obvious way. And the intent
there is obviously to intimate that there isn't really anything
new here. You see, this is what the left has
been saying, that there isn't anything new here. This is
old news. I read texts about that said that exact thing.
As I've been covering these completely newly released documents that
we've not seen before, but they're saying there's nothing new here.
The Trump era Special Council was scoured. Sorry, the Special
Council Durham, who scoured the Russia investigation for wrongdoing, gathered
evidence that undermines a theory pushed by some Republicans that
Hillary Clinton's campaign conspired to frame Donald Trump for colluding
with Moscow in the twenty sixteen election. So they're saying
that the Durham annex now available, that it proves that
Hillary Clinton did not do this, that her campaign was
not involved, which is the exact opposite of what everybody
else is saying. The information a twenty nine page annex
to the Special Council's twenty twenty three report reveals that
a foundational document for that theory was most likely stitched
together by Russian spies. And when you say it like that,
it makes it sound like it's a fabrication. But what
was it stitched together? From? Hacked emails from a whole
bunch of people in a bunch of these nonprofits NGOs
and Hillary Clinton. The document is ported is a purported
email from July twenty seventh, twenty sixteen, that said Missus
Clinton had approved a campaign proposal to tie mister Trump
to Russia to distract from the scandal over her use
of a private email server. The release of the annex
adds new details to the public's understanding of a complex
trove of twenty sixteen Russian intelligence reports analyzing purported emails
that Russian hackers stole from Americans. It also shows how
the Special Council went to great lengths to try to
prove that several of the emails were real, only to
ultimately conclude otherwise. And that line right there has got
the conservative journalists that have been covering this story. That
has prompted them to accuse The Times of line. They say,
you're just this is a lie. They ultimately did not
conclude this. In fact, let me just go ahead and
read this. This is from the Durham Report. The office's
best assessment is that the July twenty fifth and July
twenty seventh emails that purport to be from Leonard Bernardo
were ultimately a composite of several emails that were obtained
through Russian intelligence hacking of the US based think tanks,
including the Open Society Foundation, Carnegie Endowment, and others. Indeed,
as discussed above, language from Tim Mauer's email of July
twenty fifth is identical to language contained in Bernardo's purported
email of the same date. Furthermore, given Smith's extensive contacts
in the think tank community, that's Juliana Julianne Smith, her
public role as a foreign policy advisor for the Clinton campaign,
and her communication with think tank colleagues regarding Trump, it
is a logical deduction that Smith was, at a minimum
playing a role in the Clinton campaign's efforts to tie
Trump to Russia. Indeed, Smith's own email on the twenty
seventh to her think tank colleagues regarding Trump, Russia, and
NATO certainly lends at least some creed that such a
plan existed. Lends some credence that such a plan existed.
That's from the Durham annex. Moreover, her text message exchange
with Foreign policy Advisor number two supports the notion that
the campaign might have wanted or expected the FBI or
other agencies to aid that effort. Put more oil into
the fire, which was from one of the emails. So
what did the Russians stitch together? What did they what
did they compile stuff from from emails? Like I don't understand,
like they didn't make all of this stuff up. That
was never said by the Durham report. It's not that
this stuff was fabricated. It's that it was compiled, it
was condensed. The New York Times says the declassification is
the latest disclosure in recent weeks concerning the RUSS investigation.
The wave has come as the administration is seeking to
change the subject from its broken promise to release files
related to the disgraced financier Jeffrey Epstein. Got to remind
you of that again. There's really nothing to see here, people.
This is just all a distraction. But it is a
distraction that also proves what we were reporting at the
very beginning of all of this, although we didn't have
that part that is now newly released. But this is
all old news, all right. If you're listening to this show,
you know I try to keep up with all sorts
of current events, and I know you do too, And
you've probably heard me say get your news from multiple sources.
Why well, because it's how you detect media bias, which
is why I've been so impressed with ground News. It's
an app and it's a website, and it combines news
from around the world in one place, so you can
compare coverage and verify information. You can check it out
at check dot ground dot news slash Pete. I put
the link in the podcast description too. I started using
ground News a few months ago and more recently chose
to work with them as affiliate because it lets me
see clearly how stories get covered and by whom. The
blind spot feature shows you which stories get ignored by
the left and the right. See for yourself. Check dot ground,
dot news, slash pete. Subscribe through that link and you'll
get fifteen percent off any subscription. I use the Vantage
plan to get unlimited access to every feature. Your subscription
then not only helps my podcast, but it also supports
ground News as they make the media landscape more transparent.
Here's a peat mail from Jeff It says, I'm confused
after watching PBS News Hour last night. Basically the story
was about the reporting on the reports and how they
all said the reports were correct CIA DIA. But now
we have proof that the original Steele dossier was a
load of bs. Doesn't that make any follow ups? Poisoned
fruit and there was no mention about the burn bags.
Just shocking, right, So media is going to cover this.
As the New York Times and Washington Post are covering it,
your legacy outlets are going to cover it. Probably for
a day and then move on back to Epstein, right,
because they have an interest in doing so. The Washington
Post this according to Hans Manke, who is the author
of Swift Voting America, the definitive account of the greatest
hoax ever perpetrated on the American public, and he says
the Washington Post falsely claimed that the FBI investigated the
Clinton plan. Right, these emails that came from the Dutch
spies to America, and the Russians had gotten all of
these hacked emails outlining the Clinton campaign's plan to frame
Trump to smear him as a Russian asset, and the
Washington Post says that the FBI investigated that, but Manke
says they didn't. They did not, which was exactly Durham's point,
and the people who were involved were interviewed, but they
all said, no, I didn't write that email. That doesn't
say I don't even know that person, and that was
just accepted and there was no deeper probe. And it
was also mentioned that her Hillary's own emails could not
be searched because of the timely destruction of the emails
off of the server that she set up specifically, so
she could delete emails. That the existence of the server
was the smoking gun. I've been saying it for a decade.
You don't create your own server unless you intend to
do so so you can control the life span of
the emails that live on it. That's the only reason.
Otherwise you just use somebody else to use Gmail or
Yahoo or something. Sean Davis from The Federalist, who has
done great work on this investigative work on this as
a journalist at The Federalist for years. He's one of
the founders of the Federalists. He says, The New York
Times is straight up lying. The Durham annex never states
at all that the specific intelligence was fabricated. It says
the opposite that his office, Durham was never able to
quote determined definitively whether the purported Clinton campaign plan was
entirely genuine, partially true, a composite pulled from multiple sources,
exaggerated in certain respects, or fabricated in its entirety. That's
what they said. That's what Durham said. We were not
able to determine one way or the other. It's an unknown,
unresolved question. At the time. The intel which the New
York Times in The Washington Post his claiming was fake
at the time that it was received when they got
it from the Dutch. John Brennan at the CIA took
it so seriously that he briefed Obama about it. He
took notes about it, and then he stashed his notes
in his safe. James Comy specifically went under oath and
cited the Clinton Plan intelligence as one of the major
reasons why he chose to unilaterally usurp the authority of
the Attorney General, Loretta Lynch and to declare that the
US government would not charge Hillary Clinton for her use
of an illegal private email server. Callmy relied on this
that they're saying was fake. The New York Times, the
Washington Post wants us to believe that this was fake.
But the people who got it and were leading the
intelligence agencies, they thought it was real. Why else would
James Comy have done that. Comy told Congress that he
believed the Clinton Plan intelligence was genuine. He said, quote
so far as I knew at the time and still
think the material itself was genuine. He said that. In
twenty eighteen, FBI General Counsel James Baker said that he
was greatly concerned about the Intel and specifically the reaction
of Loretta Lynch when she was confronted with it. When
they sat down and talked with her, they gave her
a defensive briefing, like, hey, there's some stuff out there
about you. You get a defensive briefing, so you're aware
that this stuff might be used against you. Of course,
they never helped Trump with that, except when Comy went
and defensively briefed him on the Steele dossier which he
which had already been leaked to all the media, and
they already knew was bunk. They could not confirm any
of its contents. And then with Comy and Trump gets
leaked to the media immediately, that allows the media to
then print all of the details of the Steele dossier. Right,
So they gave Loretta Lynch a defensive briefing, and they
said Baker said that Lynch did not dismiss the credibility
of the Intel reports. Baker gave this defensive briefing to
Lynch with another FBI employee, a man by the name
of Andrew McCabe, And when they walked back to FBI headquarters,
the two of them talked about how odd her reaction
was to the information. Her reaction was basically no reaction.
And they both commented talk to each other about yeah,
like usually you would say, oh, I didn't do that.
What are they talking about? This is ridiculous, Like she
didn't say anything, did not dismiss the credibility. Sean Davis
goes on to say that everybody on Earth knows the
Clinton campaign launched a scheme to falsely claim that Trump
colluded with Russia. Right, that was the Steele dossier, which
again John Brennan had been shopping around since like the
spring or something. He'd been talking about this stuff. Remember,
he went to Harry Reid, so member, he went to
members of Congress and told them about it. He gave
what copy to John McCain. So, this idea that the
Clinton campaign was not trying to smear Trump as a
Russian asset is absurd. They all knew it. And rather,
then when you get confronted with this, you know, information
about something, it's like, well, you know that Hillary is
trying to do this, You've been told that this is coming,
and then you see this stuff come, and your reaction
is to not look at it with skepticism and to
say oh, this must be that thing. No, it's to
just roll with it. This new claim that somehow it
was a fact fabrication that the Clinton campaign ran an
opt to falsely tie Trump to Russia's beyond insane. He
says it's sociopathic because when the Hillary Clinton campaign was
asked about these emails that the Dutch had handed off
to us, they denied it. They said that, no, no, no,
we're not doing anything like that. I don't know what
you're talking about. Never heard of these people, this out landish,
I don't speak like that. Whatever. They said, no, that's
not us. And then they said this must be Russian disinformation.
They literally, yeah, yeah, if you think this is real,
then you're just succumbing to Russian disinformation. All right, that'll
do it for this episode. Thank you so much for listening.
I could not do the show without your support and
the support of the businesses that advertise on the podcast,
so if you'd like, please support them too and tell
them you heard it here. You can also become a
patron at my Patreon page or go to the Pete
Callaner dot com. Again, thank you so much for listening,
and don't break anything while I'm gone.