The Federalist's Mollie Hemingway is interviewed by FOX News' Tucker Carlson on surveillance of the Trump presidential campaign, the extent that former CIA director John Brennan was involved, and how far it goes.

 

Transcript:
 

TUCKER CARLSON, FOX NEWS: Well, on Twitter, you may read former CIA head John Brennan spouting off about the political news of the day, attacking the president's dishonesty, he says.

But it turns out Brennan himself is a liar. He's been caught lying, odd for a government official. Last year, for example, Brennan told Congress that the infamous Steele dossier had no influence at all on the intel community's claim that Russia interfered in the 2016 election.

Here's a selection.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

REP. TREY GOWDY (R), SOUTH CAROLINA: Do you know who commissioned the Steele dossier?

JOHN BRENNAN, FORMER HEAD OF THE CIA: I don't.

GOWDY: Did the CIA rely on it?

BRENNAN: No.

GOWDY: Why not?

BRENNAN: Because it wasn't part of the corpus of intelligence information that we had. It was not in any way used as a basis for the intel community assessment that was done.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CARLSON: Busted! Liar! By the way, Brennan, you should know this, is an NBC and MSNBC paid contributor now, needless to say.

Two top former intel officials, though, dispute his claim, the one you just heard that the dossier formed no part of the corpus of intelligence used by our government to spy on the Trump campaign.

Retired National Security Agency Director Michael Rogers and Former Director of National Intelligence Jim Clapper both admit now that the Steele dossier and its Clinton campaign-funded allegations did, in fact, influence the intel community assessment. We knew that, but it's nice to hear it confirmed.

Mollie Hemingway is senior editor of "The Federalist" and she joins us tonight.

Mollie, I know you've been following this carefully. A lot of these stories seem to lead back to this guy, John Brennan. And you would think, as the former head of the CIA, he is someone you'd be able to trust, but he seems not only a liar, but an inept one. Am I misreading this?

MOLLIE HEMINGWAY, "THE FEDERALIST" SENIOR EDITOR: We have a problem with multiple heads of intelligence agencies, and that does include Brennan, who has a history of lying, specifically about spying on American citizens.

So, it's difficult to hold him - take him seriously.

But we've also had problems with falsehoods being set also by James Clapper, who gave inconsistent testimony about his leaking to the media.

And we have also had problems with James Comey himself, whether he understands what a leak is and how he has been involved in it.

But one of the things that's interesting is Clapper and Comey have been so much a part of this story, and we've seen their names a great deal, but Brennan has been able to kind of stay out of the limelight until recently where people are starting to piece together just how integral he was to the entire Russia narrative.

So, for instance -

CARLSON: Please go ahead.

HEMINGWAY: Yes. He actually launched the investigation. He has bragged about how he was involved in launching the investigation.

He also was really key in briefing Harry Reid, which Harry Reid has said he understood that he was being briefed by Brennan specifically so he would leak that information and get it out to the media and also pressure James Comey.

And then, these other things that are interesting that are coming out now about how he claimed that the dossier wasn't used, which made no sense already because we know the dossier was used to secure a wiretap against someone in the Russia investigation.

And also, it just stands to reason that it would have been included, but now we actually have people who do have a little bit more integrity, particularly Mike Rogers saying that, of course, it was used in the intelligence community assessment.

CARLSON: It's becoming clear that a lot of the secrecy surrounding these activities is designed not to protect the United States from foreign threats, but to protect the misdeeds of the people gathering the intelligence. It's CYA.

HEMINGWAY: Yes. It does seem that that has become a big part of the operation. Whether people got in over their heads, whether they were led astray by Brennan and they did things that maybe they shouldn't have done, it does seem that a lot of what we've seen in the last few months is about attempting to keep people from finding out the full extent of what was happening.

Today, "The New York Times" did report based on just a widespread leaking from people who were involved in the investigation that, yes, people are now admitting they were spying on the Trump campaign in a fairly widespread fashion.

It wasn't just Carter Page. It was four top officials. They weren't just using FISA wiretaps. They were also using national security letters and human intelligence. At least one human intelligence source.

So, this is busting wide open and I think people will start demanding a little bit more in terms of just what the FBI and other intelligence agencies were thinking when they began spying on the political campaign of a major party.

CARLSON: Liberals used to be worried about things like this. Not anymore.

Mollie Hemingway, thank you. Thanks for that.

On his radio show Wednesday night, LevinTV host Mark Levin discussed new revelations about a “secret cabal” of FBI agents that began surveillance of President Trump and his campaign over three months before the November 2016 election.

Levin referred to a report at the New York Times earlier that day which outlines the origins of the FBI’s secretive probe into what it suspected were the Trump campaign’s dealings with the Kremlin. According to the story, what was then known as “Crossfire Hurricane” amongst the handful of agents involved, began months before election day.

The story serves to further vindicate Levin, who was widely attacked as a conspiracy theorist for his assertions that publicly-available evidence clearly suggested that the Trump campaign had been surveilled.

“They clear the decks for Hillary despite her serial felonies under the Espionage Act and then immediately genuflect and go after Trump with this secret cabal of FBI agents,” Levin remarked, “That’s what the New York Times has revealed tonight whether or not they realize it.”

 

 

Editor's Note: Mueller knew from the very beginning what the DOJ Policy was regarding not being permitted to indict a sitting President yet he deliberately withheld this information so he could keep a black cloud of doubt over Trump's head exactly like James Comey did.  If you'll remember, it came out that James Comey told the President that he "was not under investigation" yet refused to say to publicly in order to create the false impression that he was under investigation.

 

By Samuel Chamberlain, John Roberts
Fox News

President Trump's attorney, Rudy Giuliani, told Fox News on Wednesday that special counsel Robert Mueller has told the president's legal team he will follow Justice Department guidance and not seek an indictment against Trump.

Giuliani, himself a former federal prosecutor and mayor of New York City, also told Fox News that Mueller's investigators have not responded to five information requests from the president's team. That has forced Trump's legal team to push off making a decision about whether the president will sit for an interview with the special counsel -- a decision they had hoped to reach by Thursday.

The precedent that federal prosecutors cannot indict a sitting president is laid out in a 1999 Justice Department memo. Giuliani told Fox News that Mueller has no choice but to follow its guidanc

"This case is essentially over," Giuliani said. "They're just in denial."

Giuliani joined Trump's legal team last month and has repeatedly warned that an in-person interview of the president by the special counsel's team would constitute a "perjury trap." Complicating matters, Trump himself has refused to rule out agreeing to an interview with Mueller.

In an interview with Fox News' Sean Hannity earlier this month, Giuliani said that the Mueller team had ruled out allowing the Trump team to submit written answers to the special counsel's questions.

The attorney whom Giuliani replaced on Trump's team, John Dowd, has said that Mueller has floated the idea of issuing a grand jury subpoena for Trump to answer questions. If that were to occur, the president could still fight it in court or refuse to answer questions by invoking his Fifth Amendment right to protection from self-incrimination.

Giuliani said last week that the president's legal team would oppose any subpoena unless they could "reach agreement on the ground rules." He argued that Trump could invoke executive privilege, and the team would point to Justice Department opinions in fighting a subpoena and "on both law and the facts, we would have the strongest case you could imagine."

Giuliani has also noted the handover of 1.2 million documents to the Mueller team as evidence of cooperation.

Thursday marks one year after Mueller's appointment to oversee the FBI investigation into alleged collusion between Russian officials and members of the Trump campaign. So far, investigators have charged 19 people — including four Trump campaign advisers — and three Russian companies.

Both Trump's former national security adviser, Michael Flynn, and his deputy campaign chairman, Rick Gates, have pleaded guilty and are now cooperating with the probe. Several other former White House and campaign staffers, including Reince Priebus and Steve Bannon, as well as Inauguration Day committee chairman Tom Barrack, have been interviewed.

Under Mueller, the FBI worked with a Russian oligarch to try and secure the release of Bob Levinson; The Hill's John Solomon explains on 'The Ingraham Angle.'

 

Issa and Bartiromo discussed the latest shocking developments in the Obama Deep State targeting and spying on the Trump campaign.

Maria Bartiromo: Do you believe you are getting honest answers from the FBI and DOJ?

Rep. Darrell Issa: No, I think they’re lying though their teeth… It is very clear that we are being asked to trust the Department of Justice who we know did in fact use a law that allows them to spy but lied to get the warrants, lied to a federal judge under the FISA act. So this is one of the challenges. Make no bones about it. A FISA warrant is in fact a license to spy. Now the question is did you lie, cheat or steal in order to do that and very clearly with the information presented behind closed doors to the federal judge the fact is they did mislead the judge to get a warrant multiple ability to spy and now we’re asked to believe that you can trust the very people, not the management for a moment, but the very people who know this and are covering it up.

 

By Sara Carter
SaraCarter.com

The chairman of the powerful Senate Judiciary Committee is demanding that the Department of Justice and FBI adhere to requests made over a year ago and turn over all documentation associated with the bureau’s investigation into former National Security Advisor Army Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn. Flynn, who plead guilty to one count of lying to the FBI, despite evidence and admissions from senior FBI officials that he did not lie. Moreover, the letter reveals, for the first time, the name of the second FBI agent who interviewed Flynn at the White House regarding his conversation with the former Russian Ambassador.

“The Department has withheld the Flynn-related documents since our initial bipartisan request last year, citing an ongoing criminal investigation…”

Senator Chuck Grassley

Chairman Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, sent the letter to Rosenstein and FBI Director Christopher Wray Friday requesting a slew of documentation pertaining to Flynn’s case. He noted that on Feb. 15, 2017, a bipartisan group of members from his committee had requested a copy of the intercepted classified phone transcript between Flynn and former Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak and due to an ongoing investigation the DOJ and FBI denied the committee’s request. Flynn was fired by President Trump in February 2017 for apparently not being forthright with Vice President Mike Pence about his conversation with Kislyak.

Grassley stated in Friday’s letter that at the time the committee requested the documentation on Flynn, “the Justice Department declined to provide any of that information, and instead, then-FBI Director (James) Comey provided a wide-ranging briefing to us on March 15, 2017, that touched on the Flynn issues.”

Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein

“The Department has withheld the Flynn-related documents since our initial bipartisan request last year, citing an ongoing criminal investigation,” Grassley stated. “With Flynn’s plea, the investigation appears concluded.”

By Ryan Saavedra
TheDailyWire.com

On Friday, Senate Judiciary Chairman Chuck Grassley (R-IA) sent a letter to Department of Justice Attorney General Rod Rosenstein and FBI Director Christopher Wray demanding that they produce documents related to the FBI's assessments of their interview of former National Security Adviser Michael Flynn due to recent contradictory statements made by fired FBI Director James Comey.

"On February 15, 2017, this Committee requested on a bipartisan basis a copy of the transcript of the widely reported call between Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn and the Russian ambassador and the FBI report summarizing the intercepted calls," Grassley wrote. "The Justice Department declined to provide any of that information, and instead then-FBI Director Comey provided a wide-ranging briefing to us on March 15, 2017 that touched on the Flynn issues. "

"According to that agent’s contemporaneous notes, Director Comey specifically told us during that briefing that the FBI agents who interviewed Lt. General Michael Flynn, 'saw nothing that led them to believe [he was] lying,'" Grassley's letter continues. "Our own Committee staff’s notes indicate that Mr. Comey said the 'agents saw no change in his demeanor or tone that would say he was being untruthful.'

"Contrary to his public statements during his current book tour denying any memory of those comments, then-Director Comey led us to believe during that briefing that the agents who interviewed Flynn did not believe he intentionally lied..." Grassley wrote, before listing off demands to Rosenstein and Wray.

Given Comey's contradictory statements, Grassley instructed the Deputy Attorney General and FBI Director to provide to the committee by no later than May 25, 2018, everything requested in the "February 15, 2017 letter, including the transcripts of the reportedly intercepted calls and any FBI reports summarizing them; and the FBI agents’ 302s memorializing their interview of Flynn and 1A supporting docs, including the agents’ notes."

PJ Media notes:

The 302 form contains information from the notes an FBI agent takes during an interview of a subject. It is used by FBI agents to "report or summarize the interviews that they conduct."

The reason that the 302 forms are of especially high interest regarding Flynn is that reports have surfaced indicating that recently fired FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe might have instructed FBI agents to change the information they recorded on the forms.

"I have been told tonight by a number of sources ... that McCabe may have asked FBI agents to actually change their 302s," investigative journalist Sara Carter told Fox News host Sean Hannity.

Judicial Watch today released new emails from the Department of Justice (DOJ) showing that former FBI Director James Comey was advised by FBI officials in May 2017 to consult with Special Counsel Robert Mueller prior to testifying before any congressional committees regarding Russian meddling in the 2016 presidential election and his firing as FBI director.

According to numerous news reports, Comey met directly with Mueller previous to his June 8, 2017, testimony before the Senate Intelligence Committee. Sources said that Comey’s opening statement and subsequent testimony were coordinated with Mueller.

At the hearing, Comey revealed that he had intentionally leaked material from a memo allegedly documenting a meeting with President Trump in order to help assure the appointment of a special counsel.

I asked a friend of mine to share the content of the memo with a reporter. Didn’t do it myself, for a variety of reasons. But I asked him to, because I thought that might prompt the appointment of a special counsel.

The DOJ and FBI have stated that Comey’s leaks were unauthorized and compared the disclosures to Wikileaks.

The documents obtained by Judicial Watch are the first to reveal that high-ranking FBI officials helped Comey coordinate his testimony with Mueller.

Judicial Watch obtained the documents in a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit against the DOJ on January 31, 2018 (Judicial Watch v. U.S. Department of Justice (No. 1:18-cv-00220)). The lawsuit was filed after the DOJ failed to respond to an August 14, 2017 FOIA request seeking:

• All records of communications between the FBI and Comey prior to and regarding Comey’s testimony before the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence on June 8, 2017.
• All records of communications between the FBI and Comey relating to an upcoming book to be authored by Comey and published.
• All records, including but not limited to forms completed by Comey, relating to the requirement for prepublication review by the FBI of any book to be authored by Comey with the intent to be published or otherwise publicly available.

On May 17, 2017, Comey received notices to appear before the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence the Senate Judiciary Committee, and the House Oversight and Government Affairs Committee.

An email chain dated May 18 and 19, 2017, with the subject line “Future testimony” shows then-FBI Chief of Staff James Rybicki, then-Deputy FBI Director Andrew McCabe and Assistant Director Gregory Brower, Comey and others discussing Comey’s upcoming testimony:

In this chain, on May 18 at 6:30 pm, Comey wrote to Rybicki to confirm that he had accepted the invitation to testify before the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence (SSCI) but declined the invitations from the Senate Judiciary Committee and House Oversight and Government Affairs Committee.

Comey also writes: “Last, would you please tell OGC [Office of the General Counsel] that I would like to be able to review any documents authored by me or on which I am copied that will be produced to SSCI in connection with my testimony and would like the opportunity for that review before I testify?”

An email from a redacted sender, apparently Comey, to Rybicki dated May 19 at 11:49 am reads:

Jim

I just got off a call with Senators Burr and Warner. They would like to have a hearing next Wednesday at which I testify, first in open session and then in closed, if necessary. I asked them not to announce it until I check with FBI/DOJ to see if you want to discuss anything before they do that. I told them I had asked for guidance on any institutional prerogatives and for the opportunity to review any documents FBI has produced that relate to me. I told them I would communicate with them by the end of the day to either ask them to hold announcing the Wednesday hearing or go ahead.

Many thanks.

Jim

On May 19 at 2:10 pm, Rybicki writes back:

Director: We just met to discuss the requests outlined in the two emails below. Before responding the General Counsel has asked me to confirm that you have discussed with the attorneys representing you, and that you are comfortable discussing these issues with us rather than communicating through your counsel.

On May 19 at 3:02 pm, a redacted sender, likely Comey, responds to Rybicki: “Yes and yes.”

Also in this chain, on May 19 at 4:11 pm, Rybicki writes to McCabe, FBI Deputy Director David L. Bowdich, former FBI General Counsel James A. Baker, Brower, Elizabeth Beers and other redacted names:

Please see a DRAFT response to Director Comey (below). I will hold pending further direction….

Director:

In response to your emails below we have consulted with executive management here, including the General Counsel, and recommend the following:

1. That your counsel convey any acceptance or declinations to invitations to testify directly to the Committees.
2. That your counsel consult with Special Counsel Mueller to determine the timing of any such testimony and,
3. The Office of General Counsel stands ready to discuss with you in consultation with the Department of Justice and the Special Counsel, institutional privileges or prerogatives that may be presented by any such testimony.

“These documents show that James Comey, who was fired by the president, nevertheless had easy, friendly access to the FBI as he prepped his infamous anti-Trump testimony to the Senate,” said Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton. “This collusion led to Comey’s attacking President Trump and misusing FBI records as part of a vendetta against the president.”

LevinTV host Mark Levin interviewed former Secret Service agent Dan Bongino and former U.S. attorney Joseph diGenova on his weekly Fox News program, “Life, Liberty & Levin.”

“We’re here on very serious business,” Levin began. He asked his guests about two Department of Justice memoranda, one from the Nixon administration and one from the Clinton administration, that conclude that a president of the United States cannot be indicted by a special counsel.

“I don’t think there’s any question that the Mueller investigation as it sits now is illegitimate,” diGenova said. He explained that the appointment of special counsel Robert Mueller by Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein did not name a crime for Mueller to investigate, raising serious problems. “It named nothing. This was a way for the department under Rosenstein to avoid responsibility for conducting an inquiry,” he said.

With no crime being investigated, diGenova said that having President Trump sit down with Mueller to answer his questions would be a waste of time for both Trump and the country. “I think the president should fight to the very end any subpoena issued by the special counsel,” he concluded.

Levin asked Bongino if he thought the Mueller probe is putting together a case for impeachment against Trump. Bongino thinks it is, but he went further, running through the prosecutors Mueller has hired and their anti-Trump, pro-Clinton biases.

“I think the entire Mueller operation, Mark, is a smokescreen to keep the attention on Donald J. Trump and to keep the attention away from the crimes committed with the Clinton operation and … the Obamagate spying scandal as well,” Bongino said.

 

By Daniel Chaitin
TheWashingtonExaminer.com

House Intelligence Committee Chairman Devin Nunes announced Sunday he's going to push Congress this week to hold Attorney General Jeff Sessions in contempt of Congress.

This extreme step is a culmination of the frustration the California Republican explained he's felt in dealing with a Justice Department that had stymied his requests for information, during the panel's government surveillance investigation. In particular the committee has been looking into allegations of Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act surveillance abuses by the Justice Department and FBI that led to spying on former Trump campaign aide Carter Page.

Two weeks ago, Nunes sent a classified letter to Sessions, which he said was not acknowledged. That was followed by a subpoena last week.

"Then on Thursday we discovered that they are not going to comply with our subpoena," Nunes said on "Fox and Friends Sunday."

A Justice Department official shared the letter sent to Nunes on Thursday with the Washington Examiner, which explained that the decision was made after consulting the White House.

"After careful evaluation and following consultations with the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, and the White House, the Department has determined that, consistent with applicable law and longstanding Executive Branch policy, it is not in a position to provide information responsive to your request regarding a specific individual," Assistant Attorney General Stephen Boyd wrote in the letter.

"Disclosure of responsive information to such requests can risk severe consequences, including potential loss of human lives, damage to relationships with valued international partners, compromise of ongoing criminal investigations, and interfere with intelligence activities," Boyd added.

The letter also stated that the DOJ was willing to discuss other ways to accommodate the House Intelligence Committee's oversight inquiry.