Threatening a whistleblower & Clinton blames Russia again (08-01-2025--Hour1)

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.