- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Score Board
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- SEC Score Board
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Coaching Changes
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
NR's Andrew McCarthy: Nothing new in the Obama stuff.
Posted on 7/21/25 at 10:29 am
Posted on 7/21/25 at 10:29 am
From the pen of Andrew McCarthy today:
National Review
quote:
Last Friday, DNI Gabbard breathlessly released a slew of email communications between intelligence officials that showed what we have already known for years — indeed, what was established by a yearslong probe conducted by John Durham, a special counsel appointed by the Justice Department in the first Trump administration precisely to investigate the fabrication of a Trump-Russia collusion narrative. To wit: Despite the absence of evidence that Russian machinations had any substantive impact on the 2016 election, the Obama-era intelligence services, including the FBI, CIA, and ODNI, egged on by the White House, generated an intelligence community assessment (ICA) to highlight Russia’s inconsequential interference in that election. The ICA stressed that Vladimir Putin’s regime was trying to damage Hillary Clinton, and it speculated that Putin “aspired” to help Donald Trump.
No new light is shed on this episode by Gabbard’s email disclosures last Friday, which, unsurprisingly, were accompanied by an overwrought and misleading press release rather than an analytical report. Perhaps that is because Gabbard’s intelligence community peer, CIA Director John Ratcliffe, did issue an analytical report just a few days earlier that contradicts Gabbard’s implication that there was no evidence of Russian interference in the 2016 election.
Last week, we posted my three-part “Russiagate Revisited” series (click here for parts one, two, and three), in which I critiqued the new CIA report — in the mode of “lessons learned” — regarding the ICA’s analysis of Russia’s interference in the 2016 election (completed in December 2016, with a nonclassified version released on January 6, 2017).
In part three, in particular, I contended that the Trump administration’s decision to revive this episode, while titillating for the MAGA political base, was self-sabotage. That is mainly because, after months of scrutiny, the Trump CIA has reaffirmed the ICA’s conclusions that (1) Russia sought to interfere in the 2016 election and (2) did so in order to denigrate Hillary Clinton — i.e., Kremlin strongman Vladimir Putin anticipated that Clinton would be elected and hoped to make her a less effective president, which would be in Russia’s interest as America’s geopolitical rival.
The public position of President Trump and his most ardent supporters — the position that Gabbard reiterates — is that Russiagate was a total hoax, a complete fabrication by Democrats, without a shred of truth to it, concocted to undermine his presidency. This has always been a foolish stance.
The Democrats’ caterwauling that Russia stole the 2016 election from Clinton was nonsense. It has long been widely recognized for what it was: a fever dream by which Democrats sought to avoid conceding the true cause of the party’s loss — its nomination of a deeply unpopular, scandal-scarred, politically flat-footed candidate. Yet, by claiming that there was no evidence of Russian interference, the Trump camp invites correction (including, now, from the Trump administration’s own CIA) and thereby turns into a matter of consequence something that was utterly inconsequential.
the principal flaw in Ratcliffe’s report — which he accompanied with a referral to the Justice Department, as did Gabbard in her press release — was its attempt to manufacture a false statement in order to generate a predicate for renewed investigation and potential prosecution of Obama officials.
National Review
Posted on 7/21/25 at 10:33 am to prplhze2000
He’s right. And deep down, you probably know it.
If roles were reversed, there’s no universe anyone here would fall for the perfectly timed “bIgGer tHAN waterGAte” scandal on the heels of the biggest totally self made f*** up to date.
If roles were reversed, there’s no universe anyone here would fall for the perfectly timed “bIgGer tHAN waterGAte” scandal on the heels of the biggest totally self made f*** up to date.
Posted on 7/21/25 at 10:34 am to prplhze2000
quote:
The Democrats’ caterwauling that Russia stole the 2016 election from Clinton was nonsense. It has long been widely recognized for what it was: a fever dream by which Democrats sought to avoid conceding the true cause of the party’s loss
Yea, they were just trying to spin their loss. They definitely didn't use their lies as a catalyst to try and justify removing Trump from office.
Posted on 7/21/25 at 10:34 am to prplhze2000
quote:
No new light is shed on this episode by Gabbard’s email disclosures last Friday
The poli board said this.
But what is different is documented evidence of the assertion.
Posted on 7/21/25 at 10:35 am to prplhze2000
I posted excerpts in another thread this morning.
Some things have always been obvious, just because they are obvious.
1. Of course Russia tried to help Trump, just as China and the EU and UK tried to help Clinton. And just as the US interferes in every other countries’ elections.
2. Obviously the Obama Administration colluded with Hillary to spy on and discredit Trump.
3. Obviously this undermining of Trump continued after he was sworn in.
4. Obviously they never left a trail of evidence that would amount to proof, therefore we will never convict any of them unless someone finks on the others.
Some things have always been obvious, just because they are obvious.
1. Of course Russia tried to help Trump, just as China and the EU and UK tried to help Clinton. And just as the US interferes in every other countries’ elections.
2. Obviously the Obama Administration colluded with Hillary to spy on and discredit Trump.
3. Obviously this undermining of Trump continued after he was sworn in.
4. Obviously they never left a trail of evidence that would amount to proof, therefore we will never convict any of them unless someone finks on the others.
Posted on 7/21/25 at 10:36 am to prplhze2000
Yeah I really can’t see what they were going for with this other than to confuse the MAGA base.
Posted on 7/21/25 at 10:36 am to prplhze2000
I will prefer to stay ignorant. I don't need Andy McCarthy to help me understand ObamaGate. So I won't read his assessment.
Posted on 7/21/25 at 10:36 am to prplhze2000
Well yeah because this Obama stuff was just meant to distract from the Epstein stuff.
Posted on 7/21/25 at 10:37 am to prplhze2000
Posted on 7/21/25 at 10:38 am to Seldom Seen
quote:
Well yeah because this Obama stuff was just meant to distract from the Epstein stuff.
What do you expect to see in the Epstein stuff?
Posted on 7/21/25 at 10:38 am to aTmTexas Dillo
quote:
I will prefer to stay ignorant. I don't need Andy McCarthy to help me understand ObamaGate. So I won't read his assessment.
Maga in a nutshell. Never seen it so clearly stated before.
Posted on 7/21/25 at 10:40 am to GumboPot
I tried to cover this in another thread.
LINK
After this, the wave of leaks about interference began....
quote:
All week, Washington buzzed with rumors about imminent document releases, but what came out wasn’t what many expected. Gabbard’s documents show the Obama White House overruling months of reports downplaying Russian interference and ordering subordinates to set a time bomb of manipulated intelligence, with the aim of trying to, as Gabbard described it, “usurp” an incoming president. No longer a tertiary character, Obama is now “center square” in the Russiagate scam, as one source put it.
quote:
The information from Gabbard’s office was not the only news on the Russiagate front. This investigation is not just about “ten-year-old news,” as has been a common talking point, but may also involve never-reported Biden-era issues. A source close to the investigation said yesterday that the DOJ is focusing on conspiracy charges and looking at conduct “from 2016 to 2024.” Another with ties to the administration said “President Trump’s national security team is looking at evidence that members of his 2024 campaign were spied on as well.”
All of that is yet to be determined. Until then, here’s a detailed review of what yesterday’s releases say, and why they signal a shift toward former president Obama:
Gabbard’s office put out two files. One is a 114-page document titled, “Declassified evidence of Obama administration’s conspiracy to subvert Trump’s 2016 victory and presidency.” The other is an 11-page press release that highlights the same documents, in a timeline with commentary. Gabbard compressed the releases further in an email chain replete with flow charts:
quote:
The documents focus on emails to and from the office of then-Director of National Intelligence James Clapper, whose name was conspicuously absent when news about criminal investigations into other Obama-era intelligence chiefs broke. Clapper throughout the Trump-Russia affair has been more publicly reserved than Comey or especially Brennan, who in 2019 excitedly suggested Special Counsel Robert Mueller might deliver indictments on the “Ides of March.” In contrast, Clapper told Chuck Todd on Meet The Press at the outset of Russiagate mania that “we had no evidence of collusion” when he left office in January 2017:
quote:
The next documents in the chain show that not only Clapper’s office but others, including the FBI, were relatively unconcerned about Russian interference. Figures like Virginia Senator and key Russiagate figure Mark Warner are already dismissing Gabbard’s report as an attempt to “cook the books” by comparing “apples and oranges,” the apples being Russian efforts to attack “election infrastructure,” the oranges being “influence” operations. But emails dating back to September 2016 show a dismissive attitude toward both concepts, as well as a lack of conviction about Russia’s ability to impact or “disrupt” the election outcome in any way.
quote:
By December 7th, 2016, Clapper’s office prepared text for a Presidential Daily Briefing headed ACTIVITY ON AND SINCE ELECTION DAY and reading:
![]()
By the next day, December 8th, officials had text prepared that read, “Russian and criminal actors did not impact recent US election results by conducting malicious cyber activities against election infrastructure.”
This wording was scheduled to be entered into the PDB — not a public report, but a confidential briefing to President Obama — the next day, December 9th. However, Comey’s FBI on the afternoon of the 8th unexpectedly withdrew from the PDB.
“FBI will be drafting a dissent this afternoon,” a Bureau official wrote at 3:48 p.m. “Please remove our seal and annotations of co-authorship.” About an hour later, at 4:53 p.m., an official from Clapper’s office axed the PDB for the time being. “Based on some new guidance, we are going to push back publication of the PDB,” the official wrote. “It will not run tomorrow and is not likely to run until next week.”
At that point, a meeting of Obama’s National Security Principals Committee was held. The list of attendees reads like an all-star collection of MSNBC green room visitors: John Kerry, Victoria Nuland, John Brennan, Avril Haines, Ben Rhodes, and Andrew McCabe, among others. One source told me to note the name Richard Ledgett from the National Security Agency, who “played a role in this”:
This is the group that the next day received a group email from Clapper’s office headed “POTUS Tasking on Russia Election Meddling,” asking them to “produce an assessment per the President’s request,” with a target release date of January 9th, 2017:
The IC is prepared to produce an assessment per the President’s request, that pulls together the information we have on the tools Moscow used and the actions it took to influence the 2016 election, an explanation of why Moscow directed these activities, and how Moscow’s approach has changed over time, going back to 2008 and 2012 as reference points.
In sum, just before Obama was to receive a briefing that contained no reference to significant Russian interference, the briefing was called off and a high-level meeting of White House security officials was convened, after which Obama himself tasked them with a new assessment that would lean toward a more aggressive conclusion. Although this new effort was to be directed by Clapper’s office, the critical job of divining Russia’s motives would be given to the CIA and Brennan:
LINK
After this, the wave of leaks about interference began....
Posted on 7/21/25 at 10:40 am to mwade91383
quote:
He’s right. And deep down, you probably know it.
Acknowledging what we’ve know all along for years is not a bad idea especially with Democrats denying everything even till this day.
Posted on 7/21/25 at 10:41 am to atlgamecockman
quote:
Maga in a nutshell. Never seen it so clearly stated before.
I'm not MAGA. Just a republican. But I don't G-A-S about what he says. The matter has been referred to DOJ. Actually I don't expect much to come of it. I should be pissed at myself I even follow this stuff on PoliTalk. Because we are all losers posting here.
Posted on 7/21/25 at 10:41 am to prplhze2000
i thought he was dead. just remember the 100's of FBI agents he predicted would resign over hillary not being indicted panican's lose again!
Posted on 7/21/25 at 10:42 am to mwade91383
quote:
He’s right. And deep down, you probably know it.
If roles were reversed, there’s no universe anyone here would fall for the perfectly timed “bIgGer tHAN waterGAte” scandal on the heels of the biggest totally self made f*** up to date.
I'll give some props.......you're and unwavering true believer in the masterminds of the Fundamental Transformation of America.
Posted on 7/21/25 at 10:53 am to aTmTexas Dillo
Posted on 7/21/25 at 10:54 am to Seldom Seen
quote:
Seldom Seen
Go back to DU
Posted on 7/21/25 at 10:55 am to GumboPot
Notably, Carlson is definitely advocating for complete exposure of the Epstein stuff while continuing to hammer this story.
Posted on 7/21/25 at 10:58 am to prplhze2000
This is just NR being The Resistance . They’re NeoCons, and Trump has turned the party away from that bullshite. As long as the current generation of rich benefactors fund them, NR will continue to publish. But they lost half their readership in 2016.
Popular
Back to top

20








