Sources familiar with a mysterious 2016 White House meeting are talking. What they are saying is somewhat less important than whether notes exist – to prove the meeting. If notes corroborate the White House meeting, who attended and what was discussed, they could be explosive.
Here is what we know. In November 2016, Donald Trump won the presidency. For nearly a year, members of the law enforcement and intelligence communities politically opposed to a Trump victory were “studying” his campaign.
Public accounts suggest John Brennan’s CIA established a “Trump Task Force,” as early as January 2016, to aggressively track, create a record, and potentially interfere with the Trump campaign. How the CIA used foreign contacts, employed relationships at the National Security Council, and may have skirted US laws remains unclear. We will know more soon, as the US Attorney for Connecticut is treating origins of the “Russia Collusion” story as a “criminal” matter.
Similarly, reports are emerging that James Clapper’s Director of National Intelligence (DNI) office was involved in conversations with the media intended to sow doubt, if not wholly nobble the Trump campaign. Information contained in requests from General Flynn’s attorneys for so-called Brady material – exculpatory evidence the government is compelled to produce in a criminal case – is riveting.
One report indicates DNI James Clapper urged a media outlet to put a “kill shot” on General Flynn. Still unknown is how the incoming National Security Advisor’s phone calls with foreign ambassadors were recorded, unmasked and revealed. New reports suggest the FBI released them, which would be illegal.
Likewise, questions encircle the “unmasking” of up to 300 Americans by someone in the intelligence community, or a security sensitive position in the Obama White House. If this occurred, why? On what legal basis? Who did this, at whose direction, under what authority? Maybe we will know more soon.
What else do we know? We know that the Obama team’s surveillance of the Trump campaign was justified through warrants issued by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) Court, based on information paid for by the Clinton campaign – and known to be tainted. The FBI did not share this with FISA judges, or appellate judges.
Finally, we know – from their shrill anti-Trump statements – that people suspected of illegality in Obama’s FBI, CIA, Justice Department, Office of Director National Intelligence and White House are partisans. They served in political roles, are suspected of abusing power in a coordinated way.
Names at the fore include the FBI’s James Comey, Andrew McCabe, Peter Strzok, Lisa Page, James Baker, and lesser players. At CIA, the leading partisan – who likely thought he had a job waiting in the Clinton Administration – was CIA Director John Brennan. At Justice, names like Lorretta Lynch and Bruce Ohr surface. At the DNI’s Office, James Clapper is the stand-out. In the White House, Susan Rice, Ben Rhodes, and at the UN Samantha Powers – all stand out.
Now we come to this mysterious White House meeting. After the President was elected but before he was inaugurated, a meeting is rumored to have occurred in the Obama White House. That meeting was in December 2016. Those familiar with it suggest two partisans were present, Brennan and Clapper.
If those two were in the White House, one can infer the presence of Obama’s National Security Advisor, if not the Vice President and President. Meeting topic? How to frame a case and identify a federal judge – to literally halt inauguration of the President-elect, Donald Trump. If this meeting did occur, attended by these –any of these – people, and that was the topic, more inquiry is due.
If notes exist – Brennan’s in CIA files or Clapper’s in DNI files – they should be dug out and carefully examined. If White House records exist to confirm such a meeting, those should be flagged.
In short, if we are ever going to get to the bottom of this mess, rocks as big as that need to be turned over. Maybe there is nothing under the rock. Maybe there is evidence that corroborates – and affirms the purpose of prior mischief.
Trying to stop the inauguration of a president is serious business. One way or the other, Americans deserve to know. My hope is that rumors like this are being tracked – and vigorously pursued – by those currently investigating at the Department of Justice. If not now, when?