Connect with us


Former Intel Chief James Clapper Admits that Obama Ordered Spying on Trump Campaign

Former Director of National Intelligence James Clapper has admitted that Obama ordered the intel community to spy on Trump.



For years, now, people have wondered how America’s intel agencies could have been spying on the Trump campaign without the knowledge of their boss, President Barack Obama. But, at last, former Director of National Intelligence James Clapper has admitted that Obama ordered the intel community to spy on Trump.

In an interview not many noticed last week, Clapper said that Obama’s demands for an intel community assessment of Trump “set off a whole sequence of events” that eventually led to the fake investigation that resulted in the Mueller report.

“One point I’d like to make, Anderson,” Clapper said to CNN’s Anderson Cooper on October 2, “that I don’t think has come up very much before, and I’m alluding now to the President’s criticism of President Obama for all that he did or didn’t do before he left office with respect to the Russian meddling. If it weren’t for President Obama, we might not have done the intelligence community assessment that we did that set off a whole sequence of events which are still unfolding today, notably, special counsel Mueller’s investigation.”

Transcript of the segment:

Trending: Democrat Impeachment Manager Admits Impeachment Is All About The Election

ANDERSON COOPER, CNN HOST: The 2017 assessment that the President says he now agrees with, that was done while you and then CIA Director John Brennan were still in office. So, how can we reconcile the President attacking you, but apparently after a very long time finally, allegedly saying — or saying he allegedly agrees with the product of the intelligence community that you, yourself oversaw?

JAMES CLAPPER: Yes, well, this is — yes, as we’ve come to know the President, he is not a stalwart for a consistency or coherence. So it’s very hard to explain that. One point I’d like to make, Anderson, that I don’t think has come up very much before, and I’m alluding now to the President’s criticism of President Obama for all that he did or didn’t do before he left office with respect to the Russian meddling. If it weren’t for President Obama, we might not have done the intelligence community assessment that we did that set off a whole sequence of events which are still unfolding today, notably, special counsel Mueller’s investigation.

President Obama is responsible for that, and it was he who tasked us to do that intelligence community assessment in the first place. I think it’s an important point when it comes to critiquing President Obama.

Rush Limbaugh was shocked by the news during his Monday broadcast.

Well, so now he doesn’t like it! Now that he’s being investigated here by Barr and Durham, he says, “Hey, it was Obama. We’re just doing what Obama told us to do,” which we’ve always suspected. But I find it fascinating the way he characterizes this. (impression) “Well, uh, apparently what we were supposed to have done is — is just ignore the Russian interference.” There wasn’t any. There wasn’t any Russian interference. You can’t prove it. There wasn’t any. Don’t give me the $150,000 ad buy the Russian troll farms made on Facebook after the election.

The Russians didn’t tamper with any votes. The Russians didn’t effect anything on any election result anywhere. The Russians did not meddle. You know, it really comes off of that. These people are still living off the idea the Russians meddled because they might have wanted to, the Russians interfered because they might have wanted to — and because Mueller went to the obvious step of making sure some Russians were indicted. We couldn’t find any Russians in the story!

The story is finally coming together. Barack Obama launched an illegal spy operation against the candidate of a major American political party.

It can’t be much clearer.

Follow Warner Todd Huston on Twitter @warnerthuston.

Don't forget to Like The Washington Sentinel on Facebook and Twitter, and visit our friends at The Republican Legion.

Become an insider!

Sign up for the free Washington Sentinel email newsletter, and we'll make sure to keep you in the loop.



Hillary Clinton Inexplicably Links Mark Zuckerberg’s “Authoritarian” Streak to Donald Trump

Someone please come get Hillary and take her home.



How Hillary Clinton remains relevant in today’s news cycle is completely bewildering.

This is a woman who epitomizes the “Deep State” and the establishment ethos running rampant in the seedy underbelly of Washington DC – even long after her last official stint in politics.

Clinton is a curse on the Democratic Party, even according to those who espouse the beliefs consistent with the political organization itself.  It was her rigging of the 2016 primaries that left a sour taste in the mouth for many, especially those who believe that the Democrats should be doing everything in their power to swing their agenda hard to the left.

Simply put:  Clinton is the corrupt and scandal-ridden old guard who has overstayed her welcome.  Her obliviousness to this fact was on display yet again this week as she attempted to berate Facebook and Donald Trump in the same breath.

Clinton aired her own conspiracy theory in an exchange with Jeffrey Goldberg, the Atlantic’s editor-in-chief, at an event hosted by Emerson Collective at the Sundance Film Festival. Reporter Adrienne Lafrance wrote of the exchange:

Listening to Clinton, I was struck by how remarkably similar her account was to something Zuckerberg had once told me. Facts, Zuckerberg had suggested, are best derived from foraging many opinions, ideally from the billions of humans who use his publishing platform, so that each individual might cherry-pick what to believe. (Cherry-pick is my word, not his.)

I wrote at the time that Zuckerberg’s interpretation was unsatisfying for one thing, and Trumpian for another. When I asked Clinton today whether she too sees a Trumpian quality in Zuckerberg’s reasoning, she nodded. “It’s Trumpian,” she said. “It’s authoritarian.” (Facebook did not immediately provide a response to my request for comment from Zuckerberg.)

It has trumpeted its ability to affect the outcome of an election. There’s good reason to believe, Clinton said, that Facebook is “not just going to reelect Trump, but intend[s] to reelect Trump.”

Of course, Clinton’s assertion doesn’t take into account the severe censorship of conservative voices on the social media platform, which seems to fly in the face of this wild conspiracy theory.

Continue Reading


Even More Leaked Trump Tapes Could be Coming, According to Giuliani Associate

Will this pressure on Mitch McConnell to allow witnesses in the Senate impeachment trial, or push the Senate Majority Leader to simply expedite the inevitable exoneration of President Trump?



Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell’s unwillingness to allow for witnesses in the impeachment trial currently under his purview has nudged the never-Trump crowd into the public eye, where seemingly damaging information has been steadily streaming through the media.

The idea is simple:  The House of Representatives was responsible for the “fact finding” portions of the investigation, with the Senate left to simply adjudicate this impeachment with the information provided.  This will also allow McConnell to deliver a swift and exonerating result for President Trump, thus allowing our public servants to get back to work at the business of the nation.

But there is peril for the President in this tactic as well, as it squeezes the would-be witnesses to demonstrate their value outside of the watchful eye of McConnell and Co., often taking to the mainstream media in order to expose the nation to their alleged evidence of wrongdoing on the part of the President.

Just last week, an undercover recording of a dinner with President Trump was released this way, in which the Commander in Chief discussed the firing of US ambassador to Ukraine Marie Yovanovitch.  The person responsible for that leak, former Rudy Giuliani associate Lev Parnas,  is now claiming that even more recordings exist.

Parnas’s attorney, Joseph Bondy, said in a tweet Saturday that he released the audio “given its importance to our national interest.” He said Friday that he had shared it with the House Intelligence Committee.

Later Saturday, Bondy told CNN’s Anderson Cooper that he believes the recording is significant because, “This is one of the first occasions in which (Trump) attempts to remove the ambassador.”

“Parnas, as he has explained it to me, was shocked that he might raise the subject of the ambassador and have the chief executives say, ‘Get rid of her and fire her,'” Bondy said. “You could never possibly have expected that the President would literally take that step.”

He added that Parnas has more recordings of the President.

The leaked recordings have acted as a call-to-arms for some Democrats, who believe that the material presented within the conversation should be enough to warrant a change of heart by Mitch McConnell on the subject of trial witnesses.


Continue Reading


John Bolton Bites Back in New Book as No Plans to Subpoena his Testimony Manifest

The Democratic hesitance in subpoenaing the former national security adviser may have prompted this wild maneuver.



Former National Security Adviser John Bolton has long been a target of the Democrats’ impeachment efforts, but the iron fist of Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell has thus far prevented any witnesses from appearing before the Senate.

Bolton worked in the West Wing during the UkraineGate scandal, and had been quoted by previously-called witnesses as being highly opposed to the alleged extortion of Ukraine by President Trump.  Despite this, House Democrats passed on their opportunity to subpoena Bolton for testimony.

Even after Bolton publicly admitted that he would testify to Congress if he were subpoenaed, there has been seemingly no inclination to do so by Democrats.

Bolton appears determined to have his story heard, however, and is now planning to release a book detailing the matter.  The New York Times is now reporting that the tome contains some serious bombshells.

President Trump told his national security adviser in August that he wanted to continue freezing $391 million in security assistance to Ukraine until officials there helped with investigations into Democrats including the Bidens, according to an unpublished manuscript by the former adviser, John R. Bolton.

The president’s statement as described by Mr. Bolton could undercut a key element of his impeachment defense: that the holdup in aid was separate from Mr. Trump’s requests that Ukraine announce investigations into his perceived enemies, including former Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr. and his son Hunter Biden, who had worked for a Ukrainian energy firm while his father was in office.

Mr. Bolton’s explosive account of the matter at the center of Mr. Trump’s impeachment trial, the third in American history, was included in drafts of a manuscript he has circulated in recent weeks to close associates. He also sent a draft to the White House for a standard review process for some current and former administration officials who write books.

It is unclear whether the Times has actually reviewed the manuscript. The report cites “[m]ultiple people” who “described Mr. Bolton’s account of the Ukraine affair.”

The timing of this revelation is suspect, of course, as the aforementioned McConnell has been steadfast in his opposition to calling witnesses in the Senate trial thus far, backing the Democratic case for impeachment into a corner.


Continue Reading


Roger Stone Associates Make Case for Keeping Political Provocateur Out of Prison

As of this writing, nearly 35,000 people have signed a petition asking President Donald Trump to pardon Stone.



Roger Stone is very much an enigma in the turbulence of American politics, having survived innumerable political scandals with the gusto and panache of a man whose certain of his place in the world.  He is a steady breeze where others are gusty, swirling, and fickle.

No, Stone is a rock, (no pun intended), and he has become a staple of The Beltway soap opera over the course of several decades.  He’s the quintessential wildcard, and the political arena would be insufferably mundane without his presence.

That’s precisely why some are calling for a sentence of no jail-time for Stone, who faces charges of witness tampering and and lying to Congress…including a man who was considered a “victim” of Stone’s alleged improprieties.

Randy Credico, an activist and radio host who’s known Stone for years, was on the receiving end of the witness tampering. Evidence introduced by prosecutors during trial showed Stone repeatedly — and often with vulgar language — threatened Credico to not cooperate with a congressional investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 election.

But in a letter to D.C. District Court Judge Amy Berman Jackson, an Obama appointee, on Thursday, Credico said that he did not take any of those threats seriously and that he believes Stone does not deserve to go to prison.

“I understand that Roger Stone has broken federal laws, but a prison sentence is beyond what is required in this case,” Credico wrote. “It is not justice. It is cruelty.”

Credico’s endorsement of Stone was not without criticism, however.

“Roger Stone certainly rubs a lot of people the wrong way, particularly those on the receiving end of his wee hour lowbrow character attacks,” Credico wrote. “Stone enjoys playing adolescent mind games and pulling off juvenile stunts, gags and pranks. He shamelessly invents and promotes outlandish and invidious conspiracy tales.”

Roger Stone is set to face his sentencing on February 20th.

As of this writing, nearly 35,000 people have signed a petition asking President Donald Trump to pardon Stone.



Continue Reading


Senator Blackburn Takes Flak for Alluding to Lt. Col. Vindman as ‘Political Activist’

Blackburn backed her beliefs up with a direct quote from Vindman’s commanding officer.



Given just how intertwined our personal lives have become with our political realities as of late, it can be difficult to keep ourselves from interjection a bit of emotion into our discussions of Washington DC and its inhabitants.

This is especially true in the case of Donald Trump’s looming impeachment trial, where half of the nation feels personally attacked by the other half, all while the mainstream media sits on the sidelines, fanning the flames of intolerance for the sake of ratings.

During the House’s impeachment “inquiry”, Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman was briefly at the crossroads of politics and angst, as Republican Congresspersons attempted to poke holes in his story while avoiding any naysaying of his military service.  Despite their careful plodding, many still found themselves drawing the ire of the left as they interrogated Vindman.

Senator Marsha Blackburn is now feeling the same heat as she exposes her beliefs on the character of Vindman, which itself insinuates that she and her fellow Republicans are over the target.

Sen. Marsha Blackburn (R-TN) has drawn fire from across the anti-Donald Trump political spectrum the past few days as she has publicly challenged the fake establishment built around key impeachment figure and Democrat witness Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman.

Vindman infamously testified in his full military uniform–despite the fact he does not wear it to work at the National Security Council (NSC)–before the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence (HPSCI) during the House Democrats’ impeachment inquiry stage last year helping build their case to pass articles of Impeachment before Christmas. The “impeachment managers,” the top Democrats that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) has appointed to argue the Democrats’ partisan case for removing President Trump from office before the U.S. Senate, have repeatedly invoked Vindman’s testimony over the course of this week, where Democrats have finally finished their opening arguments after three long days of that and a previous late night on Tuesday in the Senate where they used a series of meaningless amendments to buy more time to press their case on the Senate floor.

Blackburn went all in.

On Thursday, Blackburn began a tweet thread–one of many she’s done this week exposing the left on this impeachment case–by questioning the image that the establishment media and Democrats have painted of Vindman being patriotic:

As she points out, Vindman was reprimanded earlier in his military career for badmouthing the United States in front of Russian military officials.

“Before he was detailed to the White House, Vindman served in the U.S. Army, where he once received a reprimand from a superior officer for badmouthing and ridiculing America in front of Russian soldiers his unit was training with during a joint 2012 exercise in Germany,” RealClearPolitics’ Paul Sperry wrote on January 22.

So, clearly, the facts behind Blackburn’s first tweet were factually accurate.

Then, a few minutes later, she added a follow-up tweet questioning whether–as HPSCI chairman and Pelosi-designated “impeachment manager” Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA) claimed on the floor of the Senate this week that Vindman was not “vindictive”–Vindman’s decision to circumvent his chain of command to leak the contents of the president’s call with Ukraine’s president was “vindictive.”

The Senator from Tennessee, knowing full well that her stance would not be received warmly by many, followed up the tweet storm with a quote that says it all:

Continue Reading


Trump Legal Team Claims ‘Danger’ in Removing President From Office

The sudden derailment of the Trump train could be bad news for everyone.



The impeachment train has left the station, and there is no telling where it might end up as it careens wildly down the tracks.

It is assumed that there will be stops at the UkraineGate station, and we already know that the locomotive has been parked at the corner Kremlin and conspiracy theory for a while.  From here, however, it’s anyone’s guess as to what sights we may see on our travels.

According to the Trump legal team, however, there could be a derailment in our future if we’re not careful.

Lawyers for U.S. President Donald Trump told his Senate impeachment trial on Saturday that Democrats’ efforts to remove the president from office would set a “very, very dangerous” precedent in an election year.

White House Counsel Pat Cipollone, the head of the defense team, told Senators they would be denying voters their right to give their opinion on Trump at the Nov. 3 presidential election if they found him guilty and ousted him now.

The well-respected lawyer continued:

Cipollone said taking Trump off the ballot in November would mean having to “tear up all of the ballots across this country on your own initiative, take that decision away from the American people.”

“They are asking you to do something very, very consequential and, I would submit to you … very, very dangerous,” he said.

With political tensions running high in America these days, Cipollone could be completely accurate…which in and of itself is a worrisome proposition.


Continue Reading


Trump Private Dinner Conversation Leaked, Attendees Discussed Yovanovitch

Where Lev Parnas goes, trouble for President Trump seems to follow.



The sheer volume of avenues to explore in the UkraineGate impeachment case are enough for an entire anthology of Hollywood films, and, as the Senate begins to adjudicate the issue in earnest, we will surely be hearing a whole lot more about the ins-and-outs of the matter.

This information could be hard to come by, however, as Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell has promised Republicans a swift and expedient trial with as few as zero witnesses being called.

The left seems to believe that this somehow delegitimizes the process.  In turn, a number of seemingly important pieces of information have come to the American people not through the official channels, but rather from sources outside of the Capitol.

The latest fork in the road is a fitting example.

A recording reviewed by ABC News appears to capture President Donald Trump telling associates he wanted the then-U.S. ambassador to UkraineMarie Yovanovitch fired while speaking at a small gathering that included Lev Parnas and Igor Fruman — two former business associates of Trump’s personal lawyer Rudy Giuliani who have since been indicted in New York.

The recording appears to contradict statements by President Trump and support the narrative that has been offered by Parnas during broadcast interviews in recent days. Sources familiar with the recording said the recording was made during an intimate April 30, 2018, dinner at the Trump International Hotel in Washington, D.C.

Trump has said repeatedly he does not know Parnas, a Soviet-born American who has emerged as a wild card in Trump’s impeachment trial, especially in the days since Trump was impeached.

“Get rid of her!” is what the voice that appears to be President Trump’s is heard saying. “Get her out tomorrow. I don’t care. Get her out tomorrow. Take her out. Okay? Do it.”

Parnas has been a real thorn in the side of the Republicans’ case against impeachment, consistently interjecting new bits of information at the most inopportune times…quite conveniently for the Democrats.

This has raised the specter that his intentions are purely for self-preservation as he faces federal indictments stemming from his work as a foreign agent.

Continue Reading

Latest Articles

Become an insider

Best of the Month

Do NOT follow this link or you will be banned from the site!

Send this to a friend