Articles, Blog

Gowdy Doubles Down, Calls for Intel Agencies To Stop Briefing ‘Epidemic Leaker’ Schiff

March 1, 2020

Gowdy Doubles Down, Calls for Intel Agencies
To Stop Briefing ‘Epidemic Leaker’ Schiff. Picture this situation, strange though it
may be. Last week, The New York Times published a
story about the Adam Schiff-led House Intelligence Committee purportedly being briefed by intelligence
officials on Russia interfering on behalf of President Donald Trump in the 2020 election. Imagine that at the end of the story, The
New York Times announced it was all a bit of a trap. You now had a virus on your computer that
would destroy all your personal data and render your computer or mobile device totally bricked
unless you answered one thing correctly: You had to guess one of the anonymous congressional
sources they used to compile the story. Get it right, the virus is removed and you can
go about your day. Get it wrong, your entire digital life is erased. Knowing a) what I can reasonably guess about
the story and b) what you could reasonably guess about the story, I can safely say that
not a single file would be lost and every single person who read “Lawmakers Are Warned
That Russia Is Meddling to Re-elect Trump” would be walking around with the same iPhone
they read it on. That’s because everyone who knows enough
to read an article like that also knows that Adam Schiff is the Lusitania of congressional
leakage. Even The Times sort of acknowledged the elephant
in the room, saying that “Mr. Trump was particularly irritated that Representative
Adam B. Schiff, Democrat of California and the leader of the impeachment proceedings,
was at the briefing.” The Times, I’m sure, was not.
In an appearance Monday on Fox News, former South Carolina GOP Rep. Trey Gowdy was on
to discuss the fact that the original narrative on the briefing the House Intelligence Committee
got has mostly collapsed; intelligence sources say the election security official who gave
the briefing overstated the evidence that Russia was trying to elect Trump. Gowdy began by noting past allegations of
collusion involving Moscow. “We spent two years for Bob Mueller to tell
us there was no evidence” of Russian collusion, Gowdy, now a Fox News contributor, told host
Sean Hannity. “It took two minutes this time for us to
find out there was no evidence,” he continued. “As soon as a Republican asked this briefer
in the classified intel briefing, ‘What evidence do you have to support that assessment?’
The answer was none.” “For over a year, we were lectured by the
D.C. media and the Democrats that no one is above the law,” he continued. “No one is above the law, apparently except
whoever leaks classified information out of Adam Schiff’s committee. So what the Intelligence
Committee needs to give some thought to is [to] stop briefing someone who has a history
and is an epidemic leaker.” While we’re at it, we should probably stop
letting Shelby Pierson, the election security official who gave the briefing, do stuff like
that. No matter how you feel about the fact that
Trump reportedly attacked Joseph Maguire, his acting director of national intelligence,
over his decision to let Pierson give the briefing to the House Intelligence Committee,
it’s becoming pretty clear Pierson probably wasn’t the person to give it. The Wall Street Journal cited several individuals
familiar with her performance in the position to report she “has a reputation for being
injudicious with her words and not appreciating the delicate work of corralling federal agencies,
technology firms and state election officials to collaborate on election security.” Even in their initial report, in which they
seemed wholly certain that Pierson’s version of Russia’s election interference was the
intelligence community’s official version of events, The Times acknowledged that Pierson
“has a reputation for speaking bluntly.” Several days later, The Times admitted the
evidence was “muddied” and that Robert O’Brien, the national security advisor,
said he hadn’t seen any evidence that Russia preferred the current president over any of
his potential Democratic rivals. “There’s no briefing that I’ve received,
that the president has received, that says that President Putin is doing anything to
try and influence the election in favor of President Trump,” O’Brien said on CBS’
“Face the Nation.” “We just haven’t seen that intelligence.
If it’s out there, I haven’t seen it.” The basic takeaway, as The Times explained
it, is that “the Office of the Director of National Intelligence did not mean to say
that it believes the Russians are currently intervening in the election explicitly to
help President Trump” and that intelligence agencies “believe that Russia is intervening
in the election, and that Moscow prefers Mr. Trump, a deal maker it knows well. But at
least for now, those two objectives may not be linked.” The point remains that whatever the actual
situation is, The Times received information about the briefing almost as soon as it happened.
There were no doubt multiple sources — but you can certainly venture a solid guess who
one of them was.

1 Comment

  • Reply George Ramirez February 29, 2020 at 2:56 pm

    I was given Oath By Adm. Thomas Moorer May1968 Went To court for my Injury lawyer said I am Not To Be Allowed to Join Military Service Told Judge.Sept1968.Dec 2000 I witnessed Plot To 911 Attacks.

  • Leave a Reply