Newly declassified emails between former Director of National Intelligence James Clapper and Admiral Mike Rogers, former head of the National Security Agency (NSA), show that Clapper smothered Rogers’ concerns about the Intelligence Community Assessment (ICA) that falsely claimed Russia helped elect President Trump in 2016.

Released yesterday by current Director of National Intelligence (DNI) Tulsi Gabbard, the two emails are more evidence that Clapper played a key role in what Gabbard has called a “years-long” coup against Trump. 

As The New American reported last month, citing Paul Sperry of RealClearInvestigations, Clapper falsely told Congress in 2017 that the notorious Steele dossier — a product of Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign — was not used in the ICA.

In some sense, the new release is hardly news. The revelation that President Barack Hussein Obama, his CIA chief John Brennan, and, of course, Clapper, knew that the collusion was a Clinton campaign hoax surfaced four years ago in Brennan’s handwritten notes.

The latest on what is likely the biggest political scandal since Watergate shows up in an email dated December 22, 2016. Rogers, a career Navy man and political independent, wrote to Clapper, Brennan, and then-FBI chief James Comey to express his grave concerns about the ICA. It would claim that Russia wanted Trump to win the election and helped him do so.

“I know that this activity is on a fast-track and that folks have been working very hard to put together a product that can be provided to the President,” Rogers wrote:

However, I wanted to reach out to you directly to let you know of some concerns I have with what I am hearing from my folks. 

Specifically, I asked my team if they’d had sufficient access to the underlying intelligence and sufficient time to review that intelligence. On both points my team raised concerns. They were clear that, at the staff level, folks have been forward-leaning and trying to ensure that we have an opportunity to review and weigh in, but I’m concerned that, given the expedited nature of this activity, my folks aren’t fully comfortable saying that they have had enough time to review all of the intelligence to be absolutely confident in their assessments. To be clear, I am not saying that we disagree substantively, but I do want to make sure that, when we are asked in the future whether we can absolutely stand behind the paper, that we don’t have any reason to hesitate because of the process. 

I know that you agree that this is something we need to be 100% comfortable with before we present it to the President — we have one chance to get this right, and it is critical that we do so. If the intent is to create an integrated product that is CIA/FBI/NSA jointly-authored that we can all defend, we need a process that allows us all to be comfortable, and I’m concerned we are not there yet. In addition, if NSA is intended to be a co-author of this product, I personally expect to see even the most sensitive evidence related to the conclusion. However, if your intent is to create a CIA-only or CIA/FBI-authored product, then I will stand down on these concerns. I would welcome your thoughts on these points and any adjustments we might make to the process to ensure that we all have the necessary level of confidence in the final assessment.

Clapper had an answer that also went to Comey and Brennan. In a word, pish-posh.

“Understand your concern,” he wrote:

It is essential that we (CIA/NSA/FBI/ODNI) be on the same page, and are all supportive of the report — in the highest tradition of “that’s OUR story, and we’re stickin to it.” This evening, CIA has provided to the NIC [National Intelligence Council] the complete draft generated by the ad hoc fusion cell. We will facilitate as much mutual transparency as possible as we complete the report, but, more time is not negotiable. We may have to compromise on our “normal” modalities, since we must do this on such a compressed schedule. 

This is one project that has to be a team sport.

It certainly was. Clapper’s message to Rogers: Shut your piehole and do what you’re told, squid.

Last month, Gabbard released smoking-gun documents that demonstrated a major conspiracy to overthrow Trump. At a meeting with top intelligence officials including Clapper and Brennan, the documents show, Obama ordered up an ICA that concluded that Russian President Vladimir Putin preferred Trump to Clinton, and that the yet-to-be-inaugurated president colluded with Russia to defeat Clinton. The documents also show that Clapper ordered the bogus assessment.

Yet a U.S. House Intelligence Committee report showed that Brennan overruled CIA analysts who concluded that “we don’t have direct information that Putin wanted to get Trump elected.”

The notion that Putin and his government preferred Clinton was preposterous, given what the Russian Foreign Intelligence Service (SVR) knew about Clinton.

“The SVR possessed [Democratic National Committee] communications that Clinton was suffering from ‘intensified psychoemotional problems, including uncontrolled fits of anger, aggression and cheerfulness,’ the committee report revealed:

Clinton was placed on a daily regimen of “heavy tranquilizers” and while afraid of losing, she remained “obsessed with a thirst for power.”

The SVR also had information that Clinton suffered from “Type 2 diabetes, ischemic heart disease, deep vein thrombosis, and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease.”

If true, Putin obviously would have preferred an addled Clinton to a vigorous Trump.

“The leading figures in the Russia Hoax have spent years deceiving the American public by presenting their manufactured and politicized assessments as credible intelligence,” Gabbard said of Clapper’s tossing cold water on Rogers’ concerns:

The email … reinforces what we already exposed: the decision to compromise standards and violate protocols in the creation of the 2017 manufactured intelligence assessment was deliberate and came from the very top. Clapper’s own words confirm that complying with the order to manufacture intelligence was a “team sport.”