In the background of the impeachment effort the House Judiciary Committee (HJC) led by Chairman Jerry Nadler was seeking: (1) Mueller grand jury material; (2) a deposition by former White House counsel Don McGahn; and less importantly (3) Trump financial and tax records.  Each of these cases were then argued in federal court, appellate courts (6e and McGahn) and the supreme court (financials/taxes).

In November 2019 activist Federal District Court Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson ruled Don McGahn must appear before Congress; however, she also ruled McGahn retained the ability to “invoke executive privilege where appropriate” during his appearance.

The White House appealed the ruling to the DC appellate court on constitutional grounds.  Today a three judge panel from the DC circuit agreed with the White House position.

WASHINGTON – President Donald Trump scored a major legal victory on Friday when a federal appeals court panel ruled Democrats have no right to hear testimony from former White House counsel Don McGahn.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit’s ruling overturned a lower court decision requiring McGahn’s testimony and told the judge presiding over the case to dismiss it outright. The ruling is a blow to House Democrats’ attempts to break the Trump administration’s intransigent stance that it can block Congress from talking to witnesses. (link)

This ruling also undermines the ridiculous “obstruction” article of impeachment because it shows the White House had a justifiable and constitutional argument to make against the House in the judicial branch.  The issue at stake was  whether the legislative branch can penetrate the constitutional firewall which exists within the separation of powers.

After the November ruling, House Judiciary Committee counsel Doug Letter argued to the DC Appeals Court that the forced testimony of White House counsel Don McGahn was needed for evidence in their impeachment trial. [Court pdf Avail Here]  The DC appeals court decision rebuked the House position that penetrating the constitutional firewall was adequately predicated:

The House Judiciary Committee could appeal for an en banc hearing of the full DC Appeals Court.  We’ll have to wait and see if they do.  However, it’s unlikely the HJC would succeed.  The central issue is separation of power. DC Circuit spells out the deadline House Democrats for a rehearing before the entire DC Circuit is March 9th.

In November of 2019 buried deep in the congressional budget Continuing Resolution (CR) was a short-term extension to reauthorize the FISA “business records provision”, the “roving wiretap” provision, the “lone wolf” provision, and the more controversial bulk metadata provisions [Call Detail Records (CDR)], all parts of the Patriot Act.  As a result of the FISA CR inclusion the terminal deadline was pushed to March 15, 2020.

AG Bill Barr is requesting a clean FISA renewal with no reforms or revisions. Senate Leader Mitch McConnell and Judiciary Chairman Lindsey Graham support the AG request.  The American people want it scrapped, or, at a minimum strongly revised. Congress is trying to hide the FISA renewal within the Coronavirus appropriations bill.

According to media reporting, Rand Paul said he talked to President Trump yesterday, and President Trump does not support a “clean renewal” of the FISA authorities that were used against him and his campaign:

WASHINGTON – President Donald Trump told Sen. Rand Paul that he does not support a clean extension of expiring surveillance authorities, throwing the future of the program into doubt ahead of a fast-approaching March 15 deadline to re-up key features of the Patriot Act.

The Kentucky Republican told reporters that Trump made the comments to him on Wednesday, just a day after Attorney General William Barr told GOP senators that Congress should extend the expiring provisions regarding roving wire taps, lone wolf actors and the most controversial provision: call data collection.

Asked about the discrepancy between his conversation with Trump and Barr’s remarks to senators, Paul said there was “misinformation that got out from some people in the administration” about the expiring surveillance authorities.

“The president was out of the country and somebody mischaracterized his positions. I’ll leave it up to y’all to figure that out,” Paul added.

Paul said Trump is “very supportive” of his amendment to prevent the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act from targeting Americans, a reflection of conservative unease over the way the Trump campaign was surveilled in 2016.

“FISA warrants should not be issued against Americans,” Paul said on Thursday afternoon. “Americans shouldn’t be spied on by a secret court. I think he agrees completely with that and that’s the amendment that I’m going to insist on. I’m not letting anything go easy without a vote on my amendment.”

Paul’s conversation with Trump could blow up plans by Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) to extend those expiring authorities, which McConnell said was his preference on Tuesday. (read more)

Yesterday CTH warned of a scenario where congress would attempt to slip a clean renewal authorization into the Coronavirus appropriations bill.   Today, that exact scenario was being discussed on Capitol Hill.

Following the conversation with President Trump, Senator Rand Paul is planning to propose legislation that would force reform to the current FISA authorities.

While CTH disagrees with the Rand Paul proposal, and would rather see the bulk data gathering/collection and opportunities for exploitation eliminated, at least Senator Paul is attempting to stop the system from being abused against political campaigns. WATCH:

.

Two issues…. and again CTH is not attempting to dismiss the righteous effort by Senator Paul… However:

(A) Isn’t it already illegal, unlawful, unconstitutional and grossly corrupt, to use FISA as a political surveillance tool? If so, why do we need another law or rule change to make it more illegal, more unlawful and more grossly corrupt?

(B) Why do only elected officials or candidates for office get protection from having their fourth amendment rights violated by exploitation of the FISA courts? Shouldn’t the same standard of protection apply to everyone?

CTH understands what Rand Paul is attempting to do, but it’s the FISA process being used against *any* American that is the problem. No American should have their constitutional rights travel through a secret court in order to usurp them. Let FISA apply to “non Americans”; and if there is a need for surveillance or collection of information on Americans, then let the government approach regular Title-3 courts for domestic warrants.

Lastly, with all of this taking place it appears Senator McConnell went to see President Trump today about this issue.

Prior to the December 9, 2019, inspector general report on FISA abuse, FISA Court judges Rosemary Collyer (declassified 2017) and James Boasberg (declassified 2019) both identified issues with the NSA bulk database collection program being exploited for unauthorized reasons. For the past several years no corrective action taken by the intelligence community has improved the abuses outlined by the FISA court.

Keep in mind the deadline for the DOJ to respond to the FISA court about the abusive intelligence practices identified in the Horowitz report was February 5th, more than two weeks ago. The responses from the DOJ and FBI have not been made public.

FISA Court Order – FISA Court Notice of Extension.

It appears the DOJ is trying to get the FISA reauthorization passed before the FISC declassifies the corrective action outlined from the prior court order. This response would also include information about the “sequestering” of evidence gathered as a result of the now admitted fraudulent and misrepresented information within the FISA applications.

The FISA “business records provision”, the “roving wiretap” provision, the “lone wolf” provision, and the more controversial bulk metadata provisions [Call Detail Records (CDR)], again all parts of the Patriot Act, must not be reauthorized without a full public vetting of the abuses that have taken place for the past several years.

At a minimum the pending DOJ/FBI response to the FISA court needs to be made public prior to any reauthorization by congress. And to better understand the scale of the issue, the consequences when the system is abused, the upstream sequester material needs to be made public.

Let the American public see what investigative evidence was unlawfully gathered, and let us see who and what was exposed by the fraudulently obtained FISA warrants. At a minimum congress and the American people need to understand the scale of what can happen when the system is wrong – BEFORE that exact same system is reauthorized.

Declassification of existing records would reveal the November 2015 through April 2016 FISA-702 search query abuse as outlined in the April 2017 court opinion written by FISC Presiding Judge Rosemary Collyer.  Who exactly are these private sector FBI contractors behind the 85% fraudulent search queries?  This was a weaponized surveillance and domestic political spying operation. [The trail was laid down in specific detail by Judge Collyer – SEE HERE]

The U.S. constitution’s fourth amendment is being violated by the continued abuse of bulk metadata collection, particularly when private contractors and government officials illegally access the system.  The 2016 FISA review (party declassified in 2017) and the 2018 FISA review (party declassified in 2019) both show ongoing and systematic wrongdoing despite all prior corrective action and promises.

This needs to be stopped.

Previously Chairman Lindsey Graham promised to hold public hearings on reforms needed to the FISA process prior to any reauthorization vote.  However, with two weeks remaining until current FISA authorization expires the Senate Judiciary Committee has yet to hold a single hearing, and the senate calendar is empty.

In November of 2019 buried deep in the congressional budget Continuing Resolution (CR) was a short-term extension to reauthorize the FISA “business records provision”, the “roving wiretap” provision, the “lone wolf” provision, and the more controversial bulk metadata provisions [Call Detail Records (CDR)], all parts of the Patriot Act.  As a result of the FISA CR inclusion the terminal deadline was pushed to March 15, 2020.

The Senate is scheduled to go back into recess on March 13th.  Additionally, the DOJ/FBI response to the FISA court order (due February 5th) has still not been made public.  At a minimum the DOJ/FBI response to the FISA court needs to be made public prior to any reauthorization by congress; and to better understand the scale of the issue, an explanation of the the DOJ/FBI sequestered evidence needs to be made public.

Representatives requesting FISA reform prior to renewal include: Mark Meadows, Jim Jordan, Doug Collins, Jody Rice, Devin Nunes and Steve Scalise.  Additionally, Senator Mike Lee and Senator Rand Paul are trying to force reform or let the current version expire.  However, Lindsey Graham and Mitch McConnell, along with AG Bill Barr, want a clean FISA renewal without public hearings….

Earlier today Dr. Nancy Messonnier, an official in the Centers for Disease Control (CDC), held a conference call with media and pushed a panic narrative around the Coronvirus that ran counter to the Trump administration.

What makes the statements by Dr. Messonnier even more interesting is the fact she is the only sister of former DOJ Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein.

Dr. Messonnier, director of the CDC’s National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases (link) told reporters on the call:

“We are asking the American public to work with us to prepare for the expectation that this could be bad.” … “I understand this whole situation may seem overwhelming and that disruption to everyday life may be severe. But these are things that people need to start thinking about now.” (link)

The alarming message from Dr. Messonnier was quickly picked up by most major news organizations and pushed into all reporting on the issue.  The tone of the alarm is also counter to the message of the Trump administration and HHS Secretary Alex Azar, as outlined in a press conference with leadership from U.S. Health and Human Services.

[NYT LINK]

As you can see, it is the statements by Dr. Messonnier and not HHS Secretary Alex Azar that are driving the media narrative.

Considering the interests of the issue(s); and considering what lessons we have learned over the past three years about the severity of opposition to the Trump administration writ large; and considering the known actions and inherent ideology already identified within the behavior of Mr. Rosenstein; weaponizing the political value of Coronavirus as an economic contagion to undermine President Trump is not easily dismissed….

….After all, there are trillions at stake.

Take this one step further…

Now, evaluate the panicked declarations from Dr. Messonnier, Rod Rosenstein’s sister, against the public briefing delivered today by HHS Secretary Alex Azar Health, CDC Principal Deputy Director Anne Schuchat and National Institute of Allergy and Infections Diseases Anthony Fauci, as they brief reporters on the current state of the coronavirus and ongoing efforts to combat the spread.  WATCH: (prompted just hit play)

.

The CDC confirms there are 53 cases known in the U.S.  Forty cases came from passengers repatriated from the Diamond Princess cruise ship that was quarantined off the coast of Japan.  HHS confirms 36 of the cases are directly attributed to the cruise ship, three patients were infected in Wuhan and later evacuated to the U.S., and the rest were U.S. persons infected while traveling overseas prior to the January 31st travel ban.

However, it was the alarming telephone conference call from Dr. Messonnier, Rod Rosenstein’s sister, that the media chose to focus on.

There is a strong argument to be made that various resistance government officials like Dr. Messonnier, in alignment with democrat resistance politicians, are attempting to weaponize fear and talking-points about the coronavirus in order to inflict maximum damage upon the Trump administration; regardless of both psychological and actual economic impact to the public.

To give a perspective on the way Dr. Messonnier’s message is being expanded, just watch the first 30 seconds of this CNBC interview with Larry Kudlow.

.

Food for thought

Lou Dobbs reminds everyone tonight about a rapidly approaching FISA reauthorization deadline coming quickly on March 15th without any public input, public hearings, information about current DOJ/FBI corrective measures, or sunlight on the issues.

Appearing tonight with Mr. Dobbs is House Judiciary Committee ranking member Doug Collins who has been trying to draw attention to an upcoming reauthorization and the refusal of House democrats to hold hearings on the need for reform in the wake of yet another IG report hightlighting abuses of the current system.

.

As outlined by Lou Dobbs, in November of 2019 buried deep in the congressional budget Continuing Resolution (CR) was a short-term extension to reauthorize the FISA “business records provision”, the “roving wiretap” provision, the “lone wolf” provision, and the more controversial bulk metadata provisions [Call Detail Records (CDR)], all parts of the Patriot Act.  As a result of the FISA CR inclusion the terminal deadline was pushed to March 15, 2020:

Additionally, prior to the December 9, 2019, inspector general report on FISA abuse, FISA Court judges Rosemary Collyer (declassified 2017) and James Boasberg (declassified 2019) both identified issues with the NSA bulk database collection program being exploited for unauthorized reasons. For the past several years no corrective action taken by the intelligence community has improved the abuses outlined by the FISA court.

The sketchy programs, and abuse therein, has public attention yet congressional representatives are not responding to the findings.

Worse still, there is a confluence of current events pointing toward a likelihood congress and the intelligence apparatus writ large want to reauthorize the FISA surveillance and collection authorities without further sunlight and without public input.

AG Bill Barr is scheduled to meet with key Senators this week. While the media are attributing and framing the meeting toward Trump activity, it is more than likely one key purpose of the upcoming meeting is AG Barr advocating for quiet FISA renewal.

Keep in mind the deadline for the DOJ to respond to the FISA court about the abusive intelligence practices identified in the Horowitz report was February 5th, more than two weeks ago. The responses from the DOJ and FBI have not been made public.

FISA Court Order – FISA Court Notice of Extension.

My suspicion is a quiet agreement exists between the DOJ/FBI and FISA Court. It appears the DOJ is trying to get the FISA reauthorization passed before the FISC declassifies the corrective action outlined from the prior court order. This response would also include information about the “sequestering” of evidence gathered as a result of the now admitted fraudulent and misrepresented information within the FISA applications.

With that background in mind, it is NOT accidental the Wall Street Journal publishes an article Sunday about AG Barr’s position on FISA reauthorization. The White House wants structural reform; it appears the DOJ and FBI want considerably less than that.

WASHINGTON—Senior White House officials are discussing an overhaul of the government’s surveillance program for people in the U.S. suspected of posing a national-security risk, spurred in part by President Trump’s grievances about an investigation of a 2016 campaign adviser, according to people familiar with the matter.

The effort seeks to take advantage of the looming expiration of some spying powers next month, including portions of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, a Watergate-era law that Mr. Trump believes was improperly used to target his campaign, these people said.

A previously incurious New York Times is now exposing members of the FBI crew who participated in fraud upon the FISA Court.  Are the corrupt former top-tier FBI officials starting to position lower-level FBI participants as scapegoats?

Inside an insufferable article, engineered to defend the need for the DOJ and FBI to continue using FISA intelligence gathering information against U.S. persons, the New York times outlines Stephen M Somma as Case Agent 1, the handler for FBI confidential human source Stefan Halper.

(NYT) […] The Page report criticized an F.B.I. agent for ignoring that very procedure as part of half a dozen personal failings that included not passing on the information from the C.I.A., singling the agent out as “primarily responsible for some of the most significant errors and omissions.”

It identified this person only as Case Agent 1. But he is Stephen M. Somma, a counterintelligence investigator in the F.B.I.’s New York field office, people familiar with the Russia investigation said. The F.B.I. declined to comment. (link)

“Case Agent 1” is identified in the IG report as “primarily responsible for some of the most significant errors and omissions in the FISA applications.”  Stephen Somma had the responsibility to verify the accuracy of information underpinning in the FISA application.

Somma was also the FBI handler for Stefan Halper, the Cambridge professor who contacted, met and secretly recorded Carter Page, Sam Clovis and George Papadopoulos while using an undercover FBI agent code-named Azra Turk as his assistant.

The exculpatory information gathered as a result of those wired recordings was ignored, never shared with the FISA court, and buried during the investigation in order to continue a false framework for the FBI to continue targeting the Trump officials.

So why is the New York Times exposing Stephan Somma now as “Case Agent 1” according to “people familiar with the Russia investigation”?

Given the timing, risk exposure, and the corrupt nature of the FBI officials involved in the investigation, it looks like the top of the Crossfire Hurricane team are throwing FBI case agent Stephen Somma under the same bus as FBI lawyer Kevin Clinesmith.

Your thoughts?

Representative John Ratcliffe appears with Maria Bartiromo to answer questions about thefraudulent information within an intelligence briefing last week and the House democrats weaponizing a false narrative.  Ratcliffe points fingers toward Adam Schiff for manufacturing the false media assertions & perpetuating a hoax on the American people.

Additionally Mr. Ratcliffe notes the upcoming reauthorization of FISA authority is taking place under a cloud of abuse by government officials and a host of deep state resistance interests who do not want to admit abuse within the FISA system.

.

In December of 2019 congress buried the short-term extension to reauthorize the FISA “business records provision”, the “roving wiretap” provision, the “lone wolf” provision, and the more controversial bulk metadata provisions [Call Detail Records (CDR)], all parts of the Patriot Act.  As a result of the FISA CR inclusion the terminal deadline was pushed to March 15, 2020. [Backstory]

Against the backdrop of a then pending OIG FISA report, in December of 2019 buried deep in the congressional budget Continuing Resolution (CR) was a short-term extension to reauthorize the FISA “business records provision”, the “roving wiretap” provision, the “lone wolf” provision, and the more controversial bulk metadata provisions [Call Detail Records (CDR)], all parts of the Patriot Act.

As a result of the FISA CR inclusion the terminal deadline was pushed to March 15, 2020:

FISA Court judges Rosemary Collyer (declassified 2017) and James Boasberg (declassified 2019) both identified issues with the NSA bulk database collection program being exploited for unauthorized reasons.  For the past several years no corrective action taken by the intelligence community has improved the abuses outlined by the FISA court.  The sketchy programs, and abuse therein, needs more public attention.

However, there is now a confluence of events highlighting a likelihood congress and the intelligence apparatus writ large want to reauthorize the FISA surveillance and collection authorities without further sunlight and without public input. Here’s what’s going on….

AG Bill Barr is scheduled to meet with key Senators next week.  While the media are attributing and framing the meeting toward Trump activity, it is more than likely one key purpose of the upcoming meeting is AG Barr advocating for quiet FISA renewal.

Keep in mind the deadline for the DOJ to respond to the FISA court about the abusive intelligence practices identified in the Horowitz report was February 5th, more than two weeks ago.  The responses from the DOJ and FBI have not been made public.

FISA Court Order – FISA Court Notice of Extension.

My suspicion is a quiet agreement exists between the DOJ/FBI and FISA Court. It appears the DOJ is trying to get the FISA reauthorization passed before the FISC declassifies the corrective action outlined from the prior court order.  This response would also include information about the “sequestering” of evidence gathered as a result of the now admitted fraudulent and misrepresented information within the FISA applications.

With that in mind, it is NOT accidental the Wall Street Journal publishes an article today about AG Barr’s position on FISA reauthorization.   The White House wants structural reform; it appears the DOJ and FBI want considerably less than that.

WASHINGTON—Senior White House officials are discussing an overhaul of the government’s surveillance program for people in the U.S. suspected of posing a national-security risk, spurred in part by President Trump’s grievances about an investigation of a 2016 campaign adviser, according to people familiar with the matter.

The effort seeks to take advantage of the looming expiration of some spying powers next month, including portions of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, a Watergate-era law that Mr. Trump believes was improperly used to target his campaign, these people said.

Against the latest revelations that Ms. Shelby Pierson in the office of the Director of National Intelligence, manufactured false and misleading briefing material on Russian efforts to influence the U.S. election, it is interesting to watch the mainstream media create fake news stories attempting to exploit Ms. Pierson’s falsehoods.

During a pre-taped broadcast CBS’s Margaret Brennan questions National Security Advisor Robert O’Brien about the now identified false briefing material that was never shared with the White House prior to misrepresenting the intelligence to congress.  WATCH (transcript below):

.

[Transcript] – PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP: They’re trying to start a rumor. It’s disinformation. That’s the only thing they’re good at, that Putin wants to make sure I get elected. Listen to this. So, doesn’t he want to see who the Democrat’s going to be? Wouldn’t he rather have, let’s say, Bernie, wouldn’t he rather have Bernie who honeymooned in Moscow?

MARGARET BRENNAN: That’s the President at a Friday rally in Las Vegas claiming that reports of Russia interfering in his favor was Democratic disinformation. When we were in Las Vegas Saturday I spoke with the White House National Security Adviser Robert O’Brien, who was in our Washington studio. I asked him if he had assured the President that this particular U.S. intelligence finding was real. He strongly disputed it.

ROBERT O’BRIEN (National Security Adviser): Well, I have not seen the finding. I think what he is referring to and what folks are talking about is a briefing that took place last week at the House Intelligence Committee that was leaked to the press. And I– I have not seen that report. I get this second hand, but from Republican congressmen that were in the committee, there was no intelligence behind it. I haven’t seen any intelligence to support the reports that were leaked out of the House.

MARGARET BRENNAN: But the White House was briefed on February 14th. Were you not in that briefing when the President was informed?

ROBERT O’BRIEN: Well, there’s no briefing that I have received, that the President has received, that says that President Putin is doing anything to try and influence the elections in favor of President Trump. We just haven’t seen that intelligence. If it’s out there, I haven’t seen it. I’d be surprised if I haven’t seen it. The leaders of our– the IC have not seen it. So I– again, I don’t know where this is coming from. I’ve heard these rumors and these leaks from Adam Schiff’s committee, but I– I have not seen them myself and I’ve seen no intelligence along those lines.

MARGARET BRENNAN: But just to clarify, are you saying that Joseph Maguire, the former acting director of National Intelligence, did not inform you about the U.S. Intelligence Committee’s– community’s findings?

ROBERT O’BRIEN: No. I, look, I think, you know, and again, I– I don’t want to get into private conversations in a– in a presidential daily brief, but I– I don’t think Admiral Maguire was necessarily informed of what was going to happen at that hearing in the House either. And– and again, there’s nothing that he’s given up– no information Admiral Maguire gave us, Gina Haspel has given us– Director Haspel, Ambassador Grenell the new acting DNI, that comports with what was leaked out of that House Intel Committee. So I haven’t seen it. The leaders of the– of the intelligence community that I have spoken with haven’t seen anything that comports with what was leaked out. But, again, those leaks, I don’t know if that’s what the briefers told the House committee. I mean those were just simply leaked–

MARGARET BRENNAN: But– well, that– that’s contradicted by reports that the director of National Intelligence, Maguire, did brief White House officials. But, more broadly, the FBI director at the beginning of the month, Chris Wray, testified that Russia continues to try to influence the elections mainly through social media manipulation. So, this pattern of behavior has continued, Russia is undeterred. Are you denying that that is happening?

ROBERT O’BRIEN: No, no. What I– look I– what I have heard from the FBI, you know– well, what I’ve heard is that Russia would like Bernie Sanders to– to win the Democrat nomination. They’d probably like him to be President, understandably, because he wants to– to spend money on social programs and probably would have to take it out of the military, so that would make sense. And– and, look, the Russians have always tried to interfere with elections because they want to divide Americans. They want to undermine our democracy. But the idea that they want to– they want to influence the election and somehow cause the President to win, I just don’t see it. But, look, I think there are a number of countries: China, Russia, North Korea, Iran, that would like to influence our elections to– to get the candidate that they feel would be best for their country.

MARGARET BRENNAN: So you are saying that it is not, in fact, the U.S. intelligence community’s assessment that Russia has a preference for President Trump?

ROBERT O’BRIEN: I– I have not seen that. And– and again, why would they have a preference for President Trump, who is rebuilding our military, who is giving the Ukrainians lethal aid to fight Russian troops? So that doesn’t make sense. Now, look, we want good relations with Russia. We’d like to have great relations with Russia. I haven’t seen any intelligence that there’s any active measures by the Russians to try and get the President re-elected. And– and we’ve got a simple message for the Russians or any other country that wants to– to meddle in our elections, whoever they are behind: stay out of our democratic elections. And– and we’re doing everything we can. We’re working with state and local officials. We’re going, in many cases–

MARGARET BRENNAN: But you–

ROBERT O’BRIEN: –to paper ballots to make sure that– that, you know, governments with ill intent can’t hack secretary of state websites, can’t get involved in our elections, change results. And– and we’re going to work on election security very, very hard through– across the interagency in the federal government and also with our state and– and local partners.

MARGARET BRENNAN: Why not have the intelligence community testify in public about what they are seeing, so that the public can arm themselves, so that they can understand what is disinformation and what is fact?

ROBERT O’BRIEN: Look I–

MARGARET BRENNAN: Why not declassify some of those?

ROBERT O’BRIEN: I’d– I’d have no problem with that. And– and– but that’s not my decision. And the intelligence community is– is very concerned and– and careful about sources and methods and I understand that. But I– I would personally have no problem with–

MARGARET BRENNAN: But back in 20– back in 2016 in October of 2016, when Russia was doing this disinformation campaign, the Obama administration did declassify information at that time. So there is a precedent. Why doesn’t the Trump administration do that?

ROBERT O’BRIEN: I think if there’s intelligence that we can declassify that– that we can get out there all the better, because, again, we weren’t in office in 2016 when– when the last election meddling took place and the administration did very little about it. And– and they– you know everyone admits that– that very little was done about it. We’re in office now and we’re doing everything we can across the interagency and– with our state and federal and local partners to– to ensure that– that American ballots are secure, that– that are our– our ballot machines are secure, that tabulations are secure, that– that state, secretary of state websites are secure. We want to make sure that this is a free and fair election, that Americans select their next President, not some foreign country. And– and we’re going to do– and the President’s been deadly serious about that.

MARGARET BRENNAN: I– I want to quickly ask you, though, about Afghanistan. If the Taliban does not make good on its promise to pull back on violence, to sign this deal at the end of the month, is the President positioned to stop the troop withdrawal?

ROBERT O’BRIEN: The President made it very clear the last time we were closed to signing a deal with the Taliban and they– they engaged in some malign activity, they– they had a vehicle-borne IED that killed a number of people, including one American, and the President pulled back from signing the deal. We’re hopeful that– that we can get to a– a place where the Afghans can talk with each other and negotiate some sort of resolution, a political resolution of the conflict. We’ve been there nineteen years. It’s time for us to stop bringing our– our sons and daughters home through Dover Air Force Base and dignified transfers. We’ve got to get out of– of the war in Afghanistan, but we’re going to do it in a way that protects American interests. So if the Taliban does not live up to their agreement on the reduction of violence plan, then we’ll take a very care– careful look at them. I think it’d be unlikely that we’d– we’d sign a peace treaty, but we’re not going to reduce troops to a level below what is necessary to protect American interests and our partners in Afghanistan. I can assure you of that.

MARGARET BRENNAN: All right. Ambassador O’Brien, thank you for joining us.

ROBERT O’BRIEN: Always great to be here, Margaret.

[End Segment Transcript]