A lot of what comes out of James Clapper’s mouth is claptrap, or clappertrap. From Holman Jenkins at the Wall Street Journal via zerohedge.com:
Former Director of National Intelligence James Clapper – a central figure in the “Russiagate” spy scandal, has earned quite the reputation for various misstatements, lies and even perjury.
Clapper appeared before the Senate to discuss surveillance programs in the midst of a controversy over warrantless surveillance of the American public. He was asked directly, “Does the NSA collect any type of data at all on millions, or hundreds of millions of Americans?”
There was no ambiguity or confusion and Clapper responded, “No, sir. … Not wittingly.” That was a lie and Clapper knew it when he said it. -John Turley
Since the 2016 election, Clapper has landed a job as a paid CNN commentator while peddling a new book, Facts and Fears – all while trying to shift the narrative on the FBI spying on the Trump campaign and pushing unfounded Russian conspiracy theories.
To that end, the Wall Street Journal‘s Holman W. Jenkins, Jr. asks: Why does a former intelligence chief make claims he can’t back up?
Clapper Disinformation Campaign
James Clapper, President Obama’s director of national intelligence, gained a reputation among liberals as a liar for covering up the existence of secret data-collection programs.
Since becoming a private citizen, he has claimed that President Trump is a Russian “asset” and that Vladimir Putin is his “case officer,” then when pressed said he was speaking “figuratively.”
His latest assertion, in a book and interviews, that Mr. Putin elected Mr. Trump is based on non-reasoning that effectively puts defenders of U.S. democracy in a position of having to prove a negative. “It just exceeds logic and credulity that they didn’t affect the election,” he told PBS.
Mr. Clapper not only exaggerates Russia’s efforts, he crucially overlooks the fact that it’s the net effect that matters. Allegations and insinuations of Russian meddling clearly cost Mr. Trump some sizeable number of votes. Hillary Clinton made good use of this mallet, as would be clearer now if she had also made good use of her other assets to contest those states where the election would actually be decided.
To continue reading: WSJ Asks Why We Should Keep Listening To James Clapper’s “Disinformation Campaign”
