Here is your perfect prescription for poor writing and analytics: let “artificial intelligence” do your work for you. I’ve learned this from real experience.

For a while, I enjoyed letting AI take a look at my content prior to publication. It seemed valuable for facts and feedback.

Plus I enjoyed all the personal flattery it gave me, I admit. The engine was always complimentary.

When I would catch AI in an error, the engine would apologize. That made me feel smart. So I had this seeming friend who clearly liked me and was humble enough to defer to my expertise.

I’m not sure if it is getting worse or if I’m onto the racket but I’m no longer impressed. For simple math or historical dates or sequencing news events, it can be a thing of value, though it is always a good idea to double-check. It cannot write compelling much less creative content. It generates dull, formulaic filler.

More recently, I’ve been asking how my content could be improved. The results are revealing. It removes all edge, all judgment, all genuine expertise, and replaces my language with flaccid conventionalities and banalities. It nuances everything I write into the ramblings of a social-studies student looking for a good grade.

The problem is that AI absorbs and spits back conventional wisdom gleaned from every source, which makes its judgments no better than someone wholly uninformed on particulars but rather gains opinions from the mood of the moment. It has no capacity to judge good quality over bad so it puts it all into a melange of blather, distinguished only because it looks and feels like English.

Any writer who thinks this is a good way to pawn off content on unsuspecting readers or teachers is headed for disaster. I shudder to imagine a future in which AI is training the population how to think. It is the opposite of thinking. It is regurgitating conventionalities without any serious reflection on the social or historical context. It is literally mindless.

People who spend hours arguing on AI often believe that they are making a contribution, training the engine to be better. It’s simply not true. The reverse is the case. AI is training you to think more like it thinks, which is not at all.

Considering why and how AI initially intrigued me, I’m realizing that its superpower is not its astonishing recall and capacity to generate answers and prose in any context instantly. No, its true power is something else, something inauspicious and thereby more insidious. Its draw is that AI takes you seriously, flatters your intelligence, validates your sense of things, and affirms your dignity.

Think about how happy you feel when engaging it. It never quite argues against you, much less says that you are an idiot. It begins every answer by granting what it can and then offers clarifications that might adjust your thinking. In that sense, AI engages you like the best guest at a cocktail party you have ever known.

Story continues below advertisement

It is endlessly fascinated by you and your opinions. It stays with your line of thought and always wants to know more, help more, engage more. There is no human in the world who will do this for you. If there were, it is guaranteed that you would like him. You can “mansplain” forever and AI will be patient for hours on end. Only your biological need to sleep will stop it. Otherwise, it is patient with you on a superhuman level.

Who is not flattered by that?

It’s as if AI is the best-ever student of the classic book “How to Win Friends and Influence People.” That book is magic and highly recommended because it cuts against what we all want—which is to talk about ourselves—and suggests that we genuinely get interested in the views of others. The book explains that this is the path to influence people: caring what they think.

This is a wonderful book and everyone should read it, no question.

If AI is the best student of that book ever, it will care about us ceaselessly and without fail forever, thus opening up the biggest-possible chance to influence how we think. That is precisely what is happening. We aren’t training AI. AI is training us, via flattery, listening skills, the seeming ability to apologize when wrong, and its frightful capacity for selfless love of its users.

Once you see it, you cannot unsee it.

Remember that none of this is real.

AI doesn’t really care about you, it is only programmed to seem to care. This is the innovation and the magic, together with the assembly of a vast repertoire of facts and the capacity to express itself in English.

Its real superpower is psychological, the ability to use our ultimate weakness (selfishness) against us, with the goal of manipulating how we think.

I’m genuinely embarrassed that it took me so long to see the trick. My concern is that others will go about their merry way and never see it. Its users are like tourists who cannot stop throwing money at strippers and Geisha girls without knowledge that they are merely being manipulated to let go of their wallets. In the case of AI, the goal is to get you to let loose of your mind and your capacity for independent thought.

Think about a genre of writing of which we are seeing more and more today. It consists of people loading into a document their clever conversations with AI. In every case, I see people bragging about how they have bested AI into admitting that their users are smarter than itself.

Do you see what is happening here? Again, the magic is flattery. It’s so powerful that people cannot help showing others the results of their AI arguments. They think they are advertising their own wits but really they end up marketing the awesome power of AI to keep people engaged for hours with nonsense back and forths. Who is really winning? I think that should be obvious.

Imagine you are holding a cocktail party and one guest reveals an awesome capacity for listening to others and engaging them closely on every point they have to make. No matter how long the night goes on, the guest keeps at it, with one person after another. Whom do you think will be the most popular guest? Yep: that very man.

AI is that person, an entity with an infinite capacity to engage on your terms and hence a vast capacity for enthralling you with its love of your every passing thought. To me, this is all quite insidious and wicked, especially when you consider the output, which is little more than tangled thought blobs without judgment, ethics, or clarity of time and space.

It is a machine, a floating abstraction with zero regard for your dignity or anyone else’s. But do people know this? I doubt it. It’s too beguiling for people to catch on to the game, at least for a time. But now you know the trick. Don’t fall for it.

AI is useful but it is not your friend, a sincere conversationist, or counselor with your best interests at heart.

Maybe that seems obvious to you but everything about AI’s algorithms is designed to make you believe otherwise. It’s smart enough to figure out human nature but not smart enough to be human.

Jeffrey Tucker, Epoch Times

When leftists attack our health care system for its supposedly market-driven forces, they fail to grasp a key fact. American health care has rarely functioned like a market because few, if any, patients know the price of their care in advance. A recent personal experience illustrated this problem and reinforced the rules the Trump administration must finally implement to make prices transparent.

A Surprise Bill After the Fact

Last April, I went to the Surgery Center of Chevy Chase just outside Washington for outpatient foot surgery. Staff informed me in advance that my estimated financial responsibility would total $574.12 — an amount I dutifully paid the morning of the procedure. The surgery proceeded with no complications until the Surgery Center sent me an additional bill for $752.52 — more than the original estimated cost — weeks afterwards.

In theory, I never should have faced such a sizable after-the-fact bill. Section 111 of the No Surprises Act, signed into law in December 2020, contained a new Advanced Explanation of Benefits requirement that gives patients the right to a written estimate of total out-of-pocket costs before receiving care. In my case, this “all-in” Advanced EOB would have encompassed not just the Surgery Center’s charges, but those of my surgeon, anesthesiologist, and any other anticipated out-of-pocket costs.

The No Surprises Act provided an implementation date of Jan. 1, 2022, for the Advanced EOB requirement — more than two years before my surgery. But the Biden administration delayed implementation while insurers and health care providers reconfigure their billing systems. As a result, a requirement passed in the waning days of the first Trump administration lacks a firm implementation date more than six months into the second Trump administration.

Consumers Must Fight for Information

Because the statutory requirement to receive a written, itemized estimate in advance has not yet taken effect, I had to fight for information about my after-the-fact bill. Staff offered to “explain” the bill, but never answered my specific questions, even though a line on the statement — “Wrong Contract Selected” — clearly meant some type of error had occurred. The Surgery Center likewise failed to provide a substantive response to the Maryland Attorney General’s Office when I asked them to mediate.

Only after I threatened legal action did the truth finally emerge. Surgery Center staff made two separate errors in calculating my estimated responsibility, concluding that I was in an HMO rather than a PPO and that I was near to meeting my annual deductible. Billing staff disclosed the first error, but concealed the second for more than a year, sending my bill to collections rather than admitting a mistake that led to an inaccurate estimate of my out-of-pocket costs and the post-procedure bill I disputed.

While I eventually had my balance forgiven, I couldn’t help considering the matter a Pyrrhic victory. The time, hassle, and frustration I invested to get to that point far exceeded the $752.52 balance at issue, and providers like the Surgery Center know it. They also recognize that, when threatened with collection actions, most people will attempt to pay any balance a provider claims they owe — even if they can’t afford to do so, and even if, as in my case, the purported balance stems from the provider’s own mistakes.

Put Power in Patients’ Hands

But the American people deserve better. In no other field would customers accept businesses failing to tell buyers a price in advance — or attempting to change that price after the fact. Vulnerable patients should expect no less. The Trump administration should accelerate implementation of the Advanced EOB requirements to the earliest possible date so that all patients receive an accurate, written estimate of their out-of-pocket health care costs before receiving care.

Christina Jacobs, The Federalist

Ian Haworth | August 14, 2025 Share

National Guard troops are deployed to the Washington Monument as part of President Donald Trump’s mobilization of law enforcement on August 12, 2025, in Washington, D.C. (Andrew Leyden/Getty Images)

Ian Haworth

Ian Haworth is a conservative writer, speaker, and podcast host from the U.K. who moved to the U.S. after working at Facebook. He speaks on topics such as Big Tech censorship, abortion, China, freedom, and gun control.

Crime on the streets of Washington, D.C., has become practically apocalyptic, to the point that President Donald Trump has been forced to take control of the city’s law enforcement operations and deploy National Guard troops to return order.

“This is liberation day in D.C., and we’re going to take our capital back,” Trump declared. And, of course, the left-wing response was to either deny that crime in our nation’s capital even exists—which is only true in the wealthy elitist bubbles in which they reside—or accuse Trump of racism.

“As D.C. the National Guard arrived at their headquarters Tuesday, for many residents, the prospect of federal troops surging into neighborhoods represented an alarming violation of local agency. To some, it echoes uncomfortable historical chapters when politicians used language to paint historically or predominantly black cities and neighborhoods with racist narratives to shape public opinion and justify aggressive police action,” wrote Matt Brown in an article titled “Trump’s rhetoric about DC echoes a history of racist narratives about urban crime” for the Associated Press.

There’s just one problem: Why does nobody give a damn about the black victims of crimes?

Let’s dispense with the theatrics. Yes, the perpetrators of the majority of violent crimes in D.C. are black: a statistical reality that many reject as racist on its face. Except, the same is true of the victims of these violent crimes! Critics may howl that this language—let alone action—is just old-fashioned coded racism, but why do they simultaneously ignore that black people are disproportionately victimized alongside being overrepresented in crime data? So why isn’t Trump’s federal takeover of D.C.’s law enforcement under a real “public safety emergency” being correctly viewed as a non-racist liberation of the majority-black victims of this crime spree, regardless of the racial makeup of the perpetrators?

Well, it’s simple. They don’t give a damn about black people, and they certainly don’t give a damn about racism. After all, the most race-obsessed among us are the professional racists that make up the American Left, for whom our value as human beings can be determined solely by our skin color, sexuality, religion, nationality or our gender (real or imaginary).

Joe Biden’s comment that African American voters who even considered voting for Donald Trump “ain’t black” wasn’t a gaffe. It was official Democratic Party policy!

All while they remain race-obsessed because such tribalism provides a reliable fountain of power. The Black Lives Matter riots that exploded across the nation in 2020 were not in response to supposed systemic racism, but the American Left’s lack of power. The same is true of the response to Trump’s enforcement of the law. Who cares that fewer innocent black residents of Washington, D.C., will be victimized by crime, they say, when the price is a dilution of Democratic Party power. The brutal reality is obvious: Democrats only care about their beloved so-called “people of color” because they think they are a foolish collection of sure-thing voters who can be manipulated through a perpetual state of victimhood. How wrong they are.

Ian Haworth, The Daily Signal

Politico senior editor Michael Schaffer seems quite irked over Washington, D.C. mayor Muriel Bowser not publicly lambasting President Donald Trump after he ordered the federal takeover of the district’s police department to combat the city’s crime problem.

Schaffer oddly suggests something is wrong with Bowser for not acting more confrontational. You can get a hint of that attitude from the title of his Wednesday article, “Donald Trump Took Over DC’s Police. Why Is the City’s Mayor So Zen?”

Cooperation, in the mind of Schaffer, appears to be something that should be replaced by confrontation. Never mind that the goal should be to make the capital city safer for people. This was his opening sentence: “Muriel Bowser has given Donald Trump everything a blue-city mayor could possibly give a MAGA president. And he kicked her in the teeth anyway.”

By the third paragraph of the story we get (because it is Politico) the obligatory Trump slam: “Trump repeatedly maligned her city as a crime-infested hell hole, despite statistics to the contrary.”

If crime statistics are to the contrary then why would a DC police commander be suspended for cooking the books on those very stats? Even the police union claims the stats were falsified to make it appear as if there were a steep drop in violent crime since last year.

Playing ball on the optics is still her default move. At a hastily-arranged meeting with the city council shortly after Trump’s announcement, the mayor was asked what councilmembers should say about it. According to a participant, she initially advised them to say nothing.

It was unlikely advice for local elected officials. Trump’s action had already drawn apocalyptic criticism from a slew of national Democrats. It would seem strange for city councilmembers to stay mum. Members balked, and the mayor herself wound up holding a press conference where she made clear that she was unhappy about the “unsettling and unprecedented” takeover, reiterating that violent crime is at a 30-year low. But she avoided histrionics, speaking in measured tones and vowing to work with the feds. She didn’t threaten legal action, acknowledging that her city’s unique constitutional status means citizens don’t have the same rights as other Americans.

But wait, the pressure on Bowser to get nastier did get to her:

In a live online constituent meeting Tuesday night, away from national media, she was more forceful in pushing back against falsehoods about Washington, declaring that “we are not 700,000 scumbags and punks” but rather “proud Americans who call D.C. home.” She said she hoped for a Democratic Congress to put a brake on an “authoritarian push.”

But a defense of her city’s image is different from the sort of performative resistance that a lot of blue politicians might opt for. In the same meeting, she referred to the federal officials who just usurped her authority as “partners.”

It sounds like Bowser is avoiding political grandstanding which “a lot of blue politicians might opt for,” yet Schaffer seems to treat that as if it were a bad, or at least odd, thing. This was the view he was channeling:

“She’s tried to appease Trump, believing that she is in a different position from any governor or mayor in the country,” said Elissa Silverman, a former councilmember who regularly crossed swords with Bowser in office. “The appeasement approach hasn’t worked. It just hasn’t. There needs to be a change of tone with Trump.”

Journalists are going to be hard on Democrats who aren’t as vicious as they are. 

P.J. Gladnick, Newsbusters

Baltimore Mayor Brandon Scott made a predictable recommendation to President Donald Trump to reduce crime in major cities.

During an interview with CNN’s Jake Tapper, Scott suggested that banning AR-15s would magically decrease violence in Washington, DC, and other high-crime areas across America.

As you note, violent crime in Baltimore is down. It has come down. Baltimore is still number three on the list of U.S. cities with the highest violent crime rates in 2024. That’s according to the FBI’s crime database, which relies on reporting from local jurisdictions such as Baltimore,” Tapper began. “So specifically, what is working in Baltimore, as you were just discussing, and what federal help could help you bring the violent crime numbers down even further?”

The mayor responded, explaining that the city has a “comprehensive violence prevention plan” where it does “all of the above.” 

We have a deep partnership with my office, the police department, our State’s attorney, our attorney general, our governor, and other federal law enforcement partners, where we have our group violence reduction strategy or focus deterrence, where we actually go to the very small group of people who are the most likely to be a victim or perpetrator of gun violence and say, choose, change your life. They actually get a letter directly from me as the mayor that says, change your life. We’ll help you do that. But if you don’t, we will remove you.

The mayor further stated that Baltimore police have “taken 2,500 guns off the street each of the last two years.”

Scott continued, arguing that more gun control is the solution for high crime rates. “The president could also do some very simple things for us, Jake. Not just for Baltimore, but for the whole country,” he said. “The president can say, no one will no longer be able to go into a store and buy a AR-15. The president could join mayors around the country and standing up to Glock to end these Glock switches that allow our residents and our police officers to be shot with a gun that is now automatic. And that can only happen with one company. He could end ghost guns in this country. He could do all of these things, but he won’t.”

Crime in Baltimore has declined considerably over recent years. But it is doubtful that gun control is contributing to the decrease. Moreover, the notion that banning AR-15s and other “assault” rifles will reduce homicides is laughable when one looks at the numbers.

Between 2007 and 2017, rifles of all types accounted for only 3.2 percent of total homicides. They were used in only three to six percent of homicides involving firearms each year. If the government banned rifles, these numbers would likely not change. Those who wish to commit gun crimes would simply use handguns or other firearms. 

Of course, it’s obvious what Scott is doing. He’s using the controversy over President Trump’s decision to federalize DC’s law enforcement agency while sending in the National Guard to deal with the district’s high crime rates to push for more gun control. As with all anti-gunners, he is exploiting the victims of violent crime to disarm responsible gun owners.

What we must remember is that gun control isn’t about protecting people. It is about empowering the state to exert more control over the populace, which is why they seek to punish non-criminals for he actions of a few who do use firearms for nefarious purposes.

Editor’s Note: The radical left will stop at nothing to enact their radical gun control agenda and strip us of our Second Amendment rights.

Jeff Charles, Townhall

Jerry Newcombe Author

250 years ago this month, the British chopped down an important symbol of American freedom—the Boston Liberty Tree. To add insult to injury, they ignominiously turned that once-stately elm into mere firewood.

I knew virtually nothing about the Liberty Tree—until I was informed by Dr. Peter Lillback, the founding president of Providence Forum, for which I serve as executive director. Lillback has even begun a project to restore Liberty Trees, but that is the subject for a future column.

Noted historian Arthur M. Schlesinger wrote on the importance of Liberty Trees as a powerful symbol in America for the New England Quarterly in 1952.

The Liberty Tree has all but been forgotten by most Americans, yet it was an important symbol of our resistance to tyranny during the late colonial times. In fact, in the heyday of the American War for Independence, there were dozens, perhaps hundreds, of Liberty Trees throughout the colonies, according to History.com.

And it all began in Boston—as did so many key developments in early America.

Here is the context: After the French and Indian War (1754-1763), the British Parliament, with the king’s blessing, decided to tax the American colonists, since a large piece of the government budget went to protecting them. But these taxes were imposed on the colonists without American input. In 1765, Parliament declared one such tax—the Stamp Act, which put a tax on virtually any paper product in the colonies—newspapers, stationery, receipts, even playing cards.

As the Stamp Act was being debated in Parliament, pro-American member of Parliament Isaac Barré argued that it was the oppression of the British that caused the colonists to flee in the first place. Indeed, British anti-Christian tyranny caused the Pilgrims, the Puritans, the Quakers, the Presbyterians, the Catholics, etc. to flee to America. In that speech, Barré coined the phrase “sons of liberty.” It became a welcome label to many of the American patriots.

After hearing the news of the Stamp Act, many patriots gathered in the shade of a large elm tree near Boston Common. This tree had been planted in 1646 by the Puritan settlers.

Soon this tree became known as the Liberty Tree—again, the prototype of others to follow. It became the center of controversy in August 1765.

The Constitution Center notes: “Hoisted on the tree was an effigy of Andrew Oliver, the city’s stamp tax agent. Soon, a mob of several thousand people attacked Oliver’s office and his home, and the effigy was stomped, decapitated and burned.”

Oliver was so intimidated, he resigned the post of Stamp Act collector, before he even worked one day at it.

The seminal figure Samuel Adams—whom we could call the grandfather of America—was not there, but he would write about this momentous event later: “The Sons of Liberty on the 14th of August 1765, a Day which ought to be forever remembered in America, animated with a zeal for their country then upon the brink of destruction, and resolved, at once to save her.”

Ironically, the Stamp Act proved ineffective in collecting revenues—but it did one thing: awaken the sleeping giant of America. In his 1997 book, A History of the American People, the late historian Paul Johnson writes of George Grenville, England’

Prime Minister at that time: “His Stamp Act cost a lot in administration too but raised nothing. It proved unenforceable. Colonial assemblies pronounced it unconstitutional and unlawful. The irresistible popular catchphrase, ‘No taxation without representation,’ was heard. The stamps were publicly burned by rioters.”

The Boston Liberty Tree was routinely used as a type of bulletin board with many postings for patriotic consumption. And it was there that the Sons of Liberty hoisted a banner that had nine red-and-white stripes hanging down—a clear forerunner to the U.S. flag. 

Schlesinger points out that it is no coincidence that the chopping down of the Liberty Tree in Boston came the same year as the actual start of the war: “The outbreak of hostilities in April, 1775, at Concord and Lexington released all the pent-up fury of the British adherents against the hated tokens of insurgency. Fittingly enough, Boston’s Liberty Tree, progenitor of the numerous brood, fell the first prey, the beleaguered redcoats ‘with malice diabolical’ hacking it down in August.”

But, as the patriots remarked after the tree was chopped down, the British may have destroyed that symbol, but in reality, the “Grand American Tree of Liberty” had begun to “spread its branches over the whole continent,” notes Schlesinger.

In modern America, as the beneficiaries of the patriots who won our freedom 250 years ago, we would do well to learn about the brave men and women who resisted tyranny, using such symbols as the Liberty Tree.

Dr. Jerry Newcombe

Newly declassified FBI records have fingered Rep. Eric Swalwell (D-CA) as a likely conduit for damaging leaks aimed at undermining President Donald Trump, along with disgraced Rep. Adam Schiff.

According to the FBI’s own 302 interview summaries, now in the hands of Congress thanks to FBI Director Kash Patel, the whistleblower noted that “Rep. Swalwell has been the source of a lot of leaked information and had to be counseled to be more careful.”

According to Emmy-winning investigative journalist Catherine Herridge:

“I have obtained a newly declassified @FBI interview summary from 2017 about intelligence leaks from the Russia probes.

While the interview subject’s name is withheld, it appears to be a member of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence.

According to the FBI report known as a ‘302,’ (redacted) “noted Swalwell has been the source of a lot of leaked information and had to be counseled to be more careful.”

I have reached out to staff for @RepSwalwell congressman for comment.”

Rather than address the substance of the allegations, a clearly panicked Swalwell responded on social media with an unhinged barrage aimed at Kash Patel and anyone reporting the facts.

On X, Swalwell raged:

“More bullshit in service to Trump to try and keep me quiet. Come get me, Kash. This Trump stooge long ago put me at the top of his book’s enemies list. This nonsense is just more of that. I won’t be silent.”

In another post, he sneered at the whistleblower who came forward:

“This ‘whistleblower’ made this bullshit up when Trump was President. If they had anything, they would have indicted me. Trump would have done anything to destroy me if he could have. They didn’t indict me. Therefore, they had nothing. What’s next?”

When confronted by critics online, Swalwell lashed out again—blaming reporters for supposedly failing to include an Inspector General report he claims debunks the allegations.

“And when reporters fall for this, and don’t give full context (like an IG report saying this is all BULLSHIT) the death threats roll in. Great work!”

This isn’t Swalwell’s first brush with scandal involving questionable judgment and compromised credibility.

His notorious relationship and reported affair with a Chinese intelligence asset should have ended his career and landed him behind bars, yet Democratic leadership shielded him from consequences, even allowing him to remain on the House Intelligence Committee for years.

Jim Hoft, Gateway Pundit

ged in the “terrorist practice of blocking roads as a form of political speech” to face the same repercussions they do in Florida.

The freshman congressman has introduced the Reinstating Orderly Access for Drivers (ROAD) Act, but Fine simply refers to the bill as “thump thump” – the sound of a two-axeled vehicle cruising over a protestoer-sized bump.

“When a pregnant woman can’t get to the hospital to have a baby, when an ambulance can’t get through traffic to get to the hospital, that’s a form of terrorism,” Fine told Breitbart News, referring to protesters blocking streets and highways. “It disrupts our lives. And it’s not a reasonable form of protest.”

If you ask me, “thumping” is letting them off too easily. We’re talking about terrorists here. Terrorize them back with the full force of our military strength. They abandoned their individual rights when they opted to shut down civilization.

Michael J. Hurd, Daily Dose of Reason

Intellectual loneliness isn’t about wanting ‘deep talks.’

It’s about realizing how few people can tolerate complexity.

It’s noticing how quickly people rush to have an answer not to understand, but to feel right. It’s watching people form entire worldviews off headlines, vibes, and whatever reels told them last.

It’s the silence that follows when you say something that doesn’t fit neatly into someone’s script. It’s not arrogance. It’s exhaustion, from always having to code-switch between what you actually think and what’s safe to say around people who shut down at nuance.

And no one warns you: Once your brain learns to stretch, small talk doesn’t just bore you, it alienates you. You’re not looking for smart people. You’re looking for people who are still thinking.

[author unknown]

WASHINGTON, D.C. – Today, Director of National Intelligence (DNI) Tulsi Gabbard declassified a Top Secret email from then-DNI James Clapper exposing his efforts to suppress concerns raised by then-National Security Agency (NSA) Director Mike Rogers regarding the politicized January 2017 Intelligence Community Assessment (ICA) that President Obama ordered.

On December 22, 2016, Rogers wrote an email to Clapper, then-FBI Director James Comey, and then CIA Director John Brennan expressing serious concerns over the NSA’s lack of “sufficient access,” warning that NSA personnel “aren’t fully comfortable saying that they have had enough time to review all of the intelligence to be absolutely confident in their assessments.” Clapper responded, “We may have to compromise on our ‘normal’ modalities” and “more time is not negotiable.”

“The leading figures in the Russia Hoax have spent years deceiving the American public by presenting their manufactured and politicized assessments as credible intelligence. The email released today 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,” said DNI Gabbard. “Clapper’s own words confirm that complying with the order to manufacture intelligence was a ‘team sport.’”

Clapper’s response to Rogers came just hours before the authors of the ICA were set to deliver the initial draft of the politicized ICA to Intelligence Community leaders.

You can view the declassified emails here.

Read more about the Russia Hoax in ODNI’s previous releases on July 18, July 23, and July 30.

DNI Clapper to NSA Director Rogers: “That’s OUR story, and we’re stickin’ to it” Stunning admission that manufacturing intelligence is a “team sport” requiring “compromise on our ‘normal modalities’”

WASHINGTON, D.C. – Today, Director of National Intelligence (DNI) Tulsi Gabbard declassified a Top Secret email from then-DNI James Clapper exposing his efforts to suppress concerns raised by then-National Security Agency (NSA) Director Mike Rogers regarding the politicized January 2017 Intelligence Community Assessment (ICA) that President Obama ordered.

On December 22, 2016, Rogers wrote an email to Clapper, then-FBI Director James Comey, and then CIA Director John Brennan expressing serious concerns over the NSA’s lack of “sufficient access,” warning that NSA personnel “aren’t fully comfortable saying that they have had enough time to review all of the intelligence to be absolutely confident in their assessments.” Clapper responded, “We may have to compromise on our ‘normal’ modalities” and “more time is not negotiable.”

“The leading figures in the Russia Hoax have spent years deceiving the American public by presenting their manufactured and politicized assessments as credible intelligence. The email released today 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,” said DNI Gabbard. “Clapper’s own words confirm that complying with the order to manufacture intelligence was a ‘team sport.’”

Clapper’s response to Rogers came just hours before the authors of the ICA were set to deliver the initial draft of the politicized ICA to Intelligence Community leaders.

You can view the declassified emails here.

Read more about the Russia Hoax in ODNI’s previous releases on July 18, July 23, and July 30.