Trey Gowdy: FBI Was Giving Different Briefs to Candidate Trump than to Candidate Clinton

So this is interesting... intriguing even. But not much substance:

[Trey Gowdy:] Here’s one, Maria, have you seen the disparate defensive briefings they gave candidate Clinton versus Candidate Trump? And has anyone asked the FBI to explain why they took entirely different tracks to those two debriefings? There’s a lot left to be seen by you and your viewers.

I've tried looking up more about this, but I'm not finding anything specific. I did find this from Time in regards to the briefings in general:

Priess said intelligence officials striving to be “scrupulously neutral” provide the same information to both candidates regardless of party affiliation.

So at least we know that it's not protocol to provide different briefings. The article goes on to explain why the candidates are given a briefing:

...to make sure that, inadvertently, the candidate doesn’t say something that damages national security initiatives for the sitting president,” Priess told TIME, adding that briefings are also intended to stop presidents-to-be from saying something that conveys their ignorance.

And then a list of what could be included in briefings to presidential candidates:

In the past, the briefings have traditionally included top-secret information and SCI (Special Compartmented Information) material. It’s not yet clear whether that will be the case this time.

The candidates are briefed on broad national security themes, such as terrorism, and given information about specific countries, such as China, Syria and Russia. They are allowed to ask for more detail. They are not briefed on covert actions or ongoing operations nor on the identities of foreign agents providing the information used in the briefings.

“These are not the crown jewels of the United States intelligence community,” Priess said. In general, the briefings are a discussion—not given in the form of briefing books, although information is sometimes supplemented by handouts and graphics.

So anyone have any information or thoughts to share? Maybe more information on Trey Gowdy's assertion that Trump and Hillary were given different briefings? Or any ideas on why they would be given different briefings? Or how Gowdy knows this? Was it one of the reports and we all missed it?

I just have lots of questions. Not sure where to go with my thoughts. Hence wanting to pick ATS' collective "brain."

What else do we/can we know?

ETA: One thought I have is that Hillary's briefing included info about the surveillance/investigation into Trump and his campaign? She probably knew anyway, but this would provide a good reason for her to know without claiming/admitting involvement.

But it seems that Gowdy was referring to more than this.

Can't imagine why an FBI "intelligence" briefing would be different for one Candydate and "restricted" for another 😎

Stranger things have happened I suppose 😎

a reply to: Boadicea

I believe Gowdy was allowed to see some "unredacted" reports 😎

Like some with entire pages blacked out.

originally posted by: xuenchen
Can't imagine why an FBI "intelligence" briefing would be different for one Candydate and "restricted" for another 😎

Stranger things have happened I suppose 😎

I suppose...

But "stranger" is probably the mildest word for it!

originally posted by: xuenchen
a reply to: Boadicea

I believe Gowdy was allowed to see some "unredacted" reports 😎

Like some with entire pages blacked out.

I just found this -- posted a few hours ago:

Trey Gowdy: Mystery FBI Transcript ‘Actually Changed My Perspective’ Of Russia Probe

Pertaining to Papadopoulos. I'll add excerpts after I read it all.

So I don't know if this has anything to do with the different briefs, but it's intriguing as well:
Trey Gowdy: Mystery FBI Transcript ‘Actually Changed My Perspective’ Of Russia Probe

Republicans have hinted at the existence of a transcript that contains exculpatory information for Papadopoulos...

Gowdy says --

...the public would likely see the transcript as a “game-changer” if it was ever released.

And that --

...the mysterious transcripts were not provided to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC

“When you have exculpatory information and you don’t share it with the court, when you give two different kinds of defensive briefings to the candidates depending on who you like and who you don’t, then you’re bias begins to impact the investigation.

That’s what what I thought when I saw the transcript, but your viewers should be entitled to make up their own minds,” Gowdy said.

originally posted by: xuenchen
a reply to: Boadicea

I believe Gowdy was allowed to see some "unredacted" reports 😎

Like some with entire pages blacked out.

Don't bother... I was given a copy of the original from a source close to the guy who cleans the toilets who heard it first-hand from a girlfriend at a bar...



NOW we will finally know the truth!!!

To the OP, it isn't a big stretch of the imagination that Trump wasn't "briefed" on squat since it seems the FBI was working really hard to put their own assets into the mix to prove "collusion."

Or when Comey told Trump that he wasn't a part of the Russian collusion narrative.

It's all BS.

originally posted by: Lumenari

originally posted by: xuenchen
a reply to: Boadicea

I believe Gowdy was allowed to see some "unredacted" reports 😎

Like some with entire pages blacked out.

Don't bother... I was given a copy of the original from a source close to the guy who cleans the toilets who heard it first-hand from a girlfriend at a bar...

NOW we will finally know the truth!!!

To the OP, it isn't a big stretch of the imagination that Trump wasn't "briefed" on squat since it seems the FBI was working really hard to put their own assets into the mix to prove "collusion."

Or when Comey told Trump that he wasn't a part of the Russian collusion narrative.

It's all BS.

Don't forget key agents in the FBI senior administration guaranteed Trump would not win. And, had the unthinkable happened and he did win, they had an "insurance policy" to remove him from office. So, why brief him on real issues when he will never be president?

a reply to: Lumenari

Yeah that's it !!

That's the one !! 😎

a reply to: Boadicea

Hillary was being briefed on what measures were being taken to derail candidate Trump's campaign, and what measures were being taken to ensure that she wouldn't be prosecuted for the many federal laws she broke.

Devin Nunes has some important "parallels" too ........

Sunday Talks – Devin Nunes Notes: “Two Parallel Tracks” Used To Target Donald Trump…

Everything after March 9th, 2016, is a function of two official intelligence units, the CIA and FBI, operating together with two private political operations, Fusion GPS and the DNC, to coordinate -then coverup- political surveillance and spy operations.

Prior to March 9th, 2016, the CIA/FBI political surveillance and spy operation was using the NSA database to track and monitor their opposition. However, once the NSA compliance officer began initiating an internal review of who was accessing the system, the CIA and FBI moved to: (1) continue the operation; and (2) create ex post facto justification for their endeavors. ....


The Unofficial FBI/Fusion/DNC track was domestic-centric, albeit sub-contracted to Fusion GPS and later a former British intelligence officer, and took place between late 2015 and October 2016; also to create the illusion of Russian involvement. This operation is best known around the Steele Dossier and FISA warrant against U.S. person Carter Page. The FBI track continued with the Mueller investigation into 2017, 2018 and 2019.

a reply to: xuenchen

Near the bottom of the article you referenced, is one of the most sickening aspects of what we're going through right now.

The DOJ/FBI people who recommended personnel to fill top spots in the Trump DOJ/FBI were corrupt protectionists. Therefore, the top people at the DOJ/FBI right now are corrupt protectionists. For all we know, career deep-stater AG William Barr could be a corrupt protectionist.

a reply to: Lumenari

To the OP, it isn't a big stretch of the imagination that Trump wasn't "briefed" on squat since it seems the FBI was working really hard to put their own assets into the mix to prove "collusion."

And that's what we need to know... Was Trump given no briefing? Less info than Hillary? Dis-information? Was the information given intended to provoke Trump? Or entrap Trump?

And what did Trump know and when did he know it?

a reply to: xuenchen

Thank you! I don't really have a comment yet... but more and more intriguing.

Seems like an intended drip for want of a better word.

originally posted by: carewemust
a reply to: Boadicea

Hillary was being briefed on what measures were being taken to derail candidate Trump's campaign --

Probably...

...and what measures were being taken to ensure that she wouldn't be prosecuted for the many federal laws she broke.

Possibly...

I can't help but wonder if they were both being given disinformation. Trump for more obvious reasons. If only for Trump to take public positions on that disinfo, only to be proven wrong and a "fool" by the media, etc. Hillary because I don't believe for a minute that Obama had any intention of giving up his power and intended to call Hillary's shots as well, so it would be in Obama's best interests to keep Hillary on a need-to-know basis and dependent on him to whatever extent.

And possibly because Obama couldn't afford to have Hillary with that much power knowing the skeletons in Obama's closet. He knows he can't trust her. And there's too much room for exploitation.

a reply to: carewemust

For all we know, career deep-stater AG William Barr could be a corrupt protectionist.

Yup. That's exactly what we know.

That's exactly who and what he is.

a reply to: Boadicea

Hillary was paying for portions of the "Get Trump" effort. Naturally, she was briefed in full on its ongoing status.

Also, even though Obama was President, Hillary and Bill had far more experience and connections. Obama was more of a "wanna-be". Hillary/Bill ran a global crime syndicate. A ruthless, heartless one.

Didn't Flynn or Mattis flip the table over at one of these "briefings"?

a reply to: Boadicea

The supposed "bombshell" IG Report has been delayed until late July or early August. (IG Horowitz's corruption meter is nearing the red "warning!" area.)

The stuff that Barr and Durham are "looking into" (Barr won't even call it an "investigation"), has been out in the open for over a year, thanks to investigations conducted by the House and Senate from Feb 2017 thru Dec 2018.

If Barr/Durham/Huber/Horowitz were legitimate deep-state cleaners, they would do just what Bob Mueller did. They would produce indictments as they go along. Criminal referrals have been consistently sent to the DOJ by Congressional investigators, since April 2018. Just tie up some loose ends on each referral, and arrest 1 at a time....like Mueller did.

If the DOJ proves to be corrupt from Barr on down, it will be up to the people and the military to drain the swamp. I'm ready and willing to assist, if President Trump requests citizen support in the efforts.

originally posted by: Boadicea
So this is interesting... intriguing even. But not much substance:

[Trey Gowdy:] Here’s one, Maria, have you seen the disparate defensive briefings they gave candidate Clinton versus Candidate Trump? And has anyone asked the FBI to explain why they took entirely different tracks to those two debriefings? There’s a lot left to be seen by you and your viewers.

...
But it seems that Gowdy was referring to more than this.

Okay, for those of you who've forgotten the controversy
Trump refused daily intelligence briefings

He only attended two intelligence briefings after elections

Before election, he said he didn't have much faith in intelligence agencies ...and said he trusted Putin's intelligence agencies more.

And reports of his behavior during briefings before the election indicate he wasn't much interested in them. So, yeah, I can see that rather than deal with a twitchy and petulant political figure, they'd just give a five minute summary and give more detail to the person more interested in hearing from them.