The Official Russiagate Was BS Thread

12,392 Views | 94 Replies | Last: 3 days ago by bearister
Cal88
How long do you want to ignore this user?
The damage from their incompetence is going to run into the billions. They really did strike the crowd with that bug...
bear2034
How long do you want to ignore this user?


Crowdstrike was screwing around to find out what they needed to find out. If they didn't screw around, they would never find out.
bear2034
How long do you want to ignore this user?

Does anyone have a better succinct summary of Deep State conspiracy theories over the past 12 years than the one above? Please let me know.

We got a little bit of everything here: Hillary, Benghazi, Wikileaks, pizzagate, spygate, Russiagate, FBI, FISA warrant, Trump assassination attempt, Crowdstrike, Blackrock....
dajo9
How long do you want to ignore this user?
MAGAts want to pretend a cowed Donold wasn't sending covid testing to Putin while Americans were dying for lack of covid testing. Donold is the worst President America ever had.
oski003
How long do you want to ignore this user?
dajo9 said:

MAGAts want to pretend a cowed Donold wasn't sending covid testing to Putin while Americans were dying for lack of covid testing. Donold is the worst President America ever had.


I don't consider myself a Trumper. However, what evidence do you have that Trump was "cowed" into doing this? Was Kamala cowed into sending money to foreign migrants while Americans were dying?
Cal88
How long do you want to ignore this user?
dajo9 said:

MAGAts want to pretend a cowed Donold wasn't sending covid testing to Putin while Americans were dying for lack of covid testing. Donold is the worst President America ever had.

What exactly did that covid testing equipment consist of?
bearister
How long do you want to ignore this user?
According to CBS Abbott point-of-care testing kits.
Cancel my subscription to the Resurrection
Send my credentials to the House of Detention

“I love Cal deeply. What are the directions to The Portal from Sproul Plaza?”
dajo9
How long do you want to ignore this user?
oski003 said:

dajo9 said:

MAGAts want to pretend a cowed Donold wasn't sending covid testing to Putin while Americans were dying for lack of covid testing. Donold is the worst President America ever had.


I don't consider myself a Trumper. However, what evidence do you have that Trump was "cowed" into doing this? Was Kamala cowed into sending money to foreign migrants while Americans were dying?


Donold sent covid testing to Putin while Americans were dying for lack of testing and you are worried about the word cowed. Do you ever listen to yourself?
oski003
How long do you want to ignore this user?
dajo9 said:

oski003 said:

dajo9 said:

MAGAts want to pretend a cowed Donold wasn't sending covid testing to Putin while Americans were dying for lack of covid testing. Donold is the worst President America ever had.


I don't consider myself a Trumper. However, what evidence do you have that Trump was "cowed" into doing this? Was Kamala cowed into sending money to foreign migrants while Americans were dying?


Donold sent covid testing to Putin while Americans were dying for lack of testing and you are worried about the word cowed. Do you ever listen to yourself?


Do you listen to yourself? You were not attacking Trump. You were attacking people who don't believe that Trump was cowed into sending 5 testing kits to Russia.
Cal88
How long do you want to ignore this user?
bearister said:

According to CBS Abbott point-of-care testing kits.

How many kits? Was a significant amount of their production diverted to Russia?

Genocide Joe 134
How long do you want to ignore this user?
It can get deleted a thousand or more times, but I will still dunk repeatedly on the rubes that believed Russiagate was real

https://media1.tenor.com/m/_0-j-k4RyjkAAAAd/wiggins.gif






bear2034
How long do you want to ignore this user?
bearister
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Yes, the Russian/Trump issue is dead BUT every time a Trump apologist raises it they never discuss the matters set forth below or provide any explanation. If you are going to keep raising the matter ad nauseum, then address this:

"The [Mueller]Report described multiple occasions where Trump associates lied to investigators about Trump associate contacts with Russia. Trump associates George Papadopoulos, Rick Gates, Michael Flynn, and Michael Cohen all admitted that they made false statements to federal investigators or to Congress about their contacts. In addition, Roger Stone faces trial this fall for obstruction of justice, five counts of making false statements, and one count of witness tampering.

The Report contains no evidence that any Trump campaign official reported their contacts with Russia or WikiLeaks to U.S. law enforcement authorities during the campaign or presidential transition, despite public reports on Russian hacking starting in June 2016 and candidate Trump's August 2016 intelligence briefing warning him that Russia was seeking to interfere in the election.

The Report raised questions about why Trump associates and then-candidate Trump repeatedly asserted Trump had no connections to Russia.[9]

https://www.acslaw.org/projects/the-presidential-investigation-education-project/other-resources/key-findings-of-the-mueller-report/

"There are now more than 101 known points of contact between the Trump campaign and Russian-government linked people or entities, including 23 meetings or calls.

Sixteen Trump campaign officials are known to have had direct contact with a Russian government official or a Russian-linked operative, and at least an additional nine campaign officials were aware of these contacts.

Trump campaign officials had meetings, calls, and digital correspondence with high-level Russian government officials, billionaires linked to Putin, an accused Russian spy, and hackers enlisted by Russian intelligence to meddle in the 2016 elections."

https://www.businessinsider.com/trump-campaign-russia-government-contact-timeline-2018-7

Mueller's findings above leave me with two questions:

1. What was discussed in the communications/meetings between the Trump Campaign and the Russians? and

2. Why did the Trump Campaign make false statements when questioned about these communications/meetings?

No one ever rebutted or tried to discredit Mueller's findings regarding the fact the 101 "points of contact" with Russians occurred. All Trump cared about was Mueller's Report concluded there was insufficient evidence (since Mueller didn't know what was discussed in these communications) to prove a conspiracy between the Russians and the Trump Campaign. Based on that conclusion, Trump painted the entire matter as The Russian Hoax without ever explaining the subject matter of the discussions with highly placed Russians.


Cancel my subscription to the Resurrection
Send my credentials to the House of Detention

“I love Cal deeply. What are the directions to The Portal from Sproul Plaza?”
bear2034
How long do you want to ignore this user?
bearister said:



Mueller's findings above leave me with two questions:

1. What was discussed in the communications/meetings between the Trump Campaign and the Russians? and

2. Why did the Trump Campaign make false statements when questioned about these communications/meetings?

So many unanswered questions! Ask Eric Swalwell for the answers.

bearister
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Yes, the Russian/Trump issue is dead BUT every time a Trump apologist raises it they never discuss the matters set forth below or provide any explanation. If you are going to keep raising the matter ad nauseum, then address this:

"The [Mueller]Report described multiple occasions where Trump associates lied to investigators about Trump associate contacts with Russia. Trump associates George Papadopoulos, Rick Gates, Michael Flynn, and Michael Cohen all admitted that they made false statements to federal investigators or to Congress about their contacts. In addition, Roger Stone faces trial this fall for obstruction of justice, five counts of making false statements, and one count of witness tampering.

The Report contains no evidence that any Trump campaign official reported their contacts with Russia or WikiLeaks to U.S. law enforcement authorities during the campaign or presidential transition, despite public reports on Russian hacking starting in June 2016 and candidate Trump's August 2016 intelligence briefing warning him that Russia was seeking to interfere in the election.

The Report raised questions about why Trump associates and then-candidate Trump repeatedly asserted Trump had no connections to Russia.[9]

https://www.acslaw.org/projects/the-presidential-investigation-education-project/other-resources/key-findings-of-the-mueller-report/

"There are now more than 101 known points of contact between the Trump campaign and Russian-government linked people or entities, including 23 meetings or calls.

Sixteen Trump campaign officials are known to have had direct contact with a Russian government official or a Russian-linked operative, and at least an additional nine campaign officials were aware of these contacts.

Trump campaign officials had meetings, calls, and digital correspondence with high-level Russian government officials, billionaires linked to Putin, an accused Russian spy, and hackers enlisted by Russian intelligence to meddle in the 2016 elections."

https://www.businessinsider.com/trump-campaign-russia-government-contact-timeline-2018-7

Mueller's findings above leave me with two questions:

1. What was discussed in the communications/meetings between the Trump Campaign and the Russians? and

2. Why did the Trump Campaign make false statements when questioned about these communications/meetings?

No one ever rebutted or tried to discredit Mueller's findings regarding the fact the 101 "points of contact" with Russians occurred. All Trump cared about was Mueller's Report concluded there was insufficient evidence (since Mueller didn't know what was discussed in these communications) to prove a conspiracy between the Russians and the Trump Campaign. Based on that conclusion, Trump painted the entire matter as The Russian Hoax without ever explaining the subject matter of the discussions with highly placed Russians.


Cancel my subscription to the Resurrection
Send my credentials to the House of Detention

“I love Cal deeply. What are the directions to The Portal from Sproul Plaza?”
bearister
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Trump official who shut down Russia propaganda unit has links to Kremlin

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/us/news/2025/06/03/trump-official-shut-russia-propaganda-unit-kremlin-ties/

"A senior official who dismantled the US government's Russian disinformation unit is married to a Russian woman with links to the Kremlin, The Telegraph can reveal.

Darren Beattie has provoked alarm within the State Department since being appointed in February for his ardent pro-Russian views and focus on destroying the agency tasked with tackling Kremlin propaganda.

Mr Beattie, the acting under-secretary for public diplomacy and public affairs, is married to a woman whose uncle has taken several roles in Russian politics and once received a personal "thank you" message from Vladimir Putin."

Trump's secret: Just do the bad stuff out in the open. It is like an NBA ref seeing a player take 6 steps down the middle for a bunny. It is so blatant and shocking that paralysis stops him from blowing the whistle.
Cancel my subscription to the Resurrection
Send my credentials to the House of Detention

“I love Cal deeply. What are the directions to The Portal from Sproul Plaza?”
chazzed
How long do you want to ignore this user?
More kid glove treatment of Putin by Trump.


bear2034
How long do you want to ignore this user?


Democrats spied on Trump.
The spies lied about Russia collusion, Hunter Biden's laptop, the 2020 election.....
bearister
How long do you want to ignore this user?
I don't really understand why Trump doesn't embrace the Russian collusion charge, including the pee tape. He should also admit he rigged two elections successfully and whiffed on the rig against Biden (he underestimated the votes he needed). Everyone knows it is true anyway, and now that he is a De facto dictator because he controls the Three branches of government, has occupied an American city with troops, unilaterally decided to launch a bombing attack against a foreign country, incarcerated people in camps and deported people without due process, extorted bribes from media companies in return for favorable treatment (like mergers), unlawfully weaponized the Justice Department against political enemies and unlawfully monetized the office of the presidency….he should literally do this:


"I did it. F@uck you. Do something about it."


*….and if we have learned anything from Tulsi Gabbard and Col. MacGregor, it's that Russia is our friend.
Cancel my subscription to the Resurrection
Send my credentials to the House of Detention

“I love Cal deeply. What are the directions to The Portal from Sproul Plaza?”
bear2034
How long do you want to ignore this user?
bearister said:

I don't really understand why Trump doesn't embrace the Russian collusion charge, including the pee tape. He should also admit he rigged two elections successfully and whiffed on the rig against Biden (he underestimated the votes he needed). Everyone knows it is true anyway, and now that he is a De facto dictator because he controls the Three branches of government, has occupied an American city with troops, unilaterally decided to launch a bombing attack against a foreign country, incarcerated people in camps and deported people without due process, extorted bribes from media companies in return for favorable treatment (like mergers), unlawfully weaponized the Justice Department against political enemies and unlawfully monetized the office of the presidency….he should literally do this:

"I did it. F@uck you. Do something about it."

So we agree treason is a federal crime defined in the Constitution and that there's no statute of limitations for treason and that Brennan, Clapper, and Comey need be arrested.
bearister
How long do you want to ignore this user?
bear2034 said:


So we agree treason is a federal crime defined in the Constitution and that there's no statute of limitations for treason and that Brennan, Clapper, and Comey need be arrested.


18 U.S. Code 2381 - Treason
U.S. Code
"Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States, levies war against them or adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the United States or elsewhere, is guilty of treason and shall suffer death, or shall be imprisoned not less than five years and fined under this title but not less than $10,000; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States.
(June 25, 1948, ch. 645, 62 Stat. 807; Pub. L. 103322, title XXXIII, 330016(2)(J), Sept. 13, 1994, 108 Stat. 2148.)

I would imagine Pam Blondie would just be dumb enough to bring that criminal prosecution under that wholly inapplicable statute……but you have to admit, throwing a $10 word like "treason" around is sexy, isn't it.

The case would never survive the motion stage. Even if it was a meritorious case there is no one left at Trump's personal Justice Department that understands the law, knows how to conduct law and motion proceedings or try a criminal prosecution in front of a jury.

If Pam brings cases like that she will be disbarred or worse when a subsequent government conducts Nuremberg style trials* against the officials in this regime. Any pardons issued will be set aside as null and void.

*Musk and his legions of computer experts are assembling all the evidence that will be required.
Cancel my subscription to the Resurrection
Send my credentials to the House of Detention

“I love Cal deeply. What are the directions to The Portal from Sproul Plaza?”
Big Beautiful Bill
How long do you want to ignore this user?
bear2034 said:



Democrats spied on Trump.
The spies lied about Russia collusion, Hunter Biden's laptop, the 2020 election.....


Miranda Devine of the New York Post, who broke the fateful story about Hunter Biden's laptop, has struck again with an expose on the origins of Russiagatethat implicates former intelligence chiefs John Brennan, James Comey, and Jim Clapper in an elaborate fraud. From the story, which is centered on a new CIA report commissioned by John Ratcliffe:

Quote:

Brennan handpicked the CIA analysts to compile the ICA and involved only the ODNI, CIA, FBI and NSA, excluding 13 of the then-17 intelligence agencies.

He sidelined the National Intelligence Council and forced the inclusion of the discredited Steele dossier despite objections of the authors and senior CIA Russia experts, so as to push a false narrative that Russia secured Trump's 2016 victory.

"This was Obama, Comey, Clapper and Brennan deciding 'We're going to screw Trump,'" said Ratcliffe in an exclusive interview. "It was, 'We're going to create this and put the imprimatur of an IC assessment in a way that nobody can question it.'"
The CIA report is focused mainly on the publication of the infamous Intelligence Community Assessment of January 6th, 2017, which concluded that Russian President Vladimir Putin sought "to undermine public faith in the US democratic process, denigrate Secretary Clinton, and harm her electability" while maintaining a "clear preference for President-elect Trump." Publication of that Intelligence Assessment, which was ordered by Barack Obama on December 6th, 2016 and included material from the infamous Steele dossier, set in motion a series of events that led to Special Counsel Robert Mueller's investigation. It was the trigger for years of Russiagate lunacy that consumed Trump's first term.

Racket readers may remember reports I co-authored with Michael Shellenberger and Alexandra Gutentag last February, describing how Brennan, Comey, and Clapper "cooked the intelligence" in that 2017 ICA. For instance, the chiefs suppressed junior analysts' belief that Russia may not have preferred Trump, seeing him as "mercurial," "unreliable," and "not steady," while viewing a possible Clinton presidency as "manageable and reflecting continuity." The notion that the ICA was manipulated isn't new, as Aaron Mate at RealClearInvestigations reported the ICA's preparation "deviated from standard CIA practice," and similar reports came out via former CIA analyst Ray McGovern, current deputy FBI director Dan Bongino, and others.

However, this new report contains a wealth of new details. It's not clear what this may or may not mean for any possible future criminal investigation, but Ratcliffe's CIA investigation fills in a lot of blanks. Some key conclusions:

CIA chief was warned not to include the Steele Dossier

The new CIA report criticizes the intel chiefs for including the Steele Dossier in the report, saying that "ran counter to fundamental tradecraft principles" and "undermined the credibility" of his key conclusions. That isn't just a post-factum conclusion, however. The report reveals:


Quote:

CIA's Deputy Director for Analysis (DDA) warned in an email to Brennan on 29 December that including it in any form risked "the credibility of the entire paper."

Thanks to previous reports (including material from John Brennan's own book Undaunted), it was already known that Brennan not only overruled NSA chief Mike Rogers but "two senior managers for the CIA mission center for Russia" to reach the much-disputed conclusion that Putin "aspired" to help Donald Trump win the election. The new CIA report's inclusion of an email from a senior CIA official specifically warning against use of the Steele Dossier is damning.

Regarding the objections of those two "senior managers," Ratcliffe had more detail:

Quote:

The two senior leaders of the CIA mission center responsible for Russia argued jointly against including the "aspire" judgment. In an email to Brennan on 30 December, they stated the judgment should be removed because it was both weakly supported and unnecessary, given the strength and logic of the paper's other findings on intent. They warned that including it would only "open up a line of very politicized inquiry."
It's one thing for Ratcliffe to criticize the ICA, but these specific email warnings add significantly to the pile of evidence that the key pillar of Russiagate was manipulated.

NSA considered "alternative" conclusion

Without an Intelligence Assessment saying Russia hoped to harm Hillary Clinton's chances and help Trump, the American public likely wouldn't have gone through years of Russiagate scandal. The three agencies that put the ICA together the CIA, FBI, and NSA all started out with differing views on that key question of whether or not Russia specifically wanted to help Trump. Of the three agencies, the NSA and its chief Mike Rogers were the least enthusiastic about endorsing that conclusion. From the new report:

Quote:

NSA and a few other participants were not comfortable with ascribing "high confidence" to the "aspired" judgment. They cited the limited source base, lack of corroborating intelligence, and "the possibility for an alternative judgment" as driving their discomfort.
It was bad enough that the NSA would only say publicly it had "moderate" confidence in the ICA. As the Ratcliffe report explains, "moderate confidence generally means that the information is credibly sourced and plausible but not... corroborated sufficiently." Moderate was "equivalent to no," as one source told me last year.

That the NSA believed there was room from the available intelligence to come up with an "alternative judgment" undermines the ICA conclusion even more.

Why the FBI endorsed the ICA

According to the report:

Quote:

FBI leadership made it clear that their participation in the ICA hinged on the Dossier's inclusion and, over the next few days, repeatedly pushed to weave references to it throughout the main body of the ICA.
This is a significant revelation, because while the NSA expressed only "moderate" confidence in the Intelligence Assessment, the FBI appeared to change its mind.

On October 31, 2016, a week before Obama ordered the ICA written, senior FBI officials told the New York Times in a much-criticized piece called "Investigating Donald Trump, F.B.I. Sees No Clear Link to Russia" that "even the hacking into Democratic emails, F.B.I. and intelligence officials now believe, was aimed at disrupting the presidential election rather than electing Mr. Trump." In the first week of December 2016, the FBI and CIA reportedly gave conflicting briefings to Congress on the question. Shortly after, the FBI publicly backed the CIA's interpretation.

The reason for the FBI's turnaround has always been a mystery. If the FBI's participation in the Intelligence Community Assessment was contingent on the CIA publicly backing the Steele Dossier, it might answer that question. The FBI by December 2016 already knew it had an issue with its use of the Steele Dossier to obtain FISA surveillance on Carter Page, and the FBI's lead Trump-Russia investigator Peter Strzok had privately questioned Steele's reliability. By inducing the CIA to throw its weight behind the flawed document (one the CIA itself had pooh-poohed as "internet rumor"), the FBI and Comey gained crucial bureaucratic cover.

It was Brennan all along

From the report:

Quote:

One business day before IC analysts convened for the only coordination session on the ICA, Brennan sent a note to the CIA workforce stating he had met with the DNI and FBI Director and that "there is strong consensus among us on the scope, nature, and intent of Russian interference in our recent Presidential election." While officers involved in drafting the ICA consistently said they did not feel pressured …Brennan's premature signaling… risked stifling analytic debate.
As has been made clear, there was no "strong consensus" about Russia's intentions among the three agencies. The NSA was lukewarm at best, the FBI gave public statements contradicting the ICA conclusions, and even within the CIA even within Brennan's hand-picked group of CIA analysts there was serious dissent. Brennan steamrolled that dissent in a number of ways, beginning with this "premature signaling" effort, and moving on to override his own team.

Ratcliffe wrote that "Brennan showed a preference for narrative consistency over analytical soundness," describing a scene in which he overrode the objections to the Steele Dossier by those two CIA "mission center for Russia" analysts. When confronted, Brennan reportedly said, "My bottom line is that I believe that the information warrants inclusion in the report."



Overall, the report looks very bad for the intelligence chiefs Brennan, Comey, and Clapper, who submitted the flawed ICA to the National Intelligence Council just "hours before it was due to be published," as Devine wrote. Those same figures then briefed President-Elect Trump about the ICA's contents, ostensibly to warn him about the possibility of Russian efforts to compromise him. Shortly after, the details of that briefing were leaked to the press. In this manner, the otherwise classified issue of "blackmail" and the pee tape and so on became public, leading to years of the Russiagate circus.

Much like the WMD episode, where it later came out that analysts who worked on a National Intelligence Assessment about Iraq had wildly differing beliefs about whether or not Saddam Hussein was pursuing a weapon of mass destruction, Russiagate and the 2017 ICA now look like an episode that will be infamous because of the way dissenting opinions were suppressed. We'll have more on what this report means as information comes in.

https://media.giphy.com/media/5tojx1LzP3mMA1J1CE/giphy.gif

https://media.tenor.com/uARaKFpSkaMAAAAC/anger-management-jack-nicholson.gif

bear2034
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Big Beautiful Bill said:

bear2034 said:



Democrats spied on Trump.
The spies lied about Russia collusion, Hunter Biden's laptop, the 2020 election.....


Miranda Devine of the New York Post, who broke the fateful story about Hunter Biden's laptop, has struck again with an expos on the origins of Russiagate that implicates former intelligence chiefs John Brennan, James Comey, and Jim Clapper in an elaborate fraud. From the story, which is centered on a new CIA report commissioned by John Ratcliffe:

Quote:

Brennan handpicked the CIA analysts to compile the ICA and involved only the ODNI, CIA, FBI and NSA, excluding 13 of the then-17 intelligence agencies.

He sidelined the National Intelligence Council and forced the inclusion of the discredited Steele dossier despite objections of the authors and senior CIA Russia experts, so as to push a false narrative that Russia secured Trump's 2016 victory.

"This was Obama, Comey, Clapper and Brennan deciding 'We're going to screw Trump,'" said Ratcliffe in an exclusive interview. "It was, 'We're going to create this and put the imprimatur of an IC assessment in a way that nobody can question it.'"
The CIA report is focused mainly on the publication of the infamous Intelligence Community Assessment of January 6th, 2017, which concluded that Russian President Vladimir Putin sought "to undermine public faith in the US democratic process, denigrate Secretary Clinton, and harm her electability" while maintaining a "clear preference for President-elect Trump." Publication of that Intelligence Assessment, which was ordered by Barack Obama on December 6th, 2016 and included material from the infamous Steele dossier, set in motion a series of events that led to Special Counsel Robert Mueller's investigation. It was the trigger for years of Russiagate lunacy that consumed Trump's first term.

Racket readers may remember reports I co-authored with Michael Shellenberger and Alexandra Gutentag last February, describing how Brennan, Comey, and Clapper "cooked the intelligence" in that 2017 ICA. For instance, the chiefs suppressed junior analysts' belief that Russia may not have preferred Trump, seeing him as "mercurial," "unreliable," and "not steady," while viewing a possible Clinton presidency as "manageable and reflecting continuity." The notion that the ICA was manipulated isn't new, as Aaron Mate at RealClearInvestigations reported the ICA's preparation "deviated from standard CIA practice," and similar reports came out via former CIA analyst Ray McGovern, current deputy FBI director Dan Bongino, and others.

However, this new report contains a wealth of new details. It's not clear what this may or may not mean for any possible future criminal investigation, but Ratcliffe's CIA investigation fills in a lot of blanks. Some key conclusions:

CIA chief was warned not to include the Steele Dossier

The new CIA report criticizes the intel chiefs for including the Steele Dossier in the report, saying that "ran counter to fundamental tradecraft principles" and "undermined the credibility" of his key conclusions. That isn't just a post-factum conclusion, however. The report reveals:


Quote:

CIA's Deputy Director for Analysis (DDA) warned in an email to Brennan on 29 December that including it in any form risked "the credibility of the entire paper."

Thanks to previous reports (including material from John Brennan's own book Undaunted), it was already known that Brennan not only overruled NSA chief Mike Rogers but "two senior managers for the CIA mission center for Russia" to reach the much-disputed conclusion that Putin "aspired" to help Donald Trump win the election. The new CIA report's inclusion of an email from a senior CIA official specifically warning against use of the Steele Dossier is damning.

Regarding the objections of those two "senior managers," Ratcliffe had more detail:

Quote:

The two senior leaders of the CIA mission center responsible for Russia argued jointly against including the "aspire" judgment. In an email to Brennan on 30 December, they stated the judgment should be removed because it was both weakly supported and unnecessary, given the strength and logic of the paper's other findings on intent. They warned that including it would only "open up a line of very politicized inquiry."
It's one thing for Ratcliffe to criticize the ICA, but these specific email warnings add significantly to the pile of evidence that the key pillar of Russiagate was manipulated.

NSA considered "alternative" conclusion

Without an Intelligence Assessment saying Russia hoped to harm Hillary Clinton's chances and help Trump, the American public likely wouldn't have gone through years of Russiagate scandal. The three agencies that put the ICA together the CIA, FBI, and NSA all started out with differing views on that key question of whether or not Russia specifically wanted to help Trump. Of the three agencies, the NSA and its chief Mike Rogers were the least enthusiastic about endorsing that conclusion. From the new report:

Quote:

NSA and a few other participants were not comfortable with ascribing "high confidence" to the "aspired" judgment. They cited the limited source base, lack of corroborating intelligence, and "the possibility for an alternative judgment" as driving their discomfort.
It was bad enough that the NSA would only say publicly it had "moderate" confidence in the ICA. As the Ratcliffe report explains, "moderate confidence generally means that the information is credibly sourced and plausible but not... corroborated sufficiently." Moderate was "equivalent to no," as one source told me last year.

That the NSA believed there was room from the available intelligence to come up with an "alternative judgment" undermines the ICA conclusion even more.

Why the FBI endorsed the ICA

According to the report:

Quote:

FBI leadership made it clear that their participation in the ICA hinged on the Dossier's inclusion and, over the next few days, repeatedly pushed to weave references to it throughout the main body of the ICA.
This is a significant revelation, because while the NSA expressed only "moderate" confidence in the Intelligence Assessment, the FBI appeared to change its mind.

On October 31, 2016, a week before Obama ordered the ICA written, senior FBI officials told the New York Times in a much-criticized piece called "Investigating Donald Trump, F.B.I. Sees No Clear Link to Russia" that "even the hacking into Democratic emails, F.B.I. and intelligence officials now believe, was aimed at disrupting the presidential election rather than electing Mr. Trump." In the first week of December 2016, the FBI and CIA reportedly gave conflicting briefings to Congress on the question. Shortly after, the FBI publicly backed the CIA's interpretation.

The reason for the FBI's turnaround has always been a mystery. If the FBI's participation in the Intelligence Community Assessment was contingent on the CIA publicly backing the Steele Dossier, it might answer that question. The FBI by December 2016 already knew it had an issue with its use of the Steele Dossier to obtain FISA surveillance on Carter Page, and the FBI's lead Trump-Russia investigator Peter Strzok had privately questioned Steele's reliability. By inducing the CIA to throw its weight behind the flawed document (one the CIA itself had pooh-poohed as "internet rumor"), the FBI and Comey gained crucial bureaucratic cover.

It was Brennan all along

From the report:

Quote:

One business day before IC analysts convened for the only coordination session on the ICA, Brennan sent a note to the CIA workforce stating he had met with the DNI and FBI Director and that "there is strong consensus among us on the scope, nature, and intent of Russian interference in our recent Presidential election." While officers involved in drafting the ICA consistently said they did not feel pressured …Brennan's premature signaling… risked stifling analytic debate.
As has been made clear, there was no "strong consensus" about Russia's intentions among the three agencies. The NSA was lukewarm at best, the FBI gave public statements contradicting the ICA conclusions, and even within the CIA even within Brennan's hand-picked group of CIA analysts there was serious dissent. Brennan steamrolled that dissent in a number of ways, beginning with this "premature signaling" effort, and moving on to override his own team.

Ratcliffe wrote that "Brennan showed a preference for narrative consistency over analytical soundness," describing a scene in which he overrode the objections to the Steele Dossier by those two CIA "mission center for Russia" analysts. When confronted, Brennan reportedly said, "My bottom line is that I believe that the information warrants inclusion in the report."



Overall, the report looks very bad for the intelligence chiefs Brennan, Comey, and Clapper, who submitted the flawed ICA to the National Intelligence Council just "hours before it was due to be published," as Devine wrote. Those same figures then briefed President-Elect Trump about the ICA's contents, ostensibly to warn him about the possibility of Russian efforts to compromise him. Shortly after, the details of that briefing were leaked to the press. In this manner, the otherwise classified issue of "blackmail" and the pee tape and so on became public, leading to years of the Russiagate circus.

Much like the WMD episode, where it later came out that analysts who worked on a National Intelligence Assessment about Iraq had wildly differing beliefs about whether or not Saddam Hussein was pursuing a weapon of mass destruction, Russiagate and the 2017 ICA now look like an episode that will be infamous because of the way dissenting opinions were suppressed. We'll have more on what this report means as information comes in.







Why does bearister want to hold on?
It's time to let go
bear2034
How long do you want to ignore this user?
bearister said:


*Musk and his legions of computer experts are assembling all the evidence that will be required.
Hillary and the Deep State are already guilty in the court of public opinion.

The MSM, Social Media, Academia,Hollywood and the late-night comics parroted the big Hillary lie 24 hours a day for 5 years.

There are only two explanations for this parroting.

1) All the above were TOTALLY DUPED BY THE HILLARY I NSPIRED FAKE COLLUSION CLAIM or

2) They were all willing accomplices who repeated the HOAX BECAUSE THEIR HATRED OF TRUMP OVERRODE THEIR JOURNALISTIC DUTY TO QUESTION AND VERIFY CLAIMS MADE BY PEOPLE IN POWER

We now know the answer.....If the above were honestly duped, they would be reporting non-stop about the latest Durham revelations, findings and indictments. After all, he specifically NAMED THE CLINTON OPERATION AS THE PRIME INSTIGATOR AND MOVER OF THE ENTIRE HOAX. Instead, as Bear Force has demonstrated, the MSM has devoted zero seconds to this terrific scandal . Therefore, we now know the answer. All the above were complicit. Roman times?????Hundreds of folks (literally) including Obama and Biden ( who obviously knew and approved....DUH) would be having conversations with the Lions the next day. (With thousands cheering). Including me!!!!!!Sweet dreams!!!!

- htp1
bearister
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Ok long winded lads, for the sake of argument, let's say that all the windmills Trump is chasing have actually committed felonies and should rightfully be indicted, tried, convicted and incarcerated.

You have one major problem:
When a POTUS makes over the Justice Department in his own image and likeness, where exactly do you locate a federal prosecutor who won't embarrass themselves in the pleading and law and motion stages, who has solid experience trying significant cases through jury verdict, or can even find their rear ends using both hands?

All the competent federal prosecutors were fired or quit. At this point in history, boys, the competent criminal attorneys work for the good guys.


*That's not to say that all of Trump's enemies won't end up in prison or worse when Trump eliminates the right to jury trial and tries them before tribunals of his appointment.
Cancel my subscription to the Resurrection
Send my credentials to the House of Detention

“I love Cal deeply. What are the directions to The Portal from Sproul Plaza?”
 
×
subscribe Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.