Senate Intelligence report on 2016 Russian election interference
-
wrote on 23 Apr 2020, 15:32 last edited by
Quote from his article:
Did the intelligence community competently conclude that Russia interfered in the 2016 campaign?
No one is asking that question because, for the vast majority of people closely following the collusion caper, that would be like asking whether the Chiefs won the Super Bowl..
There’s one notable person who doesn’t agree with that conclusion. And that was my singular point with this thread.
Yes - there’s much chatter about connecting this back with collision. I wasn’t talking about that.
My point was more amazement on how much of a curve this President gets graded on.
-
wrote on 23 Apr 2020, 16:50 last edited by
McCarthy certainly does get it.
-
Quote from his article:
Did the intelligence community competently conclude that Russia interfered in the 2016 campaign?
No one is asking that question because, for the vast majority of people closely following the collusion caper, that would be like asking whether the Chiefs won the Super Bowl..
There’s one notable person who doesn’t agree with that conclusion. And that was my singular point with this thread.
Yes - there’s much chatter about connecting this back with collision. I wasn’t talking about that.
My point was more amazement on how much of a curve this President gets graded on.
wrote on 23 Apr 2020, 18:11 last edited by@xenon said in Senate Intelligence report on 2016 Russian election interference:
Quote from his article:
Did the intelligence community competently conclude that Russia interfered in the 2016 campaign?
No one is asking that question because, for the vast majority of people closely following the collusion caper, that would be like asking whether the Chiefs won the Super Bowl..
There’s one notable person who doesn’t agree with that conclusion. And that was my singular point with this thread.
Yes - there’s much chatter about connecting this back with collision. I wasn’t talking about that.
My point was more amazement on how much of a curve this President gets graded on.
No it wasn't. Your point was purely about the fact that Russia meddled. Quote "They sought to denigrate Hillary and boost Trump". First off, that's not even accurate. The Russians fed propaganda to Hillary and the DNC meant to HARM Trump and boost Hillary. The did it through Christopher Steele. Maybe you've heard a little about that...
The fact is, you started this thread because you saw it as another opportunity to smear Trump, and you very first sentence was a total perversion of the facts. Now you claim your point was that you were amazed at "How much of a curve this president gets graded on" - one of the most ridiculous statements you could make given the irony of it.
-
wrote on 23 Apr 2020, 18:26 last edited by xenon
From the Senate's report:
From "Volume 2" page 32:
(U) At the direction ofthe Kremlin, the IRA sought to influence the 2016 U.S. presidential election by.harming Hillary Clinton's chances of success and supporting Donald Trump.
You seem to have an issue with their report, not me.
The Senate report also makes zero mention of Steele. The conclusions stand independent of that.
-
wrote on 23 Apr 2020, 18:29 last edited by
Jesus.
-
wrote on 23 Apr 2020, 18:29 last edited by
@Larry said in Senate Intelligence report on 2016 Russian election interference:
Jesus.
That I can agree with.
-
wrote on 23 Apr 2020, 18:31 last edited by
And at the direction of the Kremlin on a different day, the Russians fed propaganda to Christopher Steele to give to Hillary to help her denigrate Trump.
-
wrote on 23 Apr 2020, 18:34 last edited by
The fact that it makes no mention of Steele doesn't mean it didn't happen, which further proves McCarthy's point that it's a useless report made by a useless committee, and further proves my point about your true motive in starting the thread in the first place.
-
Quote from his article:
Did the intelligence community competently conclude that Russia interfered in the 2016 campaign?
No one is asking that question because, for the vast majority of people closely following the collusion caper, that would be like asking whether the Chiefs won the Super Bowl..
There’s one notable person who doesn’t agree with that conclusion. And that was my singular point with this thread.
Yes - there’s much chatter about connecting this back with collision. I wasn’t talking about that.
My point was more amazement on how much of a curve this President gets graded on.
wrote on 23 Apr 2020, 18:37 last edited by@xenon said in Senate Intelligence report on 2016 Russian election interference:
Quote from his article:
Did the intelligence community competently conclude that Russia interfered in the 2016 campaign?
No one is asking that question because, for the vast majority of people closely following the collusion caper, that would be like asking whether the Chiefs won the Super Bowl..
There’s one notable person who doesn’t agree with that conclusion. And that was my singular point with this thread.
Yes - there’s much chatter about connecting this back with collision. I wasn’t talking about that.
My point was more amazement on how much of a curve this President gets graded on.
This is, and remains my only point.
I've tried to post only simple facts.
-
wrote on 24 Apr 2020, 12:58 last edited by
Newly Declassified Evidence: Russia Didn't Try to Help Elect Trump in 2016
according to Fred Fleitz, former chief of staff to Trump's National Security Council. Fleitz claimed that then-CIA Director John Brennan suppressed the truth and put forward lower quality intelligence to claim the Russians backed Trump.
Fleitz, a former CIA analyst who also worked on the House Intelligence Committee, took to Fox News to disagree with a bipartisan Senate Intelligence Committee report released Tuesday. That report claims that the 2017 intelligence community assessment showing that Russia backed Trump over Clinton followed proper procedures, contradicting a House committee report from March 2018 showing that it did not.
Newly declassified intelligence further undermines the 2017 assessment, and Fleitz focused on a few basic procedures that were violated in the production of that assessment.
"For example, although the protocols require intelligence community assessments to be 'community products' and vetted with all intelligence agencies and analysts with equities in a given subject, only three intelligence agencies were asked to draft this assessment: the CIA, National Security Agency and FBI," he wrote. "With the 14 other intelligence agencies left out, the three participating agencies included only two dozen 'handpicked' analysts."
Worse, Fleitz said his sources inside the House Intelligence Committee told him "the actual drafting of the intelligence community assessment was done by three close associates of former CIA Director Brennan, who has proven to be the most politicized intelligence chief in American history. Contrary to common practice for controversial intelligence community assessments, Brennan’s team allowed no dissenting views or even an annex with reviews by outside experts."
"These were extraordinary violations of intelligence community rules to ensure that analysis is accurate and trusted. The Senate committee reports ignored these foundational violations," Fleitz wrote.
The recent Senate report claims that "all analytical lines are supported with all-source intelligence" and that analysts who wrote the assessment said they "were under no politically motivated pressure to reach specific conclusions."
Yet the House Intelligence Committee staff told Fleitz they found the opposite. They told him "there was conflicting intelligence evidence on Russian motivations for meddling in the 2016 election."
The staff alleged that Brennan "suppressed facts or analysis that showed why it was not in Russia’s interests to support Trump and why Putin stood to benefit from Hillary Clinton’s election. They also told me that Brennan suppressed that intelligence over the objections of CIA analysts."
Yes, you read that correctly. The best intelligence suggested Russia favored Clinton in the 2016 election, but CIA Director John Brennan covered that up — even when CIA analysts complained.
"House Intelligence Committee staff told me that after an exhaustive investigation reviewing intelligence and interviewing intelligence officers, they found that Brennan suppressed high-quality intelligence suggesting that Putin actually wanted the more predictable and malleable Clinton to win the 2016 election," Fleitz added. "Instead, the Brennan team included low-quality intelligence that failed to meet intelligence community standards to support the political claim that Russian officials wanted Trump to win, House Intelligence Committee staff revealed. They said that CIA analysts also objected to including that flawed, substandard information in the assessment."
-
@xenon said in Senate Intelligence report on 2016 Russian election interference:
Quote from his article:
Did the intelligence community competently conclude that Russia interfered in the 2016 campaign?
No one is asking that question because, for the vast majority of people closely following the collusion caper, that would be like asking whether the Chiefs won the Super Bowl..
There’s one notable person who doesn’t agree with that conclusion. And that was my singular point with this thread.
Yes - there’s much chatter about connecting this back with collision. I wasn’t talking about that.
My point was more amazement on how much of a curve this President gets graded on.
This is, and remains my only point.
I've tried to post only simple facts.
wrote on 24 Apr 2020, 13:00 last edited by@xenon said in Senate Intelligence report on 2016 Russian election interference:
@xenon said in Senate Intelligence report on 2016 Russian election interference:
Quote from his article:
Did the intelligence community competently conclude that Russia interfered in the 2016 campaign?
No one is asking that question because, for the vast majority of people closely following the collusion caper, that would be like asking whether the Chiefs won the Super Bowl..
There’s one notable person who doesn’t agree with that conclusion. And that was my singular point with this thread.
Yes - there’s much chatter about connecting this back with collision. I wasn’t talking about that.
My point was more amazement on how much of a curve this President gets graded on.
This is, and remains my only point.
I've tried to post only simple facts.
No, you go running towards a pre-determined tree, ignoring all the other trees in the forest that you are bouncing off of...