Revisiting the 2016 Russia Hoax

OK, let's be clear about what this is.

Radcliff sent a CIA team to go back and review the IC Assessment that determined that Russia interfered with the 2016 election. It determined that the IC assessment did not meet the requirements of a normal IC Assessment and that it did not follow the typical process in an effort to get it published before the Trump took office.

I doubt it is going to change anyone's mind about that IC Assessment since Anti-Trump folks will say Radcliff told them to come to that conclusion and pro-Trump people will claim this proves that the investigation was a hoax.

 

The problem, of course, when Trump appoints laughable shills like John Ratcliffe to serious positions is that nobody will, or should, take a word that he says seriously.

So ..... cool report Ratcliffe. Thanks for the chuckles. Too bad the actual Republican Senate Intelligence Committee already issued a report documenting the collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia.

We'll now be waiting for the next findings from Kash Patel, so that we can laugh at those too.

 

My comments match exactly what Radcliff stated if you understand what he was actually talking about. This is about the IC Assessment on the Russian Interference with the 2016 Election. Radcliff is saying that the Obama Admin IC Principals ordered a rushed IC Assessment that found that Russia had interfered with the election. You can argue to the extent and impact of Russian interference in the election and Radcliffe is stating the the Obama Admin IC Principals wanted it to be overstated to screw the incoming Trump Admin.

Tell me what laws Obama, Brennan, Comey, and Clapper broke with this IC Assessment?

 

Since NYT is referenced in the OP, under its top headline a key takeaway….

“But the new review of the earlier assessment does not dispute the conclusion that Russia favored the election of Donald J. Trump.”

 

You mean those Russian hookers didn't really pee on Trumps bed?

 

Put another way, Putin really hated Clinton and wanted to screw with her campaign as much as possible. Would have done the same thing if Romney was running against her.

 

I thought they peed on his face, but I'm not certain.

 

Russian interference in the 2016 campaign was indeed real.
https://www.justice.gov/archives/sco/file/1373816/dl?inline=
U.S. Department of Justice
Russian Interference In The 2016 Presidential Election
Volume I of II
Special Counsel Robert S. Mueller, II
Surprised that Trump hasn't expunged the report from the DOJ's website. Although it's possible that the report was copied on to another server not under the DOJ itself.

 

The difference being Romney would likely have rebuffed their attempts to contact his campaign, reported it to the FBI, and not have called it a hoax for the rest of his life.

 

Too true.

 

Do not disagree about contacting the FBI but does not mean that Putin would not have been doing the same thing. And if the media and the outgoing Admin had done the same thing to the incoming Romney Admin, Romeny would also have called it a scandal and held a grudge against the people that did it.

 

I don't disagree there - nobody would want to keep hearing that they only were elected because of Russia. Mainly I was referring to the Mueller report conclusion that the Trump campaign knew Russia was working to help them and welcomed that help. I'd like to think Romney has more integrity than to go that far.

That's really the key distinction for me - there's no way to stop Russia (or another country) from meddling on your behalf, but that doesn't mean you have to encourage and embrace it.

 

Seems your only remaining concern is that the IC's first was rushed. That of course does not mean it was definitely wrong. Then the Pub Senate investigation also came to the conclusion of Russia influence as well. So finally all concern for fact is erased now.
Since Radcliff released : “But the new review of the earlier assessment does not dispute the conclusion that Russia favored the election of Donald J. Trump.”

 

I didn't bother to click the link. I just came here to say I don't care about this thread.

 

The issue with the IC Report is that it was rushed and it was done in the heat of the moment after Trump had scored an upset victory. It is really hard to do a real well researched and vetted IC Assessment in four months.

The another issue is that it is extremely hard to make a determination on how much of an affect the Russian Inference actually made in the election and the IC should not be speculating on that. We do not need the US IC making a judgement call that the DNC Hack cost Clinton 3% in PA. I hope we can all agree on that.

Finally, and this is what I think Radcliff is saying, all the IC Assessment had to say is that there was Russian Interference and that would tar the incoming Trump Admin as being involved/complicit in that inference. It would affect the legitimacy of the Trump Admin in a lot of peoples eyes and it would give the media a ton of red meat to push that narrative since the IC said it was true. Especially with the salacious details about Trump in the Steele Dossier. All the Principals at the top IC Agencies knew that and rushed to have the IC report completed ahead of the transition.

 

Not disputing that it was rushed but it was pretty important to rush it given the situation where if the incoming president was criminally complicit he could shut down the investigation once in office.

 

What if the incoming POTUS was not criminally complicit and the IC still releases a report that says "The Russians interfered in the election and we cannot say if the incoming POTUS was involved because we cannot find the intel."

This gets back to my original post on this topic, I do not think this review is really going to change anyone's mind. I think it is something that has bothered some Republicans that understand how the IC Assessment process is supposed to work and wanted it out in the public.

 

Yes - fair point.