That could be that the IC was aware that Russia knew Steele was working to sell the FBI on his Dossier. The Dossier was one of the main drivers that kicked off that investigation. The question should should be asking is if Stephen Halprin or Joseph Mifsud were sent at the direction of Brennen or Comey.
It's hard to overstate how stupid this "scandal" is when we live in the present and know that multiple investigations have concluded that Russia meddled in the election and there were links between Russia and the Trump campaign. We even had a Special Counsel appointed by Trump who spent three and a half years investigating the origins of the FBI investigation. There's an entire wikipedia page about it: Durham special counsel investigation - Wikipedia Spoiler alert for those of you who apparently forgot this happened: it didn't uncover treason by anyone now being accused of such. Trump even tried the whole "treason bombshell" thing back then, which of course went nowhere because that wasn't what the report found. Trump and his supporters in conservative media and congress characterized the final report as explosive and groundbreaking, a "bombshell" that exposed a "treasonous charade."
Maybe Gabbard all of Orange TACO’s minions should take some time to read the Senate Report. Report of the Select Committee on Intelligence United States Senate on Russian Active Measures Campaigns and Interference in the 2016 U.S. Election | Senate Select Committee on Intelligence
See this is why all this information is being released, people are still trying to claim that Trump and Russia were working together when there was no proof that they were and that is even after the FBI and the US IC did investigations into this topic and came up with nothing. What these documents show is that the leadership of the Obama Admin were pushing the Trump Russia narrative even they though they knew the allegations were BS at the time. Comey is probably the worse offender in the lot but Brennen and Clapper were involved as well. This is not anything new if you were paying attention and bothered to look at the details but it is clear a lot of people have been not willing to do so. At the end of the day, there was no need for the Weismann Investigation since the FBI already knew the Steele Dossier was bunk and two FISA warrants had not turned up anything on the Trump Campaign. What Weismann was hoping to do was keep the investigation going long enough for Trump to fire Mueller and then Weismann could claim that Trump had committed obstruction and hopefully either get him charged or impeached and removed.
We just see reality differently I guess. I wouldn't say the investigations found "nothing" if they found that Russia was actively working to interfere in the investigation, they were interfering on behalf of one candidate (Trump), that candidate knew they were trying to interfere on his behalf, and welcomed that interference. We didn't know the extent to which Trump's campaign or may not have been even more actively involved unless we investigate that. I see it as an obligation of the president to understand if the incoming president may be compromised by one of our biggest adversaries. The documents being selectively declassified and released are small pieces in a much larger puzzle, which has been thoroughly investigated already, and designed to create the appearance of a scandal to distract from other current problems. Seems pretty obvious to me but everyone is welcome to their own opinion..
No, the investigation did not find that. That is what this document release is really all about. The Intel Analysts that reviewed the intel disagree about the suggestion that Putin was intervening on behalf of Trump. This is where Brennen note about "but it rings true" comes in. He thought it sounded true so it was included in the ICA and why that is a very big issue. Brennen was overruling his Intel Analysts. This is wrong. Everyone knew there was nothing to the allegations by the time of the ICA. Comey knew. Brennen knew. Rogers knew. Obama would have had to have been briefed about it as well. By Jan of '17, the FBI had interviewed the sub-source of the Steele Dossier and knew it was bunk. The FBI had two FISA warrants against the Trump Campaign and had nothing that suggested they were working with the Russians. There was nothing to investigate at that point. What is obvious is that the Obama Admin, at the highest levels, knew that there was nothing to the Trump Russia Collusion allegations ahead of the ICA but still pushed the idea that Russia intervened to help Trump. All of this has been known for a 7+ years and the puzzle has been 90% completed and you can clearly see the picture. The only thing that is new is that they are declassifying the detail of the Intel Analysts work on the ICA that show their disagreements about what should or should not have gone into it, which is part of the missing 10%.
Whaaat? People on the internet are wrong and using social media to propagate disinformation? Shocking! Good luck getting that genie back in the toothpaste tube. Trust in the government is at an all time low. The pubs blame the dems. The dems blame the pubs. It's a mess. I hear that was Putin's plan all along.
The ROI Putin got on about $400k in Facebook ads is probably rivaling the ROI on initial investors of BitCoin.
FBI Director Kash Patel found multiple burn bags loaded with thousands of sensitive documents related to the origins of the Trump–Russia probe buried in a secret room inside the bureau. The “burn bag" system is used to destroy documents designated as classified or higher. “Sources told Fox News Digital that one of the documents FBI officials found in a burn bag was the classified annex to former special counsel John Durham's final report, which includes the underlying intelligence he reviewed.” “The declassification of the classified annex is being done in close coordination between CIA Director John Ratcliffe, Patel, Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard, Attorney General Pam Bondi and acting National Security Agency Director William Hartman.” Concealing evidence? Obstruction of justice?
Just as I don't believe most of what has come out of the biden admin, I for sure don't believe what the trump admin is throwing out there right now.
Not interested in continuing this revisionist history discussion. You're entitled to your opinion about what happened. I'll just leave with these from the Mueller and Senate Intelligence Committee reports: Mueller Report: Senate Intelligence Committee Report:
And where were they getting the Intel that allowed them to make those determinations? It all came from the the US IC. It's not like they had a whole new bunch of intel collection that somehow showed what the Russians were thinking in the summer and fall of 2016 versus what was collected at the time. Again, you are arguing about how different intel analysts made determinations on what that Intel showed. I'm not particularly interested in what Andrew Wiesmann decided to say in his report, when the IC had already made a determination. The Senate Report cited ICA as source for it conclusions but we now know that assessment was flawed. So that would have to impact the conclusions of the Senate Report.
Ex-CIA agent hits back at Tulsi Gabbard after she accused Obama of ‘treasonous conspiracy’ against Trump
That women still says she thinks there is something to the Steele Dossier. You might want to get one of the other analysts to quote. She does not come off as particularly impressive in this interview: Top Former CIA Russia Report Official Rejects Ratcliffe ‘Note’ Knocking U.S. Intelligence Analysis on 2016 Election I do not think this rises to the level of treason but it was definitely a very dirty thing to play on your political opposition after your side lost a POTUS election.
You would think after building up "heads are gonna roll when the Epstein Files come out" and stepping on a rake you'd not tease something you cant possibly deliver, like criminally prosecuting a US president for treason lol. Doesnt really seem like the rubes are even buying it.
It is in this clip. I tried to find it somewhere besides Han Mahncke's Tweet but cannot. Please realize that I do not agree with this opinion but I could not find this clip anywhere else even thought I looked at SpyTalk's Youtube channel. So just watch the clip and also what the host's reaction. I listened to the entire podcast and she did say that on the podcast so it is not a deepfake. A lot of other things just completely jump out from her interview: 1. She had a very hard time remembering the timeline of the Russia Investigation, which seems unusual given the high profile of the ICA. 2. She stated that the ICA was not rushed. That seems very strange seeing as they typically take 6 to 9 months. Also stated that if the CIA was going to try and verify the claims in the Steele Dossier, it would have taken around a year to do and so the ICA would have had to been delayed. 3. She stated repeatedly Brennen did not put his thumb on the scales of her team's assessment, stating they would have all quit if he did, and only briefed him on the CIA's final draft but then backtracked and stated he got an update on the brief at someone point. 4. Continuing with Brennen not putting his thumb on the scales, her team did not want to include the Steele Dossier in the ICA but stated that Brennen eventually ordered it because the FBI stated Comey and the FBI would not sign on to the ICA if the Steele Dossier was not included, basically overruling her team. 5. Insinuated multiple times that if her team found that Trump had colluded with the Russians, the election result could have to be thrown out and a new election held. 6. Stated that the CIA had no collection that backed up the Steele Dossier. Overall it was just a very strange interview of the former head of Counter-Intel at the CIA. I really hope that it turns out she was just having a bad day or was on some sort of medication since she did not come off at well and that is not what you want to see from someone that has held such a high position at the CIA.
