The funny thing about the Internet is that it never forgets.
One quick trick is to use Google’s search a specific time period to hone in on the original stories.
Take the accusations of President Obama made by Tulsi Gabbard.
First - she releases a report - done on September 18, 2020. First - who was the DNI director at the time? Oh it was John Radcliffe. What was he doing at the time? - he was releasing unsubstantiated information to affect the election
Even the NY Post at that time was reporting that Obama knew Clinton was trying to pin something on Trump, but even they had to admit:
“Ratcliffe said the intelligence community was unable to confirm the validity of the claim that Clinton cooked up the scandal. He wrote the information was derived from “Russian intelligence analysis ” that could have been an “exaggeration or fabrication.” Sources told Politico that members of both parties on the Senate Intelligence Committee previously discounted the claim as unsupported by fact.”
So a guy who tries to smear the opposing party, approves a report that smears the other party and it is a surprise why???
“Finding #1: The Bulk of ICA Judgments on Russia's Election Operations Were Sound and Employed Proper Analytic Tradecraft
The majority found most ICA judgments on Russia's election activities to be well reasoned, consistent with observed Russian actions, properly documented, and-particularly on the cyber intrusion sections-employed appropriate caveats on sources and identified assumptions. The key ICA judgments that the Majority found
credible are summarized below:
Russian efforts to influence the 2016 US presidential election represent the most recent expression of Moscow's longstanding desire to undermine the US liberal democratic order.
Russian intelligence services, acting on the orders of Russian President Vladimir Putin, launched conventional
and cyber influence operations-notably by leaking politically sensitive emails obtained from computer intrusions during the 2016 election.
Putin's principal motivations in these influence operations were to advance Moscow's longstanding desire to
undermine faith in US democracy, and to weaken from the start what the Russians considered to be an inevitable Clinton presidencу.
Putin held back leaking some compromising material to use against the expected Clinton Administration after
they took office.
The operations officers at CIA and NSA who produced the raw intelligence cited in the ICA showed great professionalism. CIA Collection Management Officers (CMOs) in particular, did an excellent job of employing detailed context statements that spelled-out evidentiary problems affecting the reliability of raw intelligence.
The drafters of ICA did not accurately cite the most critical context statements (addressed in detail later in this study) but the original raw reports were nonetheless professionally prepared.”
So we can put these facts to bed forever.
The problem was a debate over whether Putin “aspired” to have Trump win. Well if he did not want Clinton to win, was he expecting a 3rd party victory?
Sounds like a pretty weak concept to pin your hopes on. When Trump said “Russia, if you’re listening, I hope you’re able to find the 30,000 emails that are missing, I think you will probably be rewarded mightily by our press,”… well, he did say that. As I have said in my blog at that time, I did not expect there to be a smoking gun linking Trump to Putin. But he was playing a dangerous game in appearing to do just that.
Maybe this is interesting reading 10 years gone:
https://www.politico.eu/article/trump-and-putin-two-liars-separated-at-birth/
No comments:
Post a Comment