Consider this story: An outgoing president and his top officials are told that there is no evidence of Russian collusion or influence in the national election. The White House then moved to suppress the intelligence assessment and reverse the conclusions, while false claims were leaked to the press.
That is not just a major but a Pulitzer-level story, right?
Apparently not. The legacy media has largely ignored the declassified evidence and possible criminal referral on the Obama administration seeding the Russian collusion narrative just before the first Trump Administration.
It supports allegations in the real Russian conspiracy: the conspiracy to create a false Russian collusion scandal to undermine the election and administration of Donald Trump in 2016.
Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard suggested last week that intelligence was “manufactured and politicized” despite countervailing conclusions from American intelligence that there was no collusion or influence on the election.
Critics have noted that CBS only covered the story to refute it.
The release of this information is historically significant, as it finally allows the public to see how this effort began with the Clinton campaign and was then actively cultivated by Obama officials.
We previously learned that the Clinton campaign spent millions to create the infamous Steele dossier and then hid their role from the public.
Attorney Marc Elias, the general counsel to the Clinton presidential campaign, pushed the false Alfa Bank conspiracy. (His fellow Perkins Coie partner, Michael Sussmann, was indicted but acquitted in a criminal trial.)
During the campaign, reporters asked about the possible connection to the campaign, but Clinton campaign officials denied any involvement in the Steele Dossier. When journalists discovered after the election that the Clinton campaign hid payments for the Steele dossier as “legal fees” among the $5.6 million paid to Perkins Coie, they met with nothing but shrugs from the Clinton staff.
New York Times reporter Ken Vogel said at the time that Elias denied involvement in the anti-Trump dossier. When Vogel tried to report the story, he said, Elias “pushed back vigorously, saying ‘You (or your sources) are wrong.’” Times reporter Maggie Haberman declared, “Folks involved in funding this lied about it, and with sanctimony, for a year.”
Elias was back when John Podesta, Clinton’s campaign chairman, was questioned by Congress on the Steele dossier and denied categorically any contractual agreement with Fusion GPS. Sitting beside him was Elias, who reportedly said nothing to correct the misleading information given to Congress.
Not only did Clinton reportedly spent over $10 million on the report, but Obama was briefed that she was going to create a Russian collusion narrative as part of her campaign.
Aware of that Clinton effort, these new documents suggest that Obama and his aides actively sought to affirm the allegations just before Trump’s inauguration. The FBI then ramped up its own efforts despite also being told that the Steele dossier was unreliable and contradicted.
I disagree with the use of the charge of treason being thrown around with this release. Based on this evidence, it would be hard to make a criminal case against Obama, let alone the specific charge of treason. However, there are good-faith allegations raised about prior congressional testimony of key players in the Obama Administration. There may be viable criminal allegations ranging from perjury to obstruction to making false statements to federal investigators.
It is too early to gauge the basis for possible criminal charges. However, the release of this new evidence is both historically and legally significant. There is now a legitimate concern over a conspiracy to create this false narrative to undermine the incoming Administration. It proved successful in derailing the first Trump Administration. By the time the allegations were debunked, much of the first term had been exhausted. That is worthy of investigation and the public has a right to expect transparency on these long withheld documents.
The silence of the legacy media is hardly surprising, given the key role the media played in spreading these false claims. Most media outlets find themselves in an uncomfortable position, having fostered an alleged conspiracy for years. Most reporters are not keen on making a case against themselves in spreading of these false claims.
The following is an AI statement generated by Google AI:
(Google) ‘Slogan: Question Government’
A good slogan to express the idea of “Question Government” could be “Hold Power Accountable”. This slogan is concise, impactful, and directly relates to the concept of scrutinizing and challenging governmental actions. It emphasizes the importance of citizens playing an active role in overseeing those in power.
• “Demand Transparency”:
This focuses on the need for open and accessible government information.
• “Question Authority”:
A more direct and assertive option, suggesting a critical stance towards governmental decisions.
• “Empower Citizens, Question Government”:
This combines the idea of citizen empowerment with the need to question the government.
• “Governments are not Gods”:
This slogan is more provocative and challenges the perception of government as infallible.
General AI Disclaimer:
• “This article was created with assistance from AI. While we strive for accuracy, we encourage readers to verify important information independently.”
Simply ask yourself: Is this Propaganda or Not? (Governmental or Otherwise)
If People are to lazy to ‘question it’, then they deserve what they get, whether they can change it/things or not.
There is no blind-trust in this era of A.I. News and DeepFake Videos.
‘• “Question Authority”’
Ha! I have a political satire T-shirt that reads “Don’t question authority – They don’t know, either”…
YES! I got my Tee Shirt at Ropa USADA
Pregunta al Gobierno!
Gracias, señor Biden.
On the Border, Buying Clothes by the Pound at Ropa Usada Shops
Like thrift shops on steroids, giant used-clothing stores are part of the culture and economic life along the border with Mexico.
https://www.nytimes.com/2022/04/10/us/ropa-usada-border-shops.html
I respectfully disagree. To rapidly diffuse high-skill propaganda coming from inside our own govt., We The People need Public Frauds lawsuits, which give us the essential tools of fast-response subpoena of documents and emails, and compelled depositions. Not even the best investigative reporters have these tools to uncover government-fabricated lies in realtime.
We have a democracy. We have the power to demand Public Frauds legislation. Before that, we somehow need to understand that leaving the law the way it is — which allows those in govt. waging infowarfare to dupe the public — will continue the status quo. Bush (W) did it (WMDs & Al Qaeda). Obama did it (Russian collusion). Biden did it (Hunter’s laptop). And Trump does it (stolen 2020 election, Epstein file shows nothing new).
Wake up. The propaganda campaigns will end when The People have the legal power to challenge them instantly when pushed out. Public Frauds lawsuits equipped with lightning-fast due process is the tool that will work.
If we had Public Frauds lawsuits, the falsified intel conclusion leaked to the press by Brennan could have been sued within hours, and the documents proving its falsehood legally obtained within days (rather than 9 years later!). Think about the effect of that as a deterrent.
From CNN:
“Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard on Friday released a slew of documents that she said implicate members of the Obama administration for “treasonous” behavior during the 2016 election.
The claims confuse the allegation that Russia interfered in the 2016 election with the idea that Russia actively tried to change results by hacking into voting systems. CNN’s Jeremy Herb and Katie Bo Lillis went through them and talked to people who worked on a bipartisan Senate review of the 2016 election.
“Wildly misleading” is how the information was described by one source in their report.
But that didn’t stop President Donald Trump from accusing former President Barack Obama of treason, a crime punishable by death in the US, when he was asked about it in the Oval Office on Tuesday. Trump made the accusation while appearing at an event to discuss trade with Philippines leader Ferdinand Marcos Jr.
Trump’s very long, meandering answer is a window into how his mind works. All roads lead back to immigration and his 2020 election loss.
Obama’s office issued a rare statement in response:
“Out of respect for the office of the presidency, our office does not normally dignify the constant nonsense and misinformation flowing out of this White House with a response. But these claims are outrageous enough to merit one,” said spokesman Patrick Rodenbush. “These bizarre allegations are ridiculous and a weak attempt at distraction. Nothing in the document issued last week undercuts the widely accepted conclusion that Russia worked to influence the 2016 presidential election but did not successfully manipulate any votes. These findings were affirmed in a 2020 report by the bipartisan Senate Intelligence Committee, led by then-Chairman Marco Rubio.”
Here’s a look at what Trump said, along with some context from CNN reporting.
(From CNN’s report: The new allegations from Gabbard lean on assessments before the election and statements from Obama-era intelligence officials finding that Russia did not alter the election results through cyber-attacks aimed at infiltrating voting systems. But the January 2017 intelligence community assessment never concluded that Russian cyberattacks altered the outcome of the 2016 election or compromised any election infrastructure in the first place, though state voting systems were probed.
Instead, the assessment focused on Russia’s influence campaign ordered by President Vladimir Putin and cyber operations against US and Democratic Party officials, including the hacked emails released by WikiLeaks.)
(Treason, the crime of trying to overthrow the government, could be punishable by death in the US. Even when the Department of Justice during the Biden administration accused Trump of election interference for trying to upend the 2020 election, it did not accuse him of treason.)
(We anticipate seeing them, although previously promised document dumps have failed to live up to expectations.)
(The Steele dossier has been discredited, but the larger conclusion of the US intelligence community that Russia tried to meddle in the US election has stood. So has the Mueller report’s conclusion that there were interactions between Trump’s campaign and Russians during the 2016 campaign. Mueller’s report did not conclude that Trump’s campaign colluded with Russians or that Trump committed a crime. It also did not exonerate him.)
(At the time, few organizations published the full Steele dossier in large part because it could not be corroborated, unlike Russia’s election meddling, which was documented by US intelligence agencies.)
(Related: Read CNN’s 2021 report, The Steel Dossier: A reckoning)
(There’s still no evidence the 2020 election was rigged. There’s plenty of evidence that Trump tried to subvert the results. The inflation problem is not necessarily solved, especially if Trump’s tariffs go into effect.)
(Trump frequently tries to claim a large portion of undocumented immigrants are murderers. There’s no evidence for that. Read one of CNN’s Fact Checks of Trump’s claims about undocumented immigrants).
(Trump did win in 2024. It was far from a landslide.)
For more CNN news and newsletters create an account at CNN.com”
gigi the claimed lawyer, please learn how to cite lifted material.
Hahaha hahaha News from CNN with Rachel Madcow Joy Reid reporting…. Stop it, you’re killing me Smalls.
Maybe the media Jonathan discussed in this post is trying to avoid putting their foot in their mouth, AGAIN!
How (!ON EARTH!) can you, or anyone, claim it is “foot-in-mouth,” when it’s always been hand-on-wheel!!!
How far will the DNI’s referral to the DOJ go? Who knows. The Dems are never, ever held accountable for their deceit and conspiracies. When caught with credible evidence, the attitude is almost a defiant “So, what?”. And of course, they have the legacy media in their pocket to remain silent– “nothing to see here”.
The legacy media also furthered the hoax that Biden was fit for the presidency–until they simply couldn’t perpetrate that fraud any more after the disastrous evidence before the public’s eyes during the infamous debate. Yes, we have the ultimate court of justice–elections. Yes, the Dems are suffering now under the weight of their deceit–and they most certainly deserve the public’s disgust and revulsion.
So, will anything happen as a result of the DNI’s referral to the DOJ? Maybe. Maybe not. But, the People’s Court (elections) is now wise to the Dem party’s deceitful ways. The Dems deserve the dog house they’re in now. And, so does the legacy media. Does anyone believe them anymore?
The bigger question to ask is why the Dem party thinks it’s necessary to perpetuate all of these conniving conspiracies? Deceitfully smearing the Republicans is the only way to create the wedge to win. The people are on to them. The Dems’ reputation is severely tarnished. And they DESERVE every bit of it.
The People’s Court (elections) had a great way of correcting what the legal system fails to do for the people.
A big problem not being talked about is that intelligence is vitally important but it’s rarely 100% accurate. In other words even the most honest intel analysts are making calculated-guesses.
Those calculated-guesses can form a false-foundation. Everything built on top of it can be wrong or misleading.
Even if everyone in this system were honest, this is not a totally accurate system. Such a system also makes it easy for bad guys to manipulate – since they rarely confront their targets.
One possible solution (out of many) is placing federal IGs (government watchdogs) under the Legislative or Judicial Branches. Without firing anyone, simply change the chain of command – removing them from the Executive Branch altogether.
IGs primarily provide a judicial review and legal function. IGs have no executive function at all. Give the IGs a pay raise and place them under one or both of the other branches (similar to CBO agency).
“Such a system also makes it easy for bad guys to manipulate – since they rarely confront their targets. ”
Unfortunately, when lower echelon on-ground agents and assets are in short supply (little or no redundancy inhibiting or preventing verification) such a system can be easily manipulated from either end…
Not much said about what might be done as a deterrent to prevent future abuses.
I agree. A supposed Constitutional lawyer cannot suggest an effective way to deter the “mickeying” of intelligence reports, and then leaking those fraudulent reports to the public?
Lawfare is not going to work, since the next Democratic administration will issue pardons, and launch into their version of lawfare. You have to stand back from a partisan perspective to solve this problem. I would expect an academic like Turley to be capable of doing so. Disappointed so far.
I can’t blame legacy media for their disinterest in this story. They, like anyone with access to non-legacy media sources, already know the story. All of the standard who, where, when, what, how and why’s are available for easy consumption.
The story now is about real accountability that punishes anyone in on the conspiracy, including legacy media. Not should Obama not be able to hide with immunity, legacy media should not be able to hide under the 1st amendment. And get everyone in between. This needs to be as painful for them as the harm they caused and then x 10.
This should never happen again.
Totally agree “this should never happen again”. But you’re going to have to come up with something better than lawfare prosecution to deter it, because the next administration will just pardon the accused, and launch into retribution lawfare.
You’re right that the solution must be compatible with the 1st Amendment.
Defamation is illegal — a defined exception to free speech — where public falsehood is knowingly waged to castigate or harm a person or entity. Why not broaden this to cover Public Frauds?…where the public falsehood is waged for political advantage (but doesn’t attack a person)?
Civil lawsuit, not prosecution, changes the tenor of the conflict, taking imprisonment off the table for the wrongdoers. A jury of 12 Americans gets to sort out fact from fiction, rather than a prosecutor appointed by the administration. That places a check on political lawfare in such cases.
Let’s debate and refine the idea of rapid Public Frauds torts as the way to deter duping the public. At least then, the solution doesn’t erode the 1st Amendment. It merely clarifies that it doesn’t cover crafty political whoppers.
OLLY
May I respectfully suggest the new and improved Oboboflex neck stretching workout equipment? This age old perpetual exercise repackaged to a modern revision will guarantee a slimmer, more toned and efficient government body after each use. Guaranteed to provide less corruption to the body while removing fat and unsightly and annoying cancerous growths.
The only thing that will benefit us, our children and grandchildren is to focus on future reforms.
Most officials, in both parties, following past illegal precedent, have supported illegal and unconstitutional conduct.
Rule of Thumb: the powers-that-be aren’t going to indict and prosecute themselves. It’s not fair, but the only way for regular Americans to win is focusing on future reforms. Focusing on past wrongdoing, we could debate going back to George Washington.
The open secret is, those same officials like citizens divided and fighting each other. Those officials don’t want future reforms, they want business as usual. In that game regular Americans end up the biggest losers!
This is exactly why I’ve been arguing for Public Frauds lawsuits as allowable by the 1st Amendment, to bring deceitful infowarriors to heel rapidly in response to pushing out their falsehood on the public. It is especially needed when it is elected officials (or candidates for office) who set out to dupe the public. And all the support this idea has received is one comment “should be considered”. Rather, it’s been lambasted with personal attacks trying to discredit me.
I know this. The thing that won’t work is prosecution (political lawfare), which is what Pam Bondi wants to do. Why? Because, it’s going to be hard to find an actual federal law that the Obama inner-circle broke, and they will claim their 1st Amendment rights as a defense. The most Bondi will achieve is some demonization in the Court of Public Opinion,
and a reciprocal valorization of Obama as “protecting democracy”.
As it stands now, only if your whopper DEFAMES someone, is it illegal. Duping the public for political advantage where there is no defamation — currently legal. And we can expect it to continue as a standard practice in politics until we pass Public Frauds legislation.
The big picture problem is that the USA advertises to its people that we have a “constitutional democratic republic” – those are rules of the road advertised to Americans.
That’s where voters (democratic) communicate with the people’s “representatives” (republic) in Congress, state legislatures and local town councils. The legislatures then must “represent” the voters within constitutional out-of-bounds (constitutional boundaries).
In other words, voters couldn’t overturn women’s voting rights nor overturn gun rights without a constitutional amendment process – even if most voters in any voting district wanted to do it.
Maybe a (very minimal) “shadow government” is necessary in order to reach the end goal of a “constitutional democratic republic” -or- maybe not?
If a shadow government were necessary it would be moving closer to a “constitutional rule of law” system. This system primarily was designed by the Founding Fathers to “restrain” unconstitutional governing authority. Designed to primarily restrain government authority.
If a shadow government were moving closer to that legitimate goal, government agencies would have obtained roughly 1 million probable cause judicial-warrants over the past 20 years. In 2022 alone, a federal court declared the FBI misused intelligence databases in over 278,000 times in a single year. Searches that require judicial search warrants under the 4th Amendment. That’s one agency in only one year. Both parties are nearly silent.
Such a shadow government would have updated the “Third Party Doctrine” rules on bypassing 4th Amendment law. The 21st Century the opposite has happened. Even federal agencies simply ignore 4th Amendment law or subvert the constitutional rule of law by simply buying our personal data using our own tax money to evade 4th Amendment law.
Both parties do it. Trump’s apparent appeal is not his ethics, morals or competence. Trump is simply exposing that there are two separate set of rules. The elites (like Trump) are never held accountable, only the little people have to follow laws!
That hypocrisy was apparently part of his appeal. Now MAGA voters realize Trump was on the elite side of the system, not really protecting us little people.
The good news: there is a gargantuan opportunity for any candidates, of either party, to totally abolish or reform this (non-legitimate) shadow government that has been the enemy of a real “constitutional democratic republic”.
That’s why every official from the local cop to the FBI to the CIA to the military, swears supreme loyalty in their job authority to uphold the U.S. Constitution (oath of office).
Ratified in 1789 in Articles VI of the U.S. Constitution, predating the Bill of Rights. For original intent supporters like Alito, the Founding Fathers clearly wanted governing officials to have supreme loyalty to the U.S. Constitution [a wartime governing charter].
“two separate set of rules”
Any solution to this dichotomy is going to have some negatives (at least theoretical) compared to the ideals of our Constitutional republic. Your proposal risks that shadow government becoming the de facto only ruling power, without any accountability, even in theory. I don’t like it. I would much prefer revising the doctrine of qualified immunity so that any official (elected or otherwise) who can be shown to have deliberately violated his or her oath of office can be held fully criminally and civilly liable for that violation, and all consequences thereof. The most serious consequence I see to that change would be that people would be less willing to seek office. Since the size, scope, and power of our government seems to be a major part of the problem (and gives the officials inclined to dishonesty and self-aggrandizement a great deal more power to abuse than was envisioned by the Founders), I’m inclined to answer that objection with “define problem”…
Everyone seems to forget in 2012 the Ron Paul campaign was charged by the Obama administration with felonies for filing their FEC reports with the purpose line for $73,000 deceptive. This was the first and only time the DOJ had ever charged anyone with felonies for the purpose line. The next presidential election the Clinton campaign did the exactly same thing for over $1 million – the fake Russian dossier. They got a slap on the hand and a fine. No felony no jail time.
If you are a republican then throw the book at them but if you are a democrat then overlook it.
Clearly justice is not equal.
Just get rid of the FEC and unconstitutional federal election law.
” This was the first and only time the DOJ had ever charged anyone with felonies for the purpose line.”
I think it is worth a reminder here that, while Ron Paul may be a registered Republican, he is essentially a libertarian who has always been intractably opposed to massive, unconstitutional Federal government and the Deep State (which he was battling long before it acquired that moniker). As such, his “fellow” Republicans of the RINO and/or Deep State persuasion have never seen any upside in defending him or his campaign organization against any partisan legal action from Democrats, no matter how aberrant or frivolous.
Nothing Obama and his cabal have done rises to the level of treason, which is specifically defined in the US
Nor is there sedition or seditious conspiracy which requires force. But there. Is this:
The United States has a crime called conspiracy. It is defined under federal law in 18 U.S.C. § 371, which states that it is illegal for two or more persons to conspire to commit any offense against the United States or to defraud the United States, with at least one overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy.
I ain’t a lawyer but I am a citizen of the United States and I feel defrauded.
Conspiracy has a statute of limitations of five years but the clock doesn’t start ticking on that until the final act of the conspiracy has occured. I happen to believe it is still going on…
Maybe hang some perjury on the ongoing conspiracy. You might hang conspiracy on Schiff and even, thinking outside the box, maybe someone like Maddow or Oprah. Free speech only goes so far. John Wilkes Booth was an actor…
How refreshing to see a thoughtful legal analysis in this comments section. That’s what Res Ipsa Loquitur was when Jonathan started in.
“Defrauding the United States” has been narrowly construed as defrauding the govt. What we need is Tort Law that makes it actionable to dupe the United States population. Public Frauds lawsuits are the way to deter things like Obama is thought to have done. And these lawsuits must have high-speed due diligence (rapid subpoenas and depositions), so that the infowarriors cannot use legal delay as a tactic to keep their falsehood going.
There is a much greater likelihood of success using 18 USC. Sec. 1001. IF the reporting is accurate, the documents released by Gabbard make a prima facie case under Sec. 1001. The really interesting part is that jurisdiction could probably be laid in Florida, instead of Wash. DC, based on the phony allegations make in the Mar A Lago subpoena.
“I am a citizen of the United States and I feel defrauded.”
Just for the sake of argument… Wasn’t the main thrust of this conspiracy to deny Trump the Presidency in 2016? Wouldn’t that potentially make it considerably more difficult to substantiate your sense of being defrauded (assuming your objective was to see Trump win, which he did)? I guess you could also argue that the fraud was in Obama & co impairing Trump’s ability to govern during his first term, but in my own ianal opinion, it would pretty difficult to isolate the influence of the Russiagate hoax from other factors not directly involved in that effort withn that impairment. It’s a nice try, but I don’t think it quite covers the distance needed.
I have not been following this story closely – WHY ?b
Because the only thing NEW in it, is that more people area paying attention.
There were credible stories about Obama’s involvement in 2017.
Again the only thing NEW here is that more people are paying attention.
That does not mean these actions were not immoral, and unethical and likely illegal.
IMHO the legal definition of high treason is met, the conspiracy and collusion to overthrow a duly elected president and his Party. This conspiracy was to prevent and interfere with Trump, the duly elected president and his new government from being able to perform their governmental duties as a Commander and Chief and Congress of the United States. It was aimed at destroying his ability to enact the conservative agenda that a majority of Americans voted for. It doesn’t get any more clear than that. Convicting these criminals would be a great step forward in saving America, no one is above the law after all?!
It won’t stop the Democrats from doing the same thing (political prosecution) when they get back in power.
Is that what you want? Start thinking more long term. Think systems, not getting back at antagonists.
BIG difference between Russia affecting the election and DEMS accusing Trump working with Putin to affect election!
Yes, the latter happened, the former did not.
Treason charges would be an overreaction, but the allegations are troubling and do not reflect well on President Obama. Of course, the mainstream media will give the entire matter a good leaving alone. It does not fit with the hagiography they have constructed about President Obama and his administration.
Pinky
Treason charges would be an overreaction?
Obama and his coconspirators actively subverted a duly elected President from effectively functioning while serving in office. They fabricated evidence to justify spying on their political opponents campaign. Treason is warranted as it is a conspiracy to overthrow an elected president and is diametrically opposite of how our Constitutional Republic works.
There is little doubt the conduct was heinous.
No president has EVER done anything close to this before.
It is possible the conduct was criminal.
It is near certain the coverup was criminal.
But Treason is defined in the constitution and this is not treason.
No one at J6 committed Treason.
Nor was there an insurection.
While the font of bad conduct is near exclusively on the left, and generally whatever the left is accusing others of – it is doing.
BOTH parties/sides are CONSTANTLY exagerating claims about the other.
No one has committed treason.
Obstruction of justice – almost certainly.
Perjury – certainly.
Treason NO!
If we are going to prosecute people, lets stick to the crimes the committed.
Further, the only time treason has been prosecuted in US history, to my knowledge, is during wartime. Not even when the Rosenbergs gave atomic secrets to the Russians during the Cold War.
Crock of shit.
Sedition subversion and treason go hand in hand. When you successfully conspire to sabotage a duly elected Presidency from performing their administrative agenda through weaponization of power, it is Treason. Going to enjoy this immensely!
Gabbard’s documents show a conspiracy but she has focused on the wrong things.
From the beginning to the end one assessment remained unchanged: Russia could not and did not hack “election infrastructure” to change votes.
Two things changed radically, however, between the first ICA in September and the second in January:
1. The FBI and NSA increased substantially their level of certainty that Russia hacked and leaked the DNC and Podesta emails through DCLeaks, Guciffer 2.0 and Wikileaks; and
2. The ICA asserted with high confidence that (a) Putin himself led the election interference and (b) aspired to elect Trump (NSA said it had only medium confidence on (b)).
As late as December 8, the FBI dissented from the attribution to Russia in 1. Nothing until the January ICA suggested any high degree of certainty regarding 2(a) and nothing at all appeared before then regarding 2(b).
The reason for these changes appears to have been the intervention of Obama on December 6 of thereabouts, and the implementation of his desires by Clapper, Brennan and Comey.
Ratcliffe’s review of the ICA explains how the judgment of the CIA professionals on 2(b) was overridden by Brennan, who insisted along with Comey on the inclusion of the Steele Dossier as an annex to reach that conclusion.
So Gabbard is right in terms of the big picture, but she focuses on the wrong things with respect to the details and that allows some to challenge the big picture.
Aaron Mate has a good essay on this in RealClear Politics
To Clarify – the evidence that Russia had anything to do with the DNC hack is incredibly thin.
Crowdstrike – which publicly said “it was Russia” – Refused to make the sae claim under oath to the Senate.
VPS has built an excellent case that the emails were transfered via a USB stick – not over the internet.
Crowdstrike did provide extensive evidence that someone – possibly two somone’s hacked the DNC for almost a year.
But there is no evidence that the emails were xfiltrated as a result of either hack.
And the claim that this was Gucifer 2 is bunk.
The tools used to hack the DNC were russian hacking tools – but everyone has everyone else’s hacking tools and many many hacks are done using Russian tools that have nothing to do with Russia.
Today it is virtually impossible to know who is responsible for a hack.
Even a confession could STILL be a false flag.
Any hacker can make it look like someone else did it. Even mistakes that reveal who “did it” – could be deliberate efforts to frame someone else.
A Good example is the Stuxnet hack of Iran. I beleive it was Snowden that established that it was the NSA that created Stuxnet – but they deliberately made it look like Israel did it, and Israel played along.
Exactly right. Thanks for the added detail. Until December 9, that was the view of the FBI as well. On December 8 they dissented from the judgment and withdrew their support for the conclusion. No new evidence led to the change from low to high confidence.
OT, but this seems wrong. Why is a man, who wants to be a woman, called a “transgender woman”? Shouldn’t it be a “transgender man”?
U.S. Olympic & Paralympic Committee will comply with Trump’s ban on transgender women in women’s sports
https://www.nbcnews.com/sports/olympics/us-olympic-paralympic-committee-will-comply-trumps-ban-transgender-wom-rcna220369
Think of it this way: a man who dresses up as a woman is a cross-dressing man, right? Not a cross-dressing woman. “Trans” just means “cross,” so its the same thing (cross-dressing = transvestite). So it makes no sense to say a man who tries to “cross over” to being a woman is a transgender woman. It only confuses everything. But the absurd lamestream media continue to do so because they don’t want to admit that he’s actually a man. They think that if the blow smoke and call him a “transgender woman” people will suddenly agree that you can be whatever sex you want to be, which is psychotic.
Trans refers to a state or process of divergence. Gender refers to sex-correlated attributes (e.g. sexual orientation). The class of the Rainbow, an albinophobic progression in human context, that includes physical corruption is simulants.
Dead 𝚖̷𝚎̷𝚗̷ media tell no tales.
Jesus…you have to be a moron devoid of any cognitive critical thinking capabilities to just now be able to figure this out. Obama has been a fraud day one, he is responsible for all turmoil, division and unrest that we have seen since 2008. He wracked up more debt than all Presidents combined before him. Hillary Clinton and Philip Berg know the truth about Obama’s place of birth, his legitimacy as a candidate and were the originators of the birther movement, both Democrats. Arrest him and his co conspirators ASAP.
Or as I like to call him, the great divider in chief…..
Bitter clingers
Basket of deplorables
Semi-fascists
Bull Connor
Garbage
Need to be sent to reeducation camps
^ These are how Obama, Hillary, and Biden refer to American citizens who don’t vote for them. Divisive, not uniting. Trump uses names to insults politicians, but not the voters. Even before Trump entered politics, the “man on the street” in NYC had an emotional connection with him that eluded virtually all other billionaires.
MAGA’s just don’t want to let a sleeping do lay. The documents relating to Russia’s involvement in the 2016 election would be highly damaging to Trump. The best thing Trump can do is keep those boxes in storage.
“MAGA’s just don’t want to let a sleeping do lay.”
What’s a MAGA “just”? Do they not teach basic English grammar in Beijing anymore?
“The documents relating to Russia’s involvement in the 2016 election would be highly damaging to Trump.”
Oh look, we found a true believer! There was no Russian collusion. That’s the whole point of this article, the entire lie was dreamed up by Clinton to explain her loss, then promoted by Obama and Biden to hamstring the incoming administration.
Brennan detailed it as HRC’s distraction from her illegal server and her mishandling of classified documents. That is how CIA director briefed Obama on it, more to come. I pray they are all held accountable.
DO LAY??? ha ha ha
It sounds better with a heavy Mandarin accent.
ATS – myriads of people have looked for damaging evidence of Russian election interferance over the past 10 years.
Ultimately every claim has been falsified.
But wise people knew that in 2016.
Putin may be evil – but he is not stupid. There is absolutely no way in the world he would want Trump to be elected.
The possibility that Trump would do 10% of what he promised would be way too damaging.
Putin managed Hillary for years. He could live with her – further her leftist garbage served Russian interests if she actually did any of what she promised.
In 2016 Trump was a wild card, and the best Putin could hope for is that he would ONLY be as bad for Russia as Clinton, and that was unlikely.
Correction: Magats just don’t want to let a sleeping dog lie.
Yup.
Oh I see that your supervisor had to step in to clean up your translation mess. Hope you can do better next time! How’s the smog in Beijing today?
LOL! Anything highly damaging to Trump was already released and found to be fake. You would have to be pretty stupid to think Obama and Biden administrations held back anything to protect President Trump.