Compelling article to enlighten on Russia buggaboo and Rice-gate
Fred Fleitz, a defense intelligence expert writes at The Federalist;
The truth is that all 17 U.S. intelligence agencies did not conclude that Russia tried to interfere in the election or help Trump win. Not even close. (excerpts)
Why did other U.S. intelligence agencies with major equities in this issue not participate in the January 6 assessment? Why were the Office of the Director of National Intelligence and the Department of Homeland Security part of the October assessment but not the January one? Where were the Defense Intelligence Agency, the State Department’s Bureau of Intelligence and Research, and the military intelligence agencies?
The January assessment also was very unusual because it was such a conclusive analysis of a very controversial subject with no dissenting views. Based my CIA experience, this is unprecedented and makes me wonder whether intelligence agencies that may have dissented were deliberately excluded.
There also is the question as to whether this assessment was written to conform to a predetermined conclusion by the Obama White House to undermine the Trump administration. The U.S. intelligence community has played political games like this before with interagency assessments to promote political agendas. One of the most notorious examples of this was the controversial 2007 National Intelligence Estimate on Iran’s nuclear program that was intended to undermine President Bush’s Iran policy.
There Are Indications Intelligence Has Been Politicized
CIA Director John Brennan’s role in approving this assessment raises serious questions about whether it was manipulated for political reasons. Brennan has been heavily criticized for politicizing intelligence for the Obama administration. This includes the role he played in the 2012 CIA talking points on the Benghazi terrorist attacks. He also has been openly and extremely hostile toward Trump before and after the election.
Given FBI Director James Comey’s statements at a recent House Intelligence Committee hearing that the conclusion in the January 6 assessment that Russia intervened in the election to help Trump was based on logic and not evidence, it is hard to believe this was not a pre-cooked conclusion driven by the highly partisan Brennan.
I strongly believe that if there were any evidence that Russia intervened in the election to help Trump win, or that Russia and the Trump campaign collaborated to affect the outcome of the election, this intelligence would have been leaked by Obama holdovers in government and the so-called “Deep State” to The New York Times long ago. The fact that Comey could not point to such evidence and this information has not been leaked suggests there is no such evidence because this didn’t happen.
The current congressional investigations of possible Russian interference in the election and the Obama administration’s misuse of U.S. intelligence collection to surveil the Trump campaign must also include whether intelligence analysis was politicized to damage Trump’s candidacy and presidency. These investigations must look at how the above analyses were drafted, who drafted them, and why some agencies did not participate. The committees also need to uncover any evidence of the White House trying to influence the outcome of these assessments or excluding certain agencies from participating.
It is time to call out Democrats and reporters who portray the idea that Russia intervened in the election to help Trump win as established truth because it is the unanimous assessment of all 17 U.S. intelligence agencies. I expect the congressional investigations will conclude this claim is false and actually represented a deliberate effort to manipulate intelligence analysis to undermine the Trump presidency.
As we have pointed out, that Russia propagandizes for purposes of influencing opinion around the world is not new or shocking. The liberal press treatment of Russia in all this is strange, no it is typical hypocrisy and duplicity because they lap up Russian propaganda when they think it is helpful to their critiques of whoever or whatever. But can anyone with a straight face maintain that we do not inject stories into foreign press outlets, some perhaps mischievous even when truthful?
So the thing is, so what if you accept Russian involvement in leaked information about the DNC (we believe Wikileak’s founder Julian Asange’s statement that the information did not come from Russians). We believe revelations about the Democrat Party and Clinton campaign came from a disgruntled Democrat insider, a burned Bernie supporter. But truly WHAT DIFFERENCE DOES IT MAKE! (apologies to Hillary) if the truth is revealed? Can’t the American public handle the truth, previously denied/hidden (sorry about the clichés).
The more important issue is truth. Given that there are no effective denials and there is corroborating evidence about the veracity of what was revealed, so what if Russians revealed it. The Russia boogeyman story is a diversion used by liberal media to covering their own complicity with corrupt Obama/ Clinton politics.
And as for the accusation that “Russians” selectively leaked information in order to help Trump . . . their MO would be expected to get dirt on everyone. Didn’t the FBI report that hacks were attempted on Republican communications, but that they were thwarted ( a higher level of competence in such matters) and that Republicans cooperated with the FBI in its investigation, but for some reason that the Democrat Party did not (content to make accusations and not have the leaked information verified)! The strategic reasons for Russia not to want a Trump over Hillary are many and have been proved to date.
Funny, all the concern about Russia leaking surreptitiously obtained information, but none from the liberal media about US agencies and high-ranking Obama Administration officials obtaining and leaking information about American citizens for political purposes.