Reply
Honored Social Butterfly

Intel Report Can’t Hide FBI Spies And Lies

Even The Manipulated Senate Intel Report Can’t Hide FBI Spies And Lies

A close reading of the report—or at least those portions of the report that could be read—cements the reality that the FBI intentionally snowed the FISA court to spy on Donald Trump.

 

BY:  Margot Cleveland

 

On April 21, the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence released a report on its review of the Intelligence Community Assessment (ICA) drafted for President Barack Obama on Russia’s interference in the 2016 election.

 

Corporate media immediately touted the Republican-controlled committee’s finding that “the ICA presents a coherent and well-constructed intelligence basis for the case of unprecedented Russian interference in the 2016 U.S. presidential election,” including by hacking Democratic National Committee emails, as vindication of the intelligence communities’ handling of all things Russia. But a close reading of the report—or at least those portions of the report that could be read—instead cements the reality that the FBI intentionally snowed the FISA court to spy on Donald Trump.

 

After Trump’s surprise election, then-President Obama directed “CIA Director John Brennan to conduct a review of all intelligence relating to Russian involvement in the 2016 election and produce a single comprehensive assessment.” With Brennan at the helm, the Central Intelligence Agency, National Security Agency, and FBI compiled a report for Obama, which the FBI insisted include the now-discredited Christopher Steele dossier.

 

Other intelligence leaders objected, and as the committee report explained, the disagreement “was ultimately resolved by including the information as Annex A, a two-page summary attached only to the most classified version of the ICA.” The report explained the NSA was not involved in the discussion or the decision to include the Steele dossier in the annex, but then-FBI Director James Comey insisted that Steele’s “intel” be included, although he “was agnostic as to whether it was footnoted in the document itself, put as an annex.”

 

Significantly, in tracing this history of the decision to include the Steele dossier in the intel report, the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence noted that “the FBI didn’t want to stand behind” Steele’s reporting.

 

But the FBI did stand behind Steele reporting to federal Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) court judges four times: once months earlier, and then mere weeks after the FBI opted to only summarize the dossier in the annex to the ICA report because the agents didn’t “want to stand behind” the reporting. As Inspect General Michael Horowitz found, and as the recent additional declassifications of the FISA applications prove, the Steele dossier was indispensable to the FISA surveillance applications. Yet “the FBI didn’t want to stand behind” it!

 

Nonetheless, and without a hint of self-reflection, Comey has pointed to yesterday’s Senate report as exoneration. Those who investigated Russian interference in the 2016 election “were professionals,” Comey tweeted.

 

That “the FBI didn’t want to stand behind” the Steele dossier raises the question of why then did the FBI insist on including the details in the report, albeit in the annex? Here, it is helpful to remember that the intelligence community briefed then-president Obama on the report on January 5, 2017 and President-elect Trump on the next day—the same day an unclassified version of the ICA was publicly released.

 

Less than a week later, on January 12, 2017, “Evan Perez, Jim Sciutto, Jake Tapper, and Carl Bernstein of CNN reported . . . that President-elect Trump was briefed on classified information indicating that the Russians have compromising personal or financial information that the Russians could use against President-elect Trump.” Former Director of National Intelligence James Clapper later admitted “that he confirmed the existence of the dossier to the media.” (CNN later hired Clapper as a national security advisor.)

 

So maybe the FBI insisted the Steele dossier be included to provide a media hook to report on the tabloid tales Steele weaved together for the Clinton campaign?

 

Tuesday’s report on the ICA of Russia interference in the 2016 election proves troubling for another reason: There were so many redactions, it is impossible to know what the committee omitted. As we now know from all the unnecessary and damning redactions since declassified in both the IG report and the FISA applications, the hidden details often tell a much different story.

 

Of particular interest is whether buried beneath the redactions was a discussion of Russia’s potential pushing of disinformation to Steele as a means of interfering with the 2016 election. We know from the declassified footnotes that the FBI received several different tips that Russia was feeding disinformation to Steele.

 

Did the ICA assessment of Russian interference include an analysis of Russia potentially feeding the Hillary Clinton campaign disinformation? If not, why not? That would be a very glaring error.

 

Another reason to seek more clarity on the ICA of Russia interference is that Rep. Devin Nunes, R-Calif., has recently been calling out that report as containing either lies, omissions, or both, on Fox News Sunday and last night on Lou Dobbs. It’s one of three dossiers, Nunes explained, with the Steele dossier and the Robert Mueller report being the other two.

 

Given that Nunes nailed the case of FISA abuse long before the IG issued a report confirming Nunes’s analysis, Nunes’s attacks on the ICA report deserve credence—and the report deserves declassification.

 

 

 

 

 

 

VIMTSTL
Honored Social Butterfly

That “the FBI didn’t want to stand behind” the Steele dossier raises the question of why then did the FBI insist on including the details in the report, albeit in the annex? Here, it is helpful to remember that the intelligence community briefed then-president Obama on the report on January 5, 2017 and President-elect Trump on the next day—the same day an unclassified version of the ICA was publicly released.

 

Less than a week later, on January 12, 2017, “Evan Perez, Jim Sciutto, Jake Tapper, and Carl Bernstein of CNN reported . . . that President-elect Trump was briefed on classified information indicating that the Russians have compromising personal or financial information that the Russians could use against President-elect Trump.” Former Director of National Intelligence James Clapper later admitted “that he confirmed the existence of the dossier to the media.” (CNN later hired Clapper as a national security advisor.

 

 

 

 

VIMTSTL
0 Kudos
970 Views
0
Report
Honored Social Butterfly

The Trump Propaganda program rolls on every day with one of our forum members. If you want the FACTS, please read the IG Report. 

 

"The decision to open the Crossfire Hurricane investigation was made by the FBI's then Counterintelligence Division (CD) Assistant Director (AD), E.W. "Bill" Priestap, and reflected a consensus reached after multiple days of discussions and meetings among senior FBI officials. We concluded that AD Priestap's exercise of discretion in opening the investigation was in compliance with Department and FBI policies, and we did not find documentary or testimonial evidence that political bias or improper motivation influenced his decision. While the information in the FBI's possession at the time was limited, in light of the low threshold established by Department and FBI predication policy, we found that Crossfire Hurricane was opened for an authorized investigative purpose and with sufficient factual predication." 

 

"We did not find any documentary or testimonial evidence that political bias or improper motivation influenced the FBI's decision to conduct these operations. Additionally, we found no evidence that the FBI attempted to place any CHSs within the Trump campaign, recruit members of the Trump campaign as CHSs, or task CHSs to report on the Trump campaign."

0 Kudos
987 Views
0
Report
Honored Social Butterfly

Significantly, in tracing this history of the decision to include the Steele dossier in the intel report, the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence noted that “the FBI didn’t want to stand behind” Steele’s reporting.

 

But the FBI did stand behind Steele reporting to federal Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) court judges four times: once months earlier, and then mere weeks after the FBI opted to only summarize the dossier in the annex to the ICA report because the agents didn’t “want to stand behind” the reporting. As Inspect General Michael Horowitz found, and as the recent additional declassifications of the FISA applications prove, the Steele dossier was indispensable to the FISA surveillance applications. Yet “the FBI didn’t want to stand behind” it!

 

 

 

VIMTSTL
Silver Conversationalist


@jimc91 wrote:

Significantly, in tracing this history of the decision to include the Steele dossier in the intel report, the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence noted that “the FBI didn’t want to stand behind” Steele’s reporting.

 

 


Except for the existance of the pee tape, EVERYTHING in the Steele Dossier has been PROVEN TO BE TRUE.

 

FBI Agents do not officially "stand behind" ANYTHING the Bureau did not produce - its a long standing policy.

 

But the FBI's OWN INVESTIGATIONS, which were used in the FISA requests, proved the tRump-Russia connection, facts confirmed in numerous testamonies given during the Impeachment hearings. The FBI proved many things with their investigations: Page was a Russian agent. tRump owes Russians billions. The Russian Government actively supported tRump in the 2016 election.  tRump and his associates lied to investigators.

 

The slender reed GOPerBots are grasping is the semantic distinction between "THE STEELE DOSSIER" and "WHAT WAS STATED IN THE STEELE DOSSIER".

 

GOPerLords are desperate to get their lofo base to believe not officially endorsing somebody else's investigation somehow means the Truth revealed by their OWN investigation must be false because the same conclusions  appear in the  THE OTHER (Steele Dossier) report which they, as a matter of policy, will not officially endorse.

 

David Nunes worked with Lev Parnas and received money from Russians for his service in spreading lies about Ukraine, and Nunes fed the lies concocted by the deposed Ukrainian special prosecutor (the one Biden demanded be fired for corruption) against the Bidens, lies prepared at the request of Rudy Giuliani at the direction of tRump.

 

 

0 Kudos
986 Views
0
Report
Honored Social Butterfly

Looks like this is going to be a repeat of Trump asserting he actually won the popular vote.   Blah, Blah, Blah, Blah.  As long as the regressives in the Senate won't convict him, we shall have to settle for a simple impeachment. 

 

I can't talk right now. I have to go out to get my bleach shot at the pharmacy. 

Honored Social Butterfly


@Richva wrote:

Looks like this is going to be a repeat of Trump asserting he actually won the popular vote.   Blah, Blah, Blah, Blah.  As long as the regressives in the Senate won't convict him, we shall have to settle for a simple impeachment. 

 

I can't talk right now. I have to go out to get my bleach shot at the pharmacy. 


Can you get that shot in all 57 states?


Libs are nuttier than squirrel poop
Silver Conversationalist


@Fishslayer777 wrote:

@Richva wrote:

Looks like this is going to be a repeat of Trump asserting he actually won the popular vote.   Blah, Blah, Blah, Blah.  As long as the regressives in the Senate won't convict him, we shall have to settle for a simple impeachment. 

 

I can't talk right now. I have to go out to get my bleach shot at the pharmacy. 


Can you get that shot in all 57 states?


Nope - only in the Red ones. Do you also contend FDR was speaking what he believed was FACTUAL when he told the Press the April 18, 1942 air attack on Tokyo was launched from "our new base in Shangri La"?

0 Kudos
980 Views
1
Report
Honored Social Butterfly


@Khasahndra wrote:

@Fishslayer777 wrote:

@Richva wrote:

Looks like this is going to be a repeat of Trump asserting he actually won the popular vote.   Blah, Blah, Blah, Blah.  As long as the regressives in the Senate won't convict him, we shall have to settle for a simple impeachment. 

 

I can't talk right now. I have to go out to get my bleach shot at the pharmacy. 


Can you get that shot in all 57 states?


Nope - only in the Red ones. Do you also contend FDR was speaking what he believed was FACTUAL when he told the Press the April 18, 1942 air attack on Tokyo was launched from "our new base in Shangri La"?


Changed your screen name? 


Libs are nuttier than squirrel poop
0 Kudos
966 Views
0
Report
cancel
Showing results for 
Show  only  | Search instead for 
Did you mean: 
Users
Announcements

Does AARP donate to political parties or endorse candidates?

AARP is strictly non-partisan and always has been. We never endorse or donate to candidates, political parties or political action committees.

Learn more.

AARP Members Only Games

Play members only games, like FIll Ins, Lumeno, 2048 and a collaborative, multiplayer Let's Crossword.

Play Now
AARP Members Only Games Logos
AARP Rewards

Solve Crosswords. Earn Rewards. Activate AARP Rewards to earn points for games, quizzes and videos. Redeem for deals and discounts.

Get started with AARP Rewards now!
/html/assets/Rewards-program-badge-355x224.png