Here’s the first defensive attempt:
Kyle Cheney
@kyledcheney
·
45m
“I’m still wrapping my head around the idea that DNI just publicly released what it acknowledges in untested 2016 Russian intelligence chatter to raise derogatory questions about Hillary Clinton — which of course was Russia’s goal when it was doing the chattering.”
So Mr. Cheney is claiming that the memo supports the idea that the Russians were going after Hillary, i.e., supporting Trump. I see this as a reasonable attempt at a defense, frankly.
But then Undercover Huber says:
“Okay so the intel that Clinton was trying to smear Trump with the Russian DNC hacking might be “false” or “exaggerated” except
a) Brennan personally briefed Obama on it (why if false?)
b) That smear actually happened. Clinton hired Fusion GPS, who did smear Trump with DNC hacks
Undercover Huber
@JohnWHuber
·
1m
As a bonus, this appears to have been real intelligence information which came in BEFORE the opening of Crossfire Hurricane and no one at the FBI opened a case on Clinton...
...but then a few days later opened Crossfire on Trump based on zero official intelligence!” (End of his reply)
Seems like a reasonable counterargument to me. I would just add that not only was there zero official intel that Trump should be investigated, but there was actually intel that he was being set up by Hillary. And still they did what they did?
Hopefully, there’s a whole lot more to come out before election day. And shouldn’t some WashPost and NYTimes reporters lose their jobs for running with anonymous sources who now appear to have been outright liars? And their bosses as well, for allowing those stories to appear?
Where does Hillary get the power to do these things?
Of course. If Hillary had actually personally asked the FBI to do it "for me", they would have. For them she represents the status quo, and thus the person who will allow them to reap the rewards of all the conniving and maneuvering they've done to get to where they are.