Intel chiefs’ botched Russia findings raise questions of motive

The Washington Times ^ | November 8, 2017 | Dan Boylin

[BurgessKoch]

Fourteen days before President Trump took the oath of office, the Obama administration’s intelligence chiefs made public a unanimous assessment claiming Russian operatives, under orders from President Vladimir Putin, had orchestrated an influence campaign to help Mr. Trump win the presidential contest. It was a watershed moment: the CIA, National Security Agency and FBI challenging the legitimacy of a U.S. presidential victory. The conclusions in the Jan. 6 document were sharp, but the findings unraveled 10 months later, raising questions about the basis for the evidence and the motives of the Obama appointees leading the nation’s intelligence and law enforcement agencies. “It left me scratching my head,” said one intelligence source with personal access to former Director of National Intelligence James R. Clapper and former CIA Director John O. Brennan, two of the men who had signed off on the assessment. The 15-page document presented to the president-elect at Trump Tower in Manhattan was mostly filler — a republication of a years-old CIA analysis of the Kremlin’s global television network Russia Today. A mere five pages were dedicated to charge that Moscow blended cyberhacking with state-backed propaganda and social media trolls to defeat Mr. Trump’s Democratic rival, Hillary Clinton ...

[BurgessKoch]

The money quote: Fred Fleitz, a 19-year CIA veteran who served as a chief of staff for John R. Bolton during the George W. Bush administration, first laid out the argument in a Fox News op-ed the day after the assessment was made public. The entire purpose of the report was apparently “to undermine the legitimacy of Trump’s election,” Mr. Fleitz wrote on Jan. 7. He called the assessment “rigged for political purposes” and lamented that it contained “serious accusations of Russian interference” but “did not back them up with evidence.” Mr. Trump evidently shared that feeling. Hours after the assessment was released, the president-elect’s transition team flatly disputed its major conclusions and, one day later, put out a statement announcing that Mr. Clapper would be replaced as director of national intelligence by former Republican Sen. Daniel Coats.

[LegendHasIt]

Well, I don’t know about you guys, but I have no questions what the motive was.

[stylin19a]

as a refresher, here's the unclassified portion of the report

https://www.dni.gov/files/documents/ICA_2017_01.pdf

I wonder if it's worth it to have the entire report made unclassified.

[BurgessKoch]

Thank you. Helpful to have for reference.

[Telepathic Intruder]

"....and the motives of the Obama appointees...."

I'm sure they were purely altruistic.

[Chgogal]

This country became a Banana Republic under Obama.

[The Raven]

Shouldn't the headline be "Intel chiefs’ botched Russia findings confirm motive"

[Grimmy]

It does not ‘raise a question of motive’. It does point four square and perpendicular flat trajectory to the grotesque levels of outright and overt criminality which is now the norm for our federal “law enforcers”.

The question personnel in that department should be asking each other every damn day is “how much longer will they suffer us to live?”

There ain’t anywhere enough of y’all to survive the rage that’s building against all of you.

[Rashputin]

It became a Banana Republic during the second Clinton term, Obama just didn't hide the evidence of that fact the way Dub did.

[Pontiac]

the Obama administration’s intelligence chiefs knew they would be taking a major risk by exposing the operation in a publicized assessment.

Wouldn’t they be taking a major risk in simply announcing that they were aware of the operation?

But of course if they didn’t announce that they had found evidence of Russian meddling in the presidential election the Democrats couldn’t claim that Trump was colluding with the Russians to win the election.

The Democrats were coming up with bupkis in their opposition research on Trump and were desperate to find an October Surprise to clinch the election for Hillary.

If you can’t find dirt you have to manufacture it.

Thank goodness that Obama had thoroughly politicized the FBI. So just claim that a few hundred thousand dollars in very poorly crafted campaign ads on Facebook are a vast conspiracy to deny Hillary her rightful place in history as the first female president of the United States.

[ScaniaBoy]

Just to gather all info in one thread here is the JAR (Joint Analysis Report)* by DHS and FBI released Dec 29 2016.

https://www.us-cert.gov/sites/default/files/publications/JAR_16-20296A_GRIZZLY%20STEPPE-2016-1229.pdf

*The paper entitled Grizzly Steppe really should be called Joint "Analysis" Report

[Doogle]

Odungo’s odor will linger for years...

[McGruff]

Obama Tells Trump: Stop ‘Whining’ and Trying to Discredit the Election OCT. 18, 2016

https://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/19/us/politics/obama-donald-trump-election.html

[Truth29]

This is banana republic material and the continued resistance of government departments to President Trump and the sabotage of the American people is heading toward a politicized, totalitarian soft dictatorship where elections are for show only.

[smileyface]

Well then, if treason, let’s have at it...

[Pietro]

Are we supposed to assume that the "intelligence" community was unaware that the dossier was paid for and propagated by the Clinton campaign?

Further, did they think this was actual intel and not misinformation likely planted by a gleeful KGB?

These questions lead to two possible conclusions: either Clapper/Comey/Brennan are idiots or they are corrupt to the point of being traitors.

And the swamp will never, ever, really divulge the truth of how this went down. The media and the fed gov are hopelessly compromised.

I don't know what's going on, but it stinks to high heaven.