In the latest posting by Publius Tacitus concerning this subject, he made the following claim.
“In other words, if the Russians really were in a full court press beyond their normal propaganda activities, then the intelligence community should have been galvanized to collect more information and should have briefed the leaders of the Senate and House intelligence committees. That did not happen. Key Republican leaders DID NOT, I repeat NOT, receive such a briefing. For example, Devin Nunes, the Chair of the House Intelligence Committee, did not get briefed by Brennan or any of his minions on this subject.”
I took issue with this interpretation of events in a response to a question posed by Fred.
“Brennan started briefing the Gang of Eight individually beginning with Reid. He finished all individual briefings on 5 Sep 2016 commenting that it proved difficult to get appointments and talk with certain Republicans. Obama also sent Comey, Jeh Johnston and Lisa Monaco to brief the "Gang of Twelve" that included the chairmen and ranking minority members of Homeland Security and Intelligence to seek bipartisan support to respond forcefully to the Russians in early Sep 2016. McConnell reacted forcefully to stifle the intelligence and any forceful response saying “he would consider any effort by the White House to challenge the Russians publicly an act of partisan politics.””
I got it mostly right, but upon further research I discovered I was wrong about the 5 September date. It was 6 September. Publius Tacitus still took issue with this insisting “Brennan did not brief all of the Republicans.” I offered further proof of my claim in two comments which Publius chose not to publish. That is his prerogative as a guest writer here. I’ve decided to continue the discussion in this post. That is my prerogative as a guest writer… subject to the final decision of Colonel Lang, of course. Both Publius and I must abide by those decisions.
I offer the testimony of John Brennan given before the HPSCI on 23 May 2017 to bolster my case that Brennan did brief the “Gang of Eight” on the intelligence community’s initial findings that Russia was interfering with the 2016 elections.
“Again, in consultation with the White House, I PERSONALLY briefed the full details of our understanding of Russian attempts to interfere in the election to congressional leadership; specifically: Senators Harry Reid, Mitch McConnell, Dianne Feinstein and Richard Burr; and to representatives Paul Ryan, Nancy Pelosi, Devin Nunes and Adam Schiff between 11th August and 6th September [2016], I provided the same briefing to each of the gang of eight members.”
“Given the highly sensitive nature of what was an active counter-intelligence case [that means the FBI], involving an ongoing Russian effort, to interfere in our presidential election, the full details of what we knew at the time were shared only with those members of congress; each of whom was accompanied by one senior staff member.”
This particular transcription of Brennan’s remarks was done by a darling of the deep state conspiracy crowd, sundance. Sundance was also kind enough to provide a video of Brennan’s remarks. Note that Brennan names those he briefed and that list included Nunes. Sundance accepts Brennan’s account of these meetings and, in fact, uses those remarks to beat Comey over the head over a related issue.
As long as I’m writing a post, I might as well address a couple of other points raised by Publius Tacitus. There was no “formal lack of response by the intelligence community.” Prior to the briefing of the “Gang of Eight,” Brennan established an intelligence task force of a couple dozen analysts from CIA, NSA and FBI to focus on the issue of Russian interference. This is probably the same team that wrote the January 2017 Intelligence Community Assessment. The establishment of this task force was preceded by intelligence obtained by the CIA through some kind of SIGINT, HUMINT or bilateral (FVEY) operation that detailed Putin’s direct involvement in the cyber campaign to disrupt and discredit the US election. This intelligence also captured Putin’s instructions on the operation’s eventual objectives, to defeat or at least damage Clinton, and help elect Trump. Brennan sent this intelligence directly to Obama by courier prior to the “Gang of Eight” briefings. I remember the widespread outcry when the existence of this intelligence came out. It appeared to blow an apparent US penetration of Russian government secure communications. Maybe it did. But Brennan’s call to FSB director, Alexander Bortnikov, on 4 August 2016 warning him to knock it off probably tipped off the Russians long before the public outing of the intelligence as did Obama’s face to face warning to Putin at the G20 Summit that he knew what Putin was doing and warned him to knock it off.
In addition to this intelligence, the IC had at that time intelligence from Estonia (and maybe others) about Page’s June trip to Moscow, the Dutch observation of Cozy Bear activities and the report from Australia about Popadopoulis’ drunken ramblings in a London bar. None of that came from the Steele dossier. All of that is conveniently ignored by the deep state conspiracy theorists. All the information Reid referenced in his letter to Comey probably came from his briefing by Brennan, but we can reasonably disagree on the role or non-role of the Steele dossier.
In my earlier response to Publius Tacitus, I noted the forcefulness of McConnell in preventing a public release of intelligence about Russian meddling or a public response to that meddling. At that point in time, the Republican desire to keep this issue quiet can be seen as a reasonable maneuver of political electioneering… or healthy skepticism. However, perhaps there’s more to it than that. There are dueling conspiracy theories swirling around this whole Russia thing. Nunes was close to Flynn and was on the Trump transition team. I think he’s too close to this to not recuse himself altogether, rather than this half-hearted recusal he currently claims. His continued efforts to derail the Mueller investigation smacks of conspiracy in my mind.
We still need to wait for the Mueller investigation to run its course and hope that the results will be released to the public. We need that and the results of the ongoing FBI IG investigation. Until then we’ll continue to gleefully argue our respective points in a vacuum. Unless your comments are unusually abrasive and contribute nothing to the conversation, I’ll publish them.
TTG
The American populace isn't stupid. They KNOW that we the U.S.'meddle'in other nations elections.
They just shrug their shoulders when D.C. politicians go stupid over possible outside meddling in ours.
Posted by: J | 15 February 2018 at 10:51 PM
I don't know much about this controversy - and, frankly, care even less. However, the following lines in the post caught my eye:
In addition to this intelligence, the IC had at that time intelligence from Estonia (and maybe others) about Page’s June trip to Moscow, the Dutch observation of Cozy Bear activities and the report from Australia about Popadopoulis’ drunken ramblings in a London bar.
"This intelligence" refers to Brennan. I would not trust anything associated with Mr Brennan. He is involved up to his eyebrows in all these shenanigans, and his motives are clearly crooked. To advance him as a source is to taint the story irredeemably.
As for the rest of the quote, Estonia as a "source" - for crying out loud! We have already read about those truly weird Dutch observations. And, to top it all, we have these drunken ramblings advanced as proof!
If this is the kind of stuff the whole story is based on, then it's obviously all poppycock! That it should be taken seriously enough to warrant posts on SST is beyond weird!
Posted by: FB Ali | 15 February 2018 at 11:24 PM
TTG,
Your logic is suspect in this particular case.
Firstof all the "Intelligence community" here means predetermined conclusions by specifically handpicked for this purpose by Brennan team,consisting of a dozen or so analysts. Which included Peter Strzok and, most probably, Andrew McCabe.
The key operation launched after election nicely fits the scheme of a color revolution (which are CIA specialty in tandem with the State Department ;-) In this context, the role ICA was to launch the media frenzy (to use controlled MSM as attack dogs to de-legitimize the elected government accusing it of some mortal sin such as corruption, collision with Russia (or other chosen scapegoat country), plunging the standard of living and economics of the country, racism and suppression of ethnic minorities, etc) is a classic recipe from Gene Sharp book https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/jan/30/gene-sharp-dead-arab-spring-political-scientist ).
That goal which was successfully achieved -- unprecedented neo-McCarthyism campaign, along with the allegation of "collision with Russia" by Trump and his team were both in full bloom by January 2017.
David Stockman provided the names of the principal conspirators of the color revolution listing Brannan as the No. 1 (http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-12-18/russiagate-witch-hunt-stockman-names-names-deep-states-insurance-policy)
And this MSM witch hunt was n turn a step stone toward "Appointment of the Special Prosecutor" gambit (for which Rosenstein was used possibly with the help of intimidation), the most important goalpost so far achieved by plotters.
Your interpretation of the visit of Brennan to Raid is probably wrong. Information about Steele dossier was of secondary importance. His goal to recruit an influential Congress ally who shared the agenda "Trump should go" and who can help with the forthcoming color revolution steps based on dossier and ICA. Raid subsequent steps of propagating Steele dossier is just a part of larger effort.
Barack Obama biography and his very strange relations with Brennan raises a lot of interesting questions one of which is: To what extent Obama was dependent/controlled by CIA and to what extent he was the part of the color revolution plot. He definitely took unprecedented steps (and dangerous for him personally) to de-legitimize Trump and implicated Russians before leaving the office ("unmasking" campaign by Rice and Powell, exclusion of Russian diplomats and confiscation of Russian property made of the basis of Steele falsification and the burning desire to “get” Trump )
The other question is to what extent Strzok and McCabe can be considered as Brennan allies, or maybe even Brennan agents of influence within FBI. It is not that plausible that those two guys ventured into "va bank" operation of spying on Trump by themselves. From recovered texts, it is clear that Strzok opinion about Hillary was pretty low.
Now we know that Brennan single-handedly opened Russiagate investigation and even boasted about that. That means that he is the real godfather of Russiagate. According to the Washington Times:
Links from Crowdstrike "analysis" (which most probably was a false flag operation to implicate Russians and cover the leak of email to USB drive) also might lead to Brennan.
The same is true about Fusion GPS. And even Steele himself, who, as we now know, got some information collected by the duo of Shearer-Blumenthal via State Department. So it is plausible that none, or very little of the dirt on Trump published in the dossier belongs to Steele. He might simply be used for the legitimization purpose of already collected by somebody else dirt; I read somewhere that he produced the "initial" dossier memo used for FISA court in record short period; something like three days). The story with prostitutes urinating on the bed in a Moscow hotel really smells with Blumenthal. It’s his methods of dealing with Hillary political opponents. BTW he is the author of “birth certificate hypothesis” and "birther movement" (of which Trump became a part much later, after Obama victory) and due to this was rejected by Ralph Emmanuel when Hillary tried to get him into Obama WH (http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/does-clinton-have-a-blumenthal-birther-problem/article/2602090 )
Mike Whitney asked several important in this content questions (http://www.unz.com/mwhitney/is-john-brennan-the-mastermind-behind-russiagate/ ):
I'm wondering why it's that much of a stretch to believe that the CIA might have engineered the whole thing.
Posted by: likbez | 15 February 2018 at 11:33 PM
And IIRC Scott Ritter ripped that report a new one as being totally speculative and without an ounce of fact behind it.
After Nine Months, Only Stale Crumbs in Russia Inquiry
http://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/after-nine-months-only-stale-crumbs-in-russia-inquiry/
Exposing The Man Behind The Curtain
https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/exposing-the-man-behind-the-curtain_us_5877887be4b05b7a465df6a4
Throwing a Curveball at ‘Intelligence Community Consensus’ on Russia
http://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/did-17-intelligence-agencies-really-come-to-consensus-on-russia/
Leaked NSA Report Is Short on Facts, Proves Little in ‘Russiagate’ Case
https://www.truthdig.com/articles/leaked-nsa-report-is-short-on-facts-proves-little-in-russiagate-case/
The idea that these "selected" analysts really understand "Russian thinking" and "Russian interests" is highly questionable. The bottom line remains that Russia had ZERO POSSIBILITY of actually influencing the election in favor of Trump at any point up the night of the election itself.
And the Russians would know that. And they also know that despite the US' more extensive efforts to influence Russian elections that the US has no chance of influencing the upcoming election. Which means they understand this fact better than you do.
Posted by: Richardstevenhack | 15 February 2018 at 11:43 PM
It's an interesting theory, but it pales in probability to the likelihood that Russiagate is actually a disinformation operation run by the CIA.
It also fails to take into account the inevitable hiking of US hostility to Russia which Putin has shown zero evidence of wanting to have happen and which would be the obvious result of such a plan. Which as I say is precisely why he wouldn't do it because it is in no way in Russia's interests, whether they got caught or not.
This is far more logical than the ICA and TTG's notions that Russia's interests would be served by trying to do the impossible and actually mess with a US election.
And of course, there have been NO "solid clues" to any of this - just innuendo and unsupported assertions by a pack of liars including Clapper, Brennan, and others.
Posted by: Richardstevenhack | 15 February 2018 at 11:49 PM
One possible problem with the idea that the Russians proceeded in the hope that they would be discovered is that it would have no value if Hillary were to have won, which she almost did.
Posted by: Dabbler | 16 February 2018 at 12:01 AM
Typo: Raid should Reid. Spellchecker effect ;-)
Posted by: likbez | 16 February 2018 at 12:02 AM
TTG,
That was the Senate investigation of an actual crime where 5 men were arrested inside the DNC offices and the subsequent cover up. What were the initial arrests that started the investigation? What crime is "collusion" and what crime is "meeting with Russians"?
Posted by: Fred | 16 February 2018 at 12:19 AM
That I agree, and that is the general intention.
Posted by: kooshy | 16 February 2018 at 12:22 AM
Just to better position the discussion.
Exactly how large was Trump's margin of winning?
Some 60,000 total in 3 states?
What was the dominant characteristic of Hillary's loss?
Lackluster turnout by Democrats that did vote for Obama but not for Hillary.
Posted by: wisedupearly Ceo | 16 February 2018 at 12:48 AM
Sort of a Catiline conspiracy where Cicero was wrong footed in the modern Rome, eh?
Posted by: Duck1 | 16 February 2018 at 01:39 AM
TTG,
I’m only concerned here with the last four paragraphs, those attempting to buttress the contention that Russia interfered in the election.
What strikes me is the circularity of the arguments. They all, to varying degrees, rely on the credibility of Brennan et al: “some kind of . . . operation that detailed Putin’s direct involvement”; “This intelligence also captured Putin’s instructions . . . “; alleged intelligence from Estonia; the Dutch “revelations”; and Papadopoulos’ “ramblings”. For the most part, these are either assertions by parties who have forfeited the right to any presumption of disinterested analysis, or apparently independent “sources” that might as easily be anything but. There still isn’t any there there.
I accept that doesn’t of itself mean it’s all lies. Still, it seems a mighty shaky foundation on which to build an argument.
Posted by: Ingolf Eide | 16 February 2018 at 02:04 AM
In looking at the 'Russia done it syndrome. Looking at both PT and TTG's arguments, I keep coming back to the thought that it is not Russia, or for that matter any other adversary that has done something out of the ordinary.
It is the US that has done something out of the ordinary. But then again, McCarthyism may be an occurrence that happens every few decades for the US, and if so, then it is not out of the norm for the US.
Posted by: Peter AU | 16 February 2018 at 03:56 AM
I agree with TTG that we need to wait for the Mueller investigation to run its course and see what he comes up with. As for Publius Tacitus and other deep state conspiracy theorists on the appropriateness of Mueller's investigations, I will paraphrase Shakespeare, "me thinks they doth protest too much".
Posted by: SR Wood | 16 February 2018 at 08:36 AM
Whether the Russians or any other Government tried to influence elections AND WHETHER the U.S intel community is trying to orchestrate a soft coup on U.S President Donald Trump are two very different things.
THE INTEL COMMUNITY DID A GOOD JOB OF SETTING UP THE PRETEXT (cover story for their soft coup) that was to be used (mainly that RUSSIA HAD BEEN OBSERVED TRYING TO INFLUENCE A U.S ELECTION) as the reason to keep attacking President Trump to impede any attempt at rapprochement with Putin and the Russian gov’t.
56% of "Russian-linked Facebook ads" appeared *after* the election. 25% were seen by no one.
https://newsroom.fb.com/news/2017/10/hard-questions-russian-ads-delivered-to-congress/
The Intel community then continued adding to that evidence with the now infamous white house evidence free assessment on Russian meddling.
https://consortiumnews.com/2018/01/11/the-fbi-hand-behind-russia-gate/
Virtually all skepticism about the evidence-free “assessment” was banned. For months, the Times and other newspapers of record repeated the lie that all 17 U.S. intelligence agencies had concurred in the conclusion about the Russian “hack.”
The New York Times has finally admitted that one of the favorite Russia-gate canards – that all 17 U.S. intelligence agencies concurred on the assessment of Russian hacking of Democratic emails – is false.
Clapper testified before a Senate Judiciary subcommittee on May 8 that the Russia-hacking claim came from a “special intelligence community assessment” (or ICA) produced by selected analysts from the CIA, NSA and FBI, “a coordinated product from three agencies – CIA, NSA, and the FBI – not all 17 components of the intelligence community,” the former DNI said.
https://consortiumnews.com/2017/06/29/nyt-finally-retracts-russia-gate-canard/
#releasethememo also backfired when Twitter responded to congress.
"Twitter, meanwhile, offered a more lengthy reply, stressing that its “initial inquiry, based on available data, has not identified any significant activity connected to Russia with respect to tweets posting original content to this hashtag.” It also pointed to the fact that #ReleaseTheMemo had been spread by “several prominent, verified U.S. accounts”
https://www.recode.net/2018/1/31/16955432/democrats-congress-adam-schiff-dianne-feinstein-russia-release-the-memo-bots-trolls
Posted by: Bsox327 | 16 February 2018 at 08:46 AM
Naming a big fraction of SST’ readers paranoid only because you like TTG interpretation better? Some manners.
Posted by: Anna | 16 February 2018 at 09:22 AM
"In addition to this intelligence, the IC had at that time intelligence from Estonia (and maybe others) about Page’s June trip to Moscow,..."
He visited Moscow in July 2016 and information about his visit was openly and publicly available at that time. This is why the Steele Dossier claim that he met with Igor Sechin according to someone described as “close” to Sechin damages the Steele dossier as Page denies meeting with Sechin on that visit and there is no other evidence that he did so which suggests that Steele made up the alleged meeting with Igor Sechin.
Papadopoulos - if Trump was already Putin's "bitch" there would be established secure links between Putin and Trump. Why tout the anti-Clinton information through a dodgy Maltese professor of international relations and a wannabe on the periphery of the Trump Campaign - why not e-mail it direct to some one on the campaign, after all I doubt the SVR is short of funds and expected to be paid for the information. If the Russians really had hacked the DNC and Podesta e-mails why not send them to Wikileaks to have them made public? Why go anywhere near the Trump campaign?
Dutch intelligence - they're still suffering the effects of the famine in 1944/5.
Posted by: blowback | 16 February 2018 at 09:23 AM
What would be your understanding of CrowdStrike instant discovery (in 10 sec) of Russian hacking? You do know that Dm. Alperovitch' father is a CIA asset and that Dm. Aperovitch is an “expert” at the aggressively Russophobic Atlantic Council. Wouldn’t you prefer that the whole Russian hacking affair was re-investigated? Moreover, the Awan affair is an important tangential to the (alleged) Russian hacking affair.
Your point is that Russians meddled in the US politics. What if the meddling had a miniscule effect that is easy to find, whereas the anti-constitutional activities of the US high-order officials constitute the real danger to the republic?
Posted by: Anna | 16 February 2018 at 09:36 AM
TTG,
Took my washing machine in to be repaired yesterday. Off course I'd had a go at it first. Stripped it down, looked with puzzlement at an inscrutable printed circuit board (What happened to those timer controls you could fiddle around with?), went on a few forums on the internet, cursed, put the whole lot together again and took it in to the local repair shop.
I shan't forget the benevolent contempt with which the owner listened to my analysis of the fault. He heard me out patiently, fetched the machine into his workshop, and came up with a quite different (and correct) analysis and cure.
End of my career as a we never fail home repairman. I don't intend to waste your time either by pretending I've got any insight into the workings of this imbroglio you're examining. But with that washing machine there was at least one fact that was for both of us, for me and for the specialist, common ground. The damn thing wasn't working.
Your imbroglio is a little more complex. As far as I can see you've got the routine probing and interfering that one assumes all Intelligence agencies get up to against each other or against each other's countries. You've got a suspicion that your President or his team were somehow influenced or compromised. You've got a smear campaign possibly set in motion by some Walter Mitty type that your lot have, to the chagrin of some of us in the UK, somehow borrowed from us. On that last you have, in previous articles and comments, expressed your contempt.
There are all those elements mixed up together and in a more difficult context - little of the relevant information is released and what is is open to various interpretations. It's as if my friendly neighbourhood appliance specialist were only permitted to see a few bits of the machine he was examining and that in a dim light. And whereas it was possible for me to cart the thing home, connect it up, and get a triumphal confirmation that the specialist was right, you and your fellow specialists on SST are never, I think, going to come up with such indisputable proof; even though the Americans have a better record of openness than we have, and seem to take public accountability more seriously, all the information you want in order to get proof past doubt is never going to be fully available.
Which leaves one thing, and as far as I can see one thing only, that is agreed common ground between the specialist and the uninformed bystander. After Trump was elected the UK government publicly put its weight behind a smear campaign against the President.
It didn't have to. Whatever was going on in the background the salacious elements of that campaign could easily have been disavowed. As you say in your article the various elements are all entangled, but this element could have been disentangled. For the sake of diplomatic propriety, if nothing else, the UK government could have made it clear that those elements were unverified, that Steele's work was not officially supported or approved of in the UK, and that it was nothing to do with the UK.
If they'd been truly worried that Trump was compromised, or that there was some other intelligence problem, the UK authorities could have worked away at that just as well whether Steele was disavowed as not. There was no need to go up publicly against the new Administration. But they did.
David Habakkuk has given us some incisive articles and comments showing the attitudes of at least some elements within the UK Intelligence community - Russophobic to the point of paranoia, solidly behind what we have learned to call the neo-con Weltanschauung. One can see how that might lead to a no holds barred enmity to the new President. One can even accept that there are many officials in the US who share those attitudes. Many in Europe and the States also share those attitudes and have an automatic contempt for Trump and his supporters. One can understand all that. It's the context in which it's all happening and has happened. But whatever the context there is as yet no explanation for why the UK authorities went all in for that smear campaign against Trump after the election.
That's the one fact that can't be ignored, that cannot be interpreted this way or that, just as it was not possible to ignore that fact that my machine had failed. It's just an undisputed fact. It leads to the obvious questions. Who in the UK gave approval? Would they have dared to give approval to a PR attack on the new American Administration without at least some approval or support from within the US itself?
I hope you might be able to factor in those questions as you continue your painstaking examination. Seems to me - and I'm not trying to come into the workshop with you and pretend I can be of any help - that those are questions that should be being asked both sides of the Atlantic.
Posted by: English Outsider | 16 February 2018 at 09:53 AM
"Russia’s goals were to undermine public faith in the US democratic process, denigrate Secretary Clinton, and harm her electability and potential presidency. We further assess Putin and the Russian Government developed a clear preference for President-elect Trump. We have high confidence in these judgments."
Thank you for addressing this laughable "assessment." What was Clinton's definition of Putin? - Hitler?
Where to start… Putin is from a family of survivors of the Blockade of Leningrad (St Petersburg, Russia), where at least 1 million people died of starvation or were frozen to death during the WWII.
Was not Mrs. Clinton in charge of certain Mrs. Nuland-Kagan that went into tight and profitable collaboration with Ukrainian neo-Nazis in Kiev, in 2014? How about insulting the memory of WWII soldiers and victims?
Poor extra-sensitive bureaucrats at the CIA and FBI, who wrote this outstanding kindergarten-level assessment: "We also assess Putin and the Russian Government aspired to help President-elect Trump’s election chances when possible by discrediting Secretary Clinton and publicly contrasting her unfavorably to him. All three agencies agree with this judgment. CIA and FBI have high confidence in this judgment; NSA has moderate confidence."
So the US electorate was directed by the "thug" and "Hitler" Putin and not by "we came, we saw, he died..." coming from the supposedly virtuous Mrs. Clinton? What about the amazing story of Uranium One? The $145 millions in gesheft for the Clinton Foundation is not such a bad outcome for Clintons: https://www.conservativereview.com/articles/clinton-inc-only-got-145-million-in-uranium-deal-linked-cash/
Posted by: Anna | 16 February 2018 at 09:55 AM
Was not Brennan coming incognito to Kiev on the eve of military actions against the civilian population of Easter Ukraine, by the US-installed regime (see Nuland-Kagan's activities in Kiev) in 2014? Brennan is a war criminal who instigated the ongoing civil war in Ukraine. https://original.antiwar.com/paul/2014/05/11/what-does-the-us-government-want-in-ukraine/
Posted by: Anna | 16 February 2018 at 10:02 AM
I wonder, those who continue to spread that Russians, or a foreign power successfully hacked and determined the outcome of 2016 election ever think how confident real American voters will be when it comes to next election? And if their votes count anymore?
If anybody anymore cares if campaign/exercise can or will causes a breakdown in the voter’s confidence, (IMO already has) and a less desire by voters to participate (already low) in an election that believe is cooked or hacked. Could this be what the outcome the establishment and both dominant party wants? IMO it is, they really would rather us the independent undecided to stay home and don’t participate, that makes a much easier and less “EXPENSIVE” campaigns. After all most of the party’s money is spend on swing voters.
Posted by: kooshy | 16 February 2018 at 10:03 AM
Your TDS really has affected your ability to reason.
Posted by: Tyler | 16 February 2018 at 10:06 AM
Sorry Anna! A bad turn of phrase. I was not speaking of you or the big fraction you mention.
I do like TTG's analysis. It is neither pro-Clinton nor anti-Trump, it is apolitical. It is not based on an ideology, like some of the comments of his detractors. He does not claim collusion, which many seem to read between his lines and claim to see.
Posted by: GeneO | 16 February 2018 at 10:27 AM
Richardstevenhack,
Reference your comments at #29 and #30
You, the writers you cite and many others are making a mistake in assuming that the IC and the Mueller investigation are releasing all the information they have on this issue, that there cannot be classified intelligence being held back. There were two ICAs as was explained in the publicly released ICA. I suspect that anyone who has read the classified ICA is not commenting on SST or any other site if they value keeping their clearances. Do you believe there was an OPM hack? No proof has been released that it occurred. I have never detailed exactly what I know the Russians are capable of in this field or have done prior to this election interference campaign. But that knowledge shapes my thinking on this issue.
Your idea that electorates are immune to influence is silly. That is the whole purpose of political campaigns, to influence voters, to energize ones own voters and suppress the opposition's voters. Electorates are very much susceptible to influence. The argument that the Russians would never attempt to influence our electorate because electorates cannot be influenced is both laughable and desperate.
Posted by: The Twisted Genius | 16 February 2018 at 10:31 AM