|
Frank
|
Below are key findings from the HPSCI oversight report:
Putin’s principal interests relating to the 2016 election were to undermine faith in the US democratic process, not showing any preference of a certain candidate.
Putin chose not to leak the most damaging and compromising material on Hillary Clinton prior to the election; instead planning to release it after the election to weaken what Moscow viewed would be an inevitable Clinton presidency. If Russia wanted to help Donald Trump get elected, they would have released this material prior to the election to harm the Clinton campaign.
The material about Hilliary Clinton that Putin chose not to release before the election, included possible criminal acts, including:
“Details of secret meetings with multiple named US religious organizations, in which State Department representatives offered – in exchange for supporting Secretary Clinton – “significant increases in financing” from Department funds and “the patronage” of State in dealing with ‘post-Soviet countries.”
DNC emails detailing that Hillary Clinton suffered from “psycho-emotional problems,” “uncontrolled fits of anger, aggression, and cheerfulness.” Clinton was allegedly on a daily regimen of “heavy tranquilizers,” and while she was afraid of losing, she remained “obsessed with a thirst for power.”
CIA Director Brennan and the IC mischaracterized intelligence and relied on dubious, “substandard” sources to create a contrived false narrative that Putin developed “a clear preference” for Trump.
CIA Director Brennan and the IC misled lawmakers by referencing the debunked Steele Dossier to assess “Russian plans and intentions,” which falsely suggested the dossier had intelligence value.
The IC excluded “significant intelligence” and “ignored or selectively quoted” reliable intelligence that contradicted the ICA’s key findings on Putin’s alleged support for Trump, that if included, would have exposed the ICA’s claim was “implausible—if not ridiculous.”
The ICA omitted reliably sourced information, such as how some Russian intelligence officials were “planning for candidate Clinton’s victory” while others assessed “neither Trump nor Clinton” would respect Russian interests.
As reflected in ODNI documents released on July 18, multiple IC assessments released in the months leading up to the November 2016 elections assessed that Russia had neither the intent nor capability to impact the outcome of the US election.
On December 5, 2016, the FBI and ODNI gave HPSCI its first post-election classified briefing, in which there was “no mention of Putin ‘aspiring’ to elect Trump” by either agency.
The President’s Daily Brief (PDB) drafted on December 8, 2016 stated that no Russian or criminal actors impacted vote counts. This document was pulled hours before it was to be published due to “new guidance.” If it had been published, it would have been briefed to both President Obama and President-elect Donald Trump.
On December 9, 2016, a National Security Council meeting was called with President Obama’s senior national security officials, which included CIA Director John Brennan, DNI James Clapper, Susan Rice, Andrew McCabe and others.
After the December 9, 2016 secret meeting of Obama national security officials, DNI Clapper’s assistant sent an email to leaders in the IC with the subject line “POTUS tasking on Russia Election Meddling,” and tasking to create a new “assessment per the President’s request.”
The HPSCI oversight report reveals that, “unlike routine IC analysis, the ICA was a high-profile product ordered by the President, directed by senior IC agency heads, and created by just five analysts, using one principal drafter. Production of the ICA was subject to unusual directives from the President and senior political appointees, and particularly DCIA.”
Later that same day, Brennan ordered the inclusion of “substandard reporting” on Russian activities, which had previously been withheld from publication because the information was judged “to have not met longstanding publication standards.” Some of the information was, later used in the ICA, over the objections of veteran CIA officers, because it was “unclear, or from unknown subsources.”
CIA Director Brennan overruled senior CIA officers who challenged the ICA’s claims, stating “we don’t have direct information that Putin wanted to get Trump elected.
Yet, the Obama-directed ICA published on January 6, 2017 explicitly stated: “We 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.” The CIA and FBI expressed high confidence in this judgment, while the NSA held moderate confidence.
However, the HPSCI report reveals “the ICA did not cite any report where Putin directly indicated helping Trump win was the objective.”
|
Forum
Pages: 1 
