Senate Intelligence Committee backs assessment of Russia election meddling

[aubiefifty 18,117]

co.com

Senate Intelligence Committee backs assessment of Russia election meddling

By Duncan Wood

2 minutes

The finding from the panel, led by Republican Chairman Richard Burr (right) and Democratic Vice Chairman Mark Warner (left), is yet another strong rebuke to the president and his allies. | Andrew Harnik/AP Photo

The Senate Intelligence Committee on Tuesday backed the intelligence community's assessment that Russia interfered in the 2016 presidential election to aid President Donald Trump and is continuing its efforts to undermine U.S. democracy.

The finding that reveals Russia meddled in far more extensive ways than previously known is yet another strong rebuke to Trump and many of his allies who continue to cast doubt on the finding from the intelligence community that Moscow carried out an operation to help his candidacy and hurt Hillary Clinton.

 

 

but hey..........everyone is a liar but trump right?

[aubiefifty 18,117]

you righties afraid of the truth? i am pretty sure some holy cow things are going to come out about the nra, trump, and russian collusion. disagree all you want but bookmark this so you do not forget.

[TexasTiger 14,073]

Just now, aubiefifty said:

you righties afraid of the truth? i am pretty sure some holy cow things are going to come out about the nra, trump, and russian collusion. disagree all you want but bookmark this so you do not forget.

They’ll ignore it all and blame it on the initiated. Cult behavior is very predictable.

[aubiefifty 18,117]

thedailybeast.com

Bipartisan Senate Panel Gives Middle Finger to Devin Nunes

Spencer Ackerman07.03.18 4:27 PM ET

5-7 minutes

The Republicans on the House Intelligence Committee have said the NSA, CIA, and FBI got it wrong when they assessed that the point of Russia’s 2016 election interference was to harm Hillary Clinton and elect Donald Trump. But now their counterpart in the Senate, in a bipartisan report, said the intelligence agencies got it right.

In April, the House Intelligence Committee Republicans put out an extensive report exonerating Trump from accusations of collusion with Russian President Vladimir Putin, delivering a conclusion that Democrats had come to consider pre-ordained. Democrats quickly distanced themselves from it. Chief panel Democrat Adam Schiff said at the time that the GOP report suffered from a “raft of misleading conclusions, insinuations, attempts to explain away inconvenient facts, and arguments meant to protect the President and his campaign.”

One of the key findings of the GOP report, led by critical White House ally Devin Nunes of California, was that the three intelligence agencies erred in their assessment of “Putin’s strategic intentions” behind his election interference. Nunes’ report struck a delicate balance. It conceded that the election interference happened and that most of the intelligence community analysis (ICA) “held up to scrutiny,” but accused the agencies of not meeting their own standards for tradecraft.

“While most of the analysis contained in the ICA held up to scrutiny,” Nunes’ report held, “the committee found that ICA judgments on Putin’s strategic objectives”—that is to say defeating Clinton and electing Trump—“failed to meet most of the analytic standards set forth in the primary guiding document for IC analysis, Intelligence Community Directive (ICD) 203.” Such shortfalls “undermine confidence,” Nunes’ report continued, but they weren’t listed as problems with the underlying circumstances of the Russian campaign. Nunes and company instead faulted the agencies for not “incorporat[ing] analysis of alternatives” or more fulsomely explaining the differences in confidence levels between the NSA, FBI, and CIA.

The Senate Intelligence Committee, however, reached a much firmer conclusion: The January 2017 intelligence community was right to find the Russians meddled in the election to defeat Clinton and aid Trump.

“The Committee found that the ICA provided a range of all-source reporting to support these assessments,” it found. “A body of reporting,” from classified intelligence to Russian media, “showed that Moscow sought to denigrate Secretary Clinton.” The ICA finding on Putin’s objectives used similarly cumulative Russian media, similarities between Trump positions and Putin’s interests “and a body of intelligence reporting to support the assessment that Putin and the Russian Government developed a clear preference for Trump.”

Information “obtained subsequent to the publication of the ICA provides further support” for what the CIA called a Russian aspiration “to help President-elect Trump’s election chances when possible,” the Senate panel found.

Related in Politics

As for the internal analytic disagreement on Putin’s pro-Trump/anti-Clinton objectives—NSA had “moderate confidence” in it; CIA and FBI had “high confidence”—the committee, chaired by North Carolina Republican Richard Burr, found no evidence of analytic malpractice.

“The analytical disagreement was reasonable, transparent and openly debated among the agencies and analysts, with analysts, managers and agency heads on both sides of the confidence level articulately justifying their positions,” the Senate committee wrote.

Nunes’ office did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

“The committee has spent the last 16 months reviewing the sources, tradecraft and analytic work underpinning the Intelligence Community Assessment and sees no reason to dispute the conclusions,” Burr said in a Tuesday statement. “The committee continues its investigation and I am hopeful that this installment of the committee’s work will soon be followed by additional summaries providing the American people with clarity around Russia’s activities regarding U.S. elections.”

It’s not the first time a high-profile inquiry into the 2016 election has contradicted Nunes’ findings. In February, before Nunes’ report, Mueller indicted the Russian troll farm known as the Internet Research Agency. Among the claims Mueller made in the indictment: “Defendants’ operations included supporting the presidential campaign of then-candidate Donald J. Trump (“Trump Campaign”) and disparaging Hillary Clinton.”

[aubiefifty 18,117]

from fox news............

 

oxnews.com

Findings that Russia meddled to help Trump beat Clinton were 'accurate and on point': Senate intel panel

Gregg Re

7-9 minutes

Findings by the intelligence community that Russia meddled in the 2016 presidential election to help Donald Trump win were "accurate and on point," according to an unclassified report and accompanying statement by the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence released Tuesday.

The committee's findings came after a lengthy review of the "sources, tradecraft and analytic work underpinning" a January 2017 intelligence community assessment.

The FBI's and CIA's "analytical disagreement" with the NSA over whether Russia sought to bolster the Trump presidential campaign was "reasonable," the report also said.

While the FBI and CIA had "high confidence" that Russian President Vladimir Putin aspired to help Trump's election chances by denigrating opponent Hillary Clinton, the NSA had only "moderate confidence" in that assessment, according to the January 2017 analysis.

The disagreement among agencies "was reasonable, transparent, and openly debated among the agencies and analysts, with analysts, managers and agency heads on both sides of the confidence level articulately justifying their positions," the Senate intelligence committee's findings said. 

In a statement, Senate Intelligence Committee Chairman Richard Burr, R-N.C, said the panel's review was ongoing.

“The committee has spent the last 16 months reviewing the sources, tradecraft and analytic work underpinning the intelligence community assessment and sees no reason to dispute the conclusions,” Burr said.

“The committee continues its investigation, and I am hopeful that this installment of the committee’s work will soon be followed by additional summaries providing the American people with clarity around Russia’s activities regarding U.S. elections."

Whether Russian authorities sought to meddle in the 2016 election to help Trump prevail has been a key point of contention between House and Senate intelligence committees.

SEVEN KEY HIGHLIGHTS FROM BOMBSHELL WATCHDOG REPORT INTO DOJ, FBI BIAS

In May, Senate Intelligence Committee leaders backed the 2017 intel community report that formally accused Russia of trying to interfere in the election to the Trump campaign's benefit.

"The Russian effort was extensive, sophisticated and ordered by President Putin himself for the purpose of helping Donald Trump and hurting Hillary Clinton," top Senate committee Democrat Mark Warner said in a joint statement at the time.

On Tuesday, Warner said the committee's review had confirmed those findings.

“As numerous intelligence and national security officials in the Trump administration have since unanimously re-affirmed, the ICA findings were accurate and on point," Warner said.

But on the other side of Capitol Hill, Republicans on the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence have disputed the  conclusion that Putin wanted to help Trump.

GOP members of the House panel have cited "significant intelligence tradecraft failings" in the intelligence community's findings, saying it is inappropriate to conclude that Russia acted specifically to assist Trump.

“We disagree with the narrative that they were trying to help Trump.”

- Rep. Mike Conaway, R-Texas

“The bottom line: The Russians did commit active measures against our election in 2016, and we think they will do that in the future,” Rep. Mike Conaway, R-Texas, said in March. “We disagree with the narrative that they were trying to help Trump.”

Accusations of political bias at the highest levels of the DOJ and FBI have roiled Washington, with Republicans accusing investigators of targeting the White House for political reasons.

But some key Republicans said that it seemed Russia was, in fact, trying to help Trump win. In a statement earlier this year, Rep. Trey Gowdy, R-S.C., said it was “clear based on the evidence” that Putin wanted Clinton to lose in November.

Other top administration officials, including Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, have signaled that they agree that Russian actors wanted Clinton to lose.

Fox News' Bill Mears, Chad Pergram and Brooke Singman contributed to this report.

Gregg Re is an editor for Fox News. Follow him on Twitter @gregg_re.

[aubiefifty 18,117]

sinessinsider.com

Cohen, Giuliani, Nunberg hint Trump knew about June '16 Russia meeting

Sonam Sheth

9-11 minutes

Donald Trump Jr. released evolving statements about the purpose of a June 2016 meeting that was pitched as "part of Russia and its government's support for" Donald Trump.

Saul Loeb-Pool/Getty Images

Three associates of President Donald Trump have indicated that Trump may have known about the June 2016 meeting at Trump Tower involving top campaign officials and two Russian lobbyists.

Trump's former lawyer Michael Cohen, his personal defense attorney Rudy Giuliani, and his former campaign aide Sam Nunberg have all either declined to back up Trump's claim that he did not know about the meeting or explicitly suggested he knew about it in advance.

The meeting, Trump's knowledge of it, and any efforts to conceal its purpose are areas of focus for the special counsel Robert Mueller.

Sign up for the latest Russia investigation updates here»

On Monday, Michael Cohen became the third associate of President Donald Trump to hint that Trump may know more than he's letting on about a June 2016 meeting involving top campaign officials and two Russian lobbyists.

The meeting has drawn intense scrutiny since it emerged last year that Trump's eldest son, Donald Trump Jr., enthusiastically agreed to it after the Russians offered compromising material on the 2016 Democratic presidential nominee, Hillary Clinton. Trump's campaign chairman, Paul Manafort, and his senior adviser and son-in-law, Jared Kushner, also attended.

The meeting, held at Trump Tower, was pitched to Trump Jr. as "part of Russia and its government's support for Mr. Trump." Several participants have since said that nothing came of the meeting.

Advertisement

During an interview with ABC's George Stephanopoulos, Cohen criticized Trump Jr. and Kushner for attending the meeting, saying he believed it was a mistake and an "example of poor judgment."

Asked whether Trump knew of the meeting before it happened, Cohen said he could not comment "under advice of my counsel."

Cohen's comments come amid heightened speculation that he is gearing up to cooperate with prosecutors in a federal investigation focusing on several payments he made before the 2016 election to women who said they had affairs with Trump, as well as whether Cohen committed wire fraud, bank fraud, or campaign-finance violations.

Giuliani: 'I would be surprised if he could remember'

Rudy Giuliani, Robert Mueller, and Trump.

Shayanne Gal/Business Insider; Alex Wong/Getty; Jonathan Ernst/Reuters

In May, Trump's newest personal defense lawyer, Rudy Giuliani, refused to issue a blanket denial when asked about Trump's possible knowledge of the Trump Tower meeting.

Giuliani previously told Business Insider he "would be surprised" if Trump knew about the meeting at the time that it happened.

But the former New York City mayor also left open the possibility that Trump may have known but later forgot about the meeting.

"Honestly, I would be surprised if he could remember," Giuliani said. "I couldn't remember. I would say that. I couldn't remember if that happened back then."

Nunberg: 'I don't know why he went around trying to hide it'

In March, Sam Nunberg, a former Trump campaign aide, told MSNBC during a media blitz that Trump "may have done something during the election," adding that he didn't know for sure.

He later told CNN that Robert Mueller, the special counsel investigating Russia's election interference, "thinks Trump is the Manchurian candidate," a phrase referring to a politician who has been brainwashed to work on behalf of a foreign government.

Advertisement

When CNN's Jake Tapper asked Nunberg whether he believed Trump's statement that he did not know about the meeting in advance, Nunberg said he didn't.

"Jake, I've watched your news reports. You know it's not true," Nunberg said. "He talked about it a week before. And I don't know why he did this. All he had to say was: 'Yeah, we met with the Russians. The Russians offered us something, and we thought they had something, and that was it.' I don't know why he went around trying to hide it."

Nunberg testified before a grand jury in March as part of Mueller's investigation.

After reports of the Trump Tower meeting surfaced last July, Trump Jr. released evolving statements about its purpose, eventually acknowledging that one of the lobbyists, a Kremlin informant named Natalia Veselnitskaya, had promised dirt on Clinton but ended up not having any.

Advertisement

Meanwhile, Trump's lawyers said at first that the president had no knowledge of the meeting or its aftermath.

The Washington Post later reported that Trump dictated Trump Jr.'s initially misleading statement about the purpose of the meeting.

The meeting, Trump's knowledge of it, and any efforts to conceal its purpose are areas of focus in the obstruction and collusion threads of Mueller's investigation.

[homersapien 12,172]

Riiiiight.  Trump meets with Russians to discuss their helping him in the election and Giuliani says he probably doesn't remember.