HPSCI Report on Russian Active Measures Released

It's 250+ pages and heavily redacted, particularly all the pages that are actually about Russian active measures, and you can download it here.

I've skimmed over some of it and nothing too surprising. Nunes et al found no evidence of collusion based on asking a number of people if they coordinated with the Russian government and receiving answers of "no."

They confirm a multifaceted attack by the Russians. Also, say that members of the Trump campaign demonstrated poor judgement.

President Trump says the Russian-Trump-Collusion aspect talking-point is now officially DEAD.
www.foxnews.com...

Trump and others are saying this shows proof of no collusion, but I will want to read it for myself.

Also will be interested to see what the House Dems say about this

a reply to: carewemust

Why does that matter though? What's he supposed to say? "The HPSCIs' botched, half-assed 'investigation' was hamstrung by my lapdog Devin Nunes, entirely superficial and you should wait for the results of the Mueller investigation" ?

(U) Finding #25: When asked directly, none of the interviewed witnesses provided evi- dence of collusion, coordination, or conspiracy between the Trump campaign and the Rus- sian government.

Well. I guess that clears it up then.

HPSCI

House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence

a reply to: Grambler

The HPSCI Dems weren't happy with it as you can imagine. From what I've read, it's akin to the memo only much longer. The "findings" are essentially talking points. Like this:

Finding #35: Possible Russian efforts to set up a "back channel" with Trump associates after the election suggest the absence of collusion during the campaign, since the communication associated with collusion would have rendered such a "back channel" unnecessary."

That's not really true. It really would depend on who was coordinating and how. If for instance Manafort was coordinating with Kremlin contacts, he left the campaign at the end of the Summer. If Carter Page had been up to anything, again, gone way before the election.

Or speaking of Manafort, here's a popular non sequitur:

Finding #20: Special Counsel Robert Mueller indicted Paul Manafort on several charges, none of which relate to allegations of collusion, coordination, or conspiracy between the Trump campaign and the Russian government.

It's an ongoing investigation. Rick Gates flipped in late February, there's no telling what additional charges may be brought.

I didn't see any mention of the emails between Manafort and Konstantin Kilimnik nor any mention of Oleg Deripaska. The HPSCI "investigation" is so lacking that I think they probably should have refrained from releasing anything. Incomplete information is sometimes worse than none at all.

Here's another "finding":

Finding #24: The February 2018 indictment of the Internet Research Agency and Russian nationals exposes Russian actors and their intent to spread distrust towards the candidates and the political system in general.

That's not exactly true either. The quoted communications from the Russians that were included in the indictment make it clear that the primary thrust of their campaign was to damage Clinton/support Trump. It's literally said in one of the excerpted statements.

Anyway, it's about what I expected — superficial and heavily partisan.

originally posted by: underwerks

(U) Finding #25: When asked directly, none of the interviewed witnesses provided evi- dence of collusion, coordination, or conspiracy between the Trump campaign and the Rus- sian government.

Well. I guess that clears it up then.

I assume you have irrefutable proof that we all can look it, Right?

Right?

a reply to: underwerks

"Nobody confessed. Case closed!"

originally posted by: theantediluvian
Anyway, it's about what I expected — superficial and heavily partisan.

I guess anything exonerating the Trump Administration - you wouldn't agree with

To date there is still 0 evidence of collusion by Trump and Russia to alter the election

There is however ample evidence that the DNC and Clinton campaigns broke many laws, weaponized the DOJ & FBI and attempted to overthrow a democratically elected official.

I have to admit, its still great watching people piss and moan about Trump while trying to ignore the glaring issues being uncovered against the DNC and FBI

.... say where's Anwar these days? and DWS? is Platte River Networks still pleading the 5th over its wiping of the Clinton Servers?... jee's some people must be getting nervous

originally posted by: theantediluvian
a reply to: underwerks

"Nobody confessed. Case closed!"

Pretty much. I think it’s interesting they advise the Logan Act should be repealed.

[U) Due to the lack of prosecutions un- der t he Logan Act and despite the various apparent violations since its passage, Con- gress should evaluate the la1.-v's utility and consider repealing it

I’m curious about the motivation to want to do that. Anyone who speaks redacted feel free to chime in.

a reply to: Agit8dChop

I guess anything exonerating the Trump Administration - you wouldn't agree with

No. See, I've actually never believed that Trump personally coordinated with the Russian government and off the top of my head, I can't think of anyone presently in the administration who might have done so except maybe Scavino and in his case, it would probably be unwitting via a cutout.

A conspiracy between members of the Trump campaign and the Russian government to coordinate aspects of their interference in the election would certainly be a worst case scenario but it's far from the only thing that should be of concern.

Does it not matter that the Russian government engaged in an unprecedented attack on our election process? Would it not be concerning if the Kremlin was able to use people in Trump's orbit to surreptitiously influence his positions?

There is however ample evidence that the DNC and Clinton campaigns broke many laws, weaponized the DOJ & FBI and attempted to overthrow a democratically elected official.

No, there isn't.

a reply to: Grambler

What difference does it make?

originally posted by: pavil

originally posted by: underwerks

(U) Finding #25: When asked directly, none of the interviewed witnesses provided evi- dence of collusion, coordination, or conspiracy between the Trump campaign and the Rus- sian government.

Well. I guess that clears it up then.

I assume you have irrefutable proof that we all can look it, Right?

Right?

I don’t work for the House Intelligence Committee. You’d have to ask them about that. Wait..

a reply to: theantediluvian

Yes. There is. It's been confirmed that her campaign, the DNC, and the intelligence community funded the dossier. That's a fact, Jack. If your argument is "but fake Russian news on facebook" then... you're a clown.

originally posted by: bender151
a reply to: theantediluvian

Yes. There is. It's been confirmed that her campaign, the DNC, and the intelligence community funded the dossier. That's a fact, Jack. If your argument is "but fake Russian news on facebook" then... you're a clown.

The intelligence community funded the dossier? How's that?

So it's "but the dossier!" then? What does that have to do with this:

There is however ample evidence that the DNC and Clinton campaigns broke many laws, weaponized the DOJ & FBI and attempted to overthrow a democratically elected official.

1. The DNC and Clinton campaign didn't actually fund the dossier, they funded the research. Steele himself compiled his research into what became the dossier.

2. The dossier wasn't what started the FBI's counterintelligence investigation, that was Papadopoulos, running his mouth to an Australian diplomat.

3. Neither the DNC nor the Clinton campaign contacted the FBI/DOJ about Steele's research nor did they provide the dossier (that they didn't have) to the FBI/DOJ, media, etc.

4. The only real substantive claim about the dossier is that it was used to obtain a FISA warrant for Carter Page but even that's not correct. If you read the Grassley memo, it's obvious that the dossier wasn't in the FISA warrant application but rather intel that came directly from Steele. The dossier is more a less a compilation of summaries of raw intelligence, not the intelligence itself.

5. How does obtaining a FISA warrant for Carter Page = "attempting to overthrow" Trump?

What kind of clown thinks that going in front of a judge to obtain a FISA warrant that results in surveillance which doesn't turn up any evidence of a conspiracy, is some sort of coup?

If there was a conspiracy to damage Trump, why not leak to the media like the FBI field office in NY was doing to damage Clinton? Why keep it all under wraps? Why not announce that there was an open investigation into potential conspiracy by members of the Trump campaign with the Russian government like Comey announced that they were opening a second investigation into Clinton's emails or leak the existence of the investigation like was done with the Clinton Foundation investigation — which was itself conducted by partisan "deep state" FBI agents in the NY field office on the basis of claims made in "Clinton Cash," which was essentially oppo research funded by Trump biggest backer (Robert Mercer), produced by Trump's partner in the GAO, Breitbart editor Peter Schweizer?

The FBI prior to the election did basically nothing to damage Trump and at multiple levels, and to the great satisfaction and appreciation of Trump supporters, made announcements and leaked information (and misinformation) to the media that was damaging to Clinton's campaign.

"That's a fact, Jack."

And if you want to get some idea of how you really do your political opponent in with allegations and an investigation, consider what the Kremlin-backed Yanukovych regime did re Tymoshenko in Ukraine. An actual conspiracy at the highest levels to do in Trump would have "found" the evidence to do in Trump and done it — and there'd be no evidence of it having happened.

The Committee also
found that the Clinton campaign and the
DNC, using a series of cutouts and intermediaries
to obscure their roles, paid for opposition
research on Trump obtained from
Russian sources, including a litany of claims
by high-ranking current and former Russian
government officials. Some of this opposition
research was used to produce sixteen
memos, which comprise what has become
known as the Steele dossier.

The Genuine Collusion Exposed

genius.confirmed✅

originally posted by: theantediluvian
a reply to: carewemust

Why does that matter though? What's he supposed to say? "The HPSCIs' botched, half-assed 'investigation' was hamstrung by my lapdog Devin Nunes, entirely superficial and you should wait for the results of the Mueller investigation" ?

If you have issues with half assed investigations then you have to accept the same with regards to Clinton, emails, clinton foundation, etc etc.

originally posted by: theantediluvian


The intelligence community funded the dossier? How's that?

Yes there are claims that the FBI was paying steele for his research that they used.

1. The DNC and Clinton campaign didn't actually fund the dossier, they funded the research. Steele himself compiled his research into what became the dossier.

semantics. They funded the research that was used for the fisa warrant.

2. The dossier wasn't what started the FBI's counterintelligence investigation, that was Papadopoulos, running his mouth to an Australian diplomat.

The odssier was what led to the first surveillance of trup connectcted people, and led to the intial outcry from the media about this, which ultimately ended up leading to the mueller investigation.

And as I have shwon before, even if papadopolous was the reason for the start of the investogation, that is asinine.

First because a drunken claim some russian said the may have stolen emails is not good enough evidence to start an investigation into a presdential campaign.

Second because everyone had been saying for over a year that because hillarys server was in her basement it may have been hacked, and people had been saying russsia probably did, meaning that any old fool could have claimed to been a russian with hacked emails (notice this russian didnt say dnc emails, but hillary emails meaning there is no proof this guy had inside knowldedge of the dnc hack)

Third because the australian dilpomat that rpeorted this was a long time friend of the clintons (funny how we see with this and the dossier, its clinton associates involved in the evidnece agsint trumps team almost every time)

Fourth because as has recently been shown the five eyes argreement had no official communications from the australian government about this matter.

So its your belief that a clinton friend saying a drunl low level trump associates said some russian guyu may haave hacked hillary emails, something that hundreds of people had been saying for years, was enough to start an investigation inviolving wiretaps on trump assocoiates unmasking people etc. that would last for years? I find that to be ridiculous.

3. Neither the DNC nor the Clinton campaign contacted the FBI/DOJ about Steele's research nor did they provide the dossier (that they didn't have) to the FBI/DOJ, media, etc.

But they knew of it being provided, and lied about funing it. ALso as we now know, Sid blumenthal was feeding info to Obamas state dept that made ists way to the fbi as evidnce.

4. The only real substantive claim about the dossier is that it was used to obtain a FISA warrant for Carter Page but even that's not correct. If you read the Grassley memo, it's obvious that the dossier wasn't in the FISA warrant application but rather intel that came directly from Steele. The dossier is more a less a compilation of summaries of raw intelligence, not the intelligence itself.

As I have pointed out top you half a dozen times, this is an unbelievably dumb argument. It i irrelevant if the physical copy of the dossier was used. the researvch of steele that was paid for by hillary and the dnc was used as evidnece for the fisa warrant.

what point are you even try9ng to make here. "well if they didnt use the actual dossier, just all of the claims in it, then no problem" This is absurd and gives you the appearnce of trying to play games rather than have an honest discussion.

5. How does obtaining a FISA warrant for Carter Page = "attempting to overthrow" Trump?

Well to me it doesnt. But taken in context with all of the other facts (many of which I outlined on the thread about comeys fox interview) its paints a pretty dark picture.

I once read that the Manson Family said that Charlie was innocent.