Brennan: Intelligence community vindicated by Senate committee's report

If this has been posted I apologise but the bipartisan Senate Intelligence Committee has said it supports the conclusion of the 2017 report by the U.S. intelligence community into Russian interference , the panel is made up of 8 Republicans and 7 Democrats.

But the bipartisan panel on Tuesday, chaired by North Carolina Republican Richard Burr, reaffirmed its support for a January 2017 intelligence assessment, which found that “Russia’s goals were to undermine public faith in the U.S. democratic process, denigrate Secretary [Hillary] 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.”

John Brennan said at a press conference yesterday.

“I’m just very glad that the Senate Intelligence Committee yesterday came out with a report that totally validated the intelligence community’s assessment about Russian interference in the election in 2016 to help Donald Trump,” Brennan said in an interview Wednesday. “Donald Trump continues to call all these things hoaxes. They’re not. The only hoax is his representation of the facts. That’s the hoax. It’s because, I think, he has this quite understandable insecurity about what he’s done — well, this is what others have done.”
www.politico.com...

So far the Tweeter in chief has not mentioned the latest report.


www.intelligence.senate.gov...

a reply to: gortex

What do you expect from the Brennen ? He has already stated that it was Obama that ordered the surveillance . He will probably be the first one charged by Durham ,

a reply to: 10uoutlaw

What do you expect from the Brennen ?

He isn't on the Senate Intelligence Committee.

All anyone has to do is look at the Declassified documents posted to the Senate website over the past seven days by senator Lindsey Graham's Judiciary Committee.

The Senate Intel committee and John Brennan are a little late. The proof and Truth is being exposed. Both of them are corrupt.

originally posted by: gortex
a reply to: 10uoutlaw

What do you expect from the Brennen ?

He isn't on the Senate Intelligence Committee.

Burr is...Burr is a never Trumper and implicated in "insider trading," he also chairs that committee, so I put very little behind this legitimately clearing any 3 letters of wrong doing.

As much as I love you, Mighty G, you have zero understanding of Spygate if you believe that spin.

Having said that, the globalists and/or their bought & paid for political operatives come in both flavors: Red & Blue.

We have little more than a handful of legitimate representatives of the peoples and our constitution across both senate and congress.

Seems the same on your side of the pond.

Myopic view of the situation.

The crux of the mater and the 4 year investigative focus was the complicity of the Trump campaign and than administration in the Russian interference.

No one from day one would argue that Russia has not, would not, and will not influence with the election process of another country; including that of the worlds only supper power.

The hoax is not that Russia did not try to interfere in the 2016 elections (or the 2012, 2008 ... elections). The hoax is in the ideas that 1) the Trump campaign/admin was complicit in the interference and 2) that the interference changed the outcome of the election.


So the Senate committee determined that Russia did what Russia always does (what we always do for that matter). Big woop how much money was wasted to investigate that water is wet?

Futher nothing you quoted vindicates Brennan and his role in all of this. That Russia always attempts to influence its advisories is no excuse for the conduct of the intelligence community over the last four years (and likely much longer). Misconduct on the part of the Russians is not a blank check for our intelligence community to run rough shot over our election process themselves.

Is there any details about how many votes got "influenced" 🚬 🐡

a reply to: DanDanDat

2) that the interference changed the outcome of the election.

I don't think that's a hoax it's an unknown but the fact the favourite of the Russian leadership won the election when Clinton was forecast to win must raise questions.

a reply to: gortex

Obviously you didn't read the redacted footnotes that were just declassified. The evidence that started the investigations into Trump was a Russian disinformation campaign. You can make just as credible an argument that the Russians were supporting Hillary.

Of course, what the Russians were really trying to do was sow discord in the United States. And they succeeded, probably beyond their wildest expectations.

a reply to: gortex

The Russians didnt have to help with that. I have disliked hillary from the very first time I heard her talk when bill was in office.

I'm sure I'm not the only one.

a reply to: gortex

Brennan: "If I say it often enough, folks will come to view it as true"

Obama ordered Trump be spied on, Hillary endorsed the move because she wanted the POTUS seat like a fly is attracted to sh!t - obsessed.

Anyone with a few brain cells dedicated to memory will recall pre-2016 election rhetoric that Hillary will enforce the no-fly zone over Syria as a first act after being sworn it - a direct threat to Russia (Syria ASKED Russia for help, the NWO said F.U) and the spark for WWIII would have been ignited.

ANYONE would have gotten Russias endorsement over Hillary but these same folks with short term memory loss were told by MSM that Trump was actively undertaking traitorous actions by deliberately colluding with Putin to cheat lie and steal the election - aka: everything Hillary and the dodgy democrats did.

Few people realize that house Intel committee head Adam Schiff is coordinating and conspiring with the Senate Intel committee and John Brennan.

justthenews.com...

Everyone knew that the Russians were helping trump when they did BS against Hillary. Hillary brought that upon herself, Putin definitely did not like her for the chaos she tried to start in his government.

Trump did not realize till later that Putin was helping him, and he actually tried to make a comment about he was glad for the help....sort of like a jester. That backfired. There was no collusion though between the trump campaign and the Russians, there has not been anything uncovered by any investigation at all that shows Trump colluded with the russians. He reaped the benefit of Putin disliking...or should I say hating Hillary.

Trump has not denied that Putins interfering did not benefit his campaign after he found out about it. He was not a knowing part it was happening though, and all reports by the FBI said that the Russians interference did not make a difference, since Trump got so many states. He would have made it anyway, there were many sources that exposed Hillary's misdeeds, she did it to herself by doing these wrong things. She might have had a chance if she did not screw Bernie over.

The Results of this committee do not state Trump did any collusion from what I have seen, he was not a part of what Putin did, it was Hillary that caused the Russians to go after her, she made her bed. She should have been less overbearing and pushy against the Russian government. Anyone who ran against Hillary would probably have won...take that Trump...anyone would have won against her.

a reply to: gortex

In order to believe that statement we would need to ignore the intelligence agency own reports which report that Hillary was Putin’s favored candidate. Those emails and assessments are available and were produced by the agency Brennan oversaw. I cannot, and will not EVER understand why an individual who was an avowed communist could ever land the position of CIA Director. He knew this all along since it was a footnote in the fabricated Steel dossier

The dossier was Russian disinformation, in which the corrupt FBI used, proven

The Russian bots were actually not Russian but Democrat paid for in cahoots with twitter

Twitter Voluntarily Gave Private User Data to the Senate Who Gave it to the Democratic Operatives

LINK

Brennan is a traitor

End

a reply to: gortex

the fact the favourite of the Russian leadership won the election when Clinton was forecast to win must raise questions.

It makes me wonder, though. If Trump was Moscow's "favorite", why did they give damaging disinfo on him to Steele?
It's almost like they were more content creating chaos than anything else. Mission accomplished.

originally posted by: gortex
a reply to: DanDanDat

2) that the interference changed the outcome of the election.

I don't think that's a hoax it's an unknown but the fact the favourite of the Russian leadership won the election when Clinton was forecast to win must raise questions.

So .... in the future we as Americans should bar any individual from running for elected office if a foreign power sees them as a "favorite" ... you don't really believe that do you?

Such a decrea would give our adversaries tremendous power over our election system. In the future all Russia would have to do is state "We endorse this candidate" every time they don't like a particular candidate.

Since I know that's not what you would advocate for than the fact that "Trump was a favourite of the Russian leadership" in a two man race is completely irrelevant. In a two man race one of them is always going to be someones favorite; even that of our advisories.


So that leaves your second point; how much influence did the Russians exert and did it change the outcome of the election? You state that this is unknown .... that is far from the truth.

The Muller investigation spent 3 years trying to answer this question. They concluded that Russia under took a disinformation campaign on social media sights and the investigators attempted to indicate the Russian company's and individuals involved. The Muller team was never able to bring those indictments to a conclusion because of the international logistics involved; but we can reasonably assume the Muller investigation was correct in their conclusion. So we clearly know how Russia interfered.

The question becomes how effective that social media interference was? That question is completely academic and can be answered through mundane research... and guess what people have done that research....

...This joint study on the 2016 election by Princeton University and Dartmouth College, would suggest that the level of influence by the Russian social media campaign was not at all effective: 

www.dartmouth.edu...

Specifically, we find that approximately one in four Americans visited a fake news website, but that consumption was disproportionately observed among Trump supporters for whom its largely pro-Trump content was attitude-consistent. However, this pattern of selective exposure was heavily concentrated among a small subset of people — almost six in ten visits to fake news websites came from the 10% of Americans with the most conservative information diets. Finally, we specifically identify Facebook as the most important mechanism facilitating the spread of fake news and show that fact-checking largely failed to e↵ectively reach consumers of fake news.

It was "a small subset of mostly conservative information seekers" who consumed the propaganda. They where already predisposed to vote conservative (ie Trump) over liberal and would have done so with or with out the help of Russia.

originally posted by: 10uoutlaw
a reply to: gortex

What do you expect from the Brennen ? He has already stated that it was Obama that ordered the surveillance . He will probably be the first one charged by Durham ,

This was a panel, almost half of them, Republican congressmen.

originally posted by: carewemust
All anyone has to do is look at the Declassified documents posted to the Senate website over the past seven days by senator Lindsey Graham's Judiciary Committee.

The Senate Intel committee and John Brennan are a little late. The proof and Truth is being exposed. Both of them are corrupt.

Could you provide links because I searched on "declassified" and almost all the results are historical and coming from the "artandhistory" path.