Liberals will see this and shout "fake news":
Conservatives will see this and shout "old news."
But here it is, a CIA report tells us Obama's Russia Collusion Hoax was, from the beginning, corrupt.
We were told that Vladimir Putin helped Donald Trump win the 2016 election, and you bet your bottom dollar the Obama administration rushed this Intelligence Community Assessment (ICA) through in order to get it out before Trump took office. CIA Director John Brennan, FBI Director James Comey, and Director of National Intelligence James Clapper were heavily involved in this assessment, which was deemed "highly unusual" in this new CIA report.
From the report:
The DA [Directorate of Analysis] Review identified multiple procedural anomalies in the preparation of the ICA. These included a highly compressed production timeline, stringent compartmentation, and excessive involvement of agency heads, all of which led to departures from standard practices in the drafting, coordination, and reviewing of the ICA. These departures impeded efforts to apply rigorous tradecraft, particularly to the assessment's most contentious judgment.
They wanted to get this done, see, before Trump took office; or else he would bury the story with the help of Vladimir Putin.
To the question of the timeline issue:
The highly compressed timeline was atypical for a formal IC assessment, which ordinarily can take months to prepare, especially for assessments of such length, complexity, and political sensitivity. CIA's primary authors had less than a week to draft the assessment and less than two days to formally coordinate it with IC peers before it entered the formal review process at CIA on 20 December ...
ICD 203 stipulates that analysis be 'independent of political consideration' and 'must not be distorted by, nor shaped for, advocacy of a particular audience, agenda, or policy viewpoint.' The election had concluded, and the ICA was essentially a post-mortem analysis. Therefore, the rushed timeline to publish both classified and unclassified versions before the presidential transition raised questions about a potential political motive behind the White House tasking and timeline.
If there wasn't a political motivation here, I'll eat my hat.
Now let's move on to the heavy involvement of leadership in this assessment:
While agency heads sometimes review controversial analytic assessments before publication, their direct engagement in the ICA's development was highly unusual in both scope and intensity. This exceptional level of senior involvement likely influenced participants, altered normal review processes, and ultimately compromised analytic rigor. One CIA analytic manager involved in the process said other analytic managers-who would typically have been part of the review chain — opted out due to the politically charged environment and the atypical prominence of agency leadership in the process.
Leadership seemed to want to take down Trump, and the media leaks definitely helped:
However, before work on the assessment even began, media leaks suggesting that the IC had already reached definitive conclusions risked creating an anchoring bias.
On 9 December, both the Washington Post and New York Times reported the IC had concluded with high confidence that Russia had intervened specifically to help Trump win the election. The Post cited an unnamed US official describing this as the IC's 'consensus view.'
Anchoring bias, according to the New York Post, is "a cognitive bias in psychology and suggests that the media leaks may have influenced the analysts working on the ICA to shape their findings to conform with the leaked narrative rather than conducting an objective analysis."
I'm just gonna keep feeding you bits of this report:
From the outset, agency heads chose to marginalize the National Intelligence Council (NIC), departing significantly from standard procedures for formal IC assessments.
Typically, the NIC maintains control over drafting assignments, coordination, and review processes. In his book Undaunted, Brennan reveals that he established crucial elements of the process with the White House before NIC involvement, stating he informed them that CIA would 'take the lead drafting the report' and that coordination would be limited to 'ODNI, CIA, FBI, and NSA.'
• (U) These departures from standard procedure not only limited opportunities for coordination and thorough tradecraft review, but also resulted in the complete exclusion of key intelligence agencies from the process. While sensitive counterintelligence information in community assessments often requires restricted access, the decision to entirely shut out the Defense Intelligence Agency and the Department of State's Bureau of Intelligence and Research from any participation in such a high-profile assessment about an adversary's plans and intentions was a significant deviation from typical IC practices.
(U) It also was markedly unconventional to have Agency heads review and sign off on a draft before it was submitted to the NIC for review. The NIC did not receive or even see the final draft until just hours before the ICA was due to be published.
They also included the Steele Dossier in their assessment, which ended up being a huge mistake.
The decision by agency heads to include the Steele Dossier in the ICA ran counter to fundamental tradecraft principles and ultimately undermined the credibility of a key judgment. The ICA authors first learned of the Dossier, and FBI leadership's insistence on its inclusion, on 20
December-the same day the largely coordinated draft was entering the review process at CIA. FBI leadership made it clear that their participation in the ICA hinged on the Dossier's inclusion and, over the next few days, repeatedly pushed to weave references to it throughout the main body of the ICA.
• (S//NF) The ICA authors and multiple senior CIA managers-including the two senior leaders of the ClA mission center responsible for Russia - strongly opposed including the Dossier, asserting that it did not meet even the most basic tradecraft standards. CIA's Deputy Director for Analysis (DDA) warned in an email to Brennan on 29 December that including it in any form risked 'the credibility of the entire paper.'
As far as the Putin "aspired" to help Trump win, well...
The 'aspired' judgment did not merit the 'high confidence' level that CIA and FBI attached to it. As explained in the ICA's Annex H - Estimative Language, 'high confidence generally indicates that judgments are based on high-quality information from multiple sources.' The ICA emphasized only the one highly classified CIA serialized report to support this judgment.
Just a reminder that pretty much no one has been held accountable at all for this treasonous lie.
P.S. Now check out our latest video 👇
