PUBLISHED TO
The Senate Select Committee on Intelligence has completed their look at the 2016 Intelligence Community Assessment
which said that Russia intended to interfere in the United States’
election and that their purpose was to help Donald Trump while harming
Hillary Clinton. The Senate committee found that “the conclusions of the
ICA are sound,” and that the evidence they had acquired since the time
of the ICA’s publication only served to “continue to reinforce its
assessments.”
On the specific subject of the intention of the Russian leadership to help Donald Trump, the Senate committee did not hedge their bets.
This is in direct contrast to the findings of the House Intelligence Committee, where Trump supporters led a Republican-dominated report in finding that “The Intelligence Community Assessment judgments on Putin's strategic intentions did not employ proper analytic tradecraft.” How dairy farmer Devin Nunes determined proper intelligence tradecraft is not clear.
What is clear is that the Senate product, published on Tuesday by committee chairman Richard Burr, completely contradicts both the House report and the earlier letter from Republicans on the House committee.
To what extent the Russian operations were successful in helping Trump was carefully avoided in the ICA, as the agencies wanted to avoid stepping into domestic politics. The Senate committee followed the same line when it comes to their review of the ICA—though, it can be assumed that will not be true of their complete report on the investigation.
On the specific subject of the intention of the Russian leadership to help Donald Trump, the Senate committee did not hedge their bets.
The Committee found that the ICA provided intelligence and open source reporting to support this assessment, and information obtained subsequent to publication of the ICA provides further support.The Senate committee’s review also notes that the conclusions of the ICA were both “reasonable” and “transparent.”
This is in direct contrast to the findings of the House Intelligence Committee, where Trump supporters led a Republican-dominated report in finding that “The Intelligence Community Assessment judgments on Putin's strategic intentions did not employ proper analytic tradecraft.” How dairy farmer Devin Nunes determined proper intelligence tradecraft is not clear.
What is clear is that the Senate product, published on Tuesday by committee chairman Richard Burr, completely contradicts both the House report and the earlier letter from Republicans on the House committee.
The ICA relies on public Russian leadership commentary, Russian state media reports, public examples of where Russian interests would have aligned with candidates' policy statements, and a body of intelligence reporting to support the assessment that Putin and the Russian Government developed a clear preference for Trump.Not only did the Senate review agree with the ICA assessment, they again noted that information that had come in after the time of the ICA only “provides further support.”
To what extent the Russian operations were successful in helping Trump was carefully avoided in the ICA, as the agencies wanted to avoid stepping into domestic politics. The Senate committee followed the same line when it comes to their review of the ICA—though, it can be assumed that will not be true of their complete report on the investigation.
The Committee believes the conclusions of the ICA are sound, and notes that collection and analysis subsequent to the ICA's publication continue to reinforce its assessments. The Committee will remain vigilant in its oversight of the ongoing challenges presented by foreign nations attempting to secretly influence U.S. affairs.This should be a massive embarrassment to Nunes, Trey Gowdy, Mike Conaway, Peter King, and the other Republican members of the House Committee. But since all of them seem to be beyond embarrassment, they likely won’t notice that while the Senate review shows the intelligence community did a good job, it doesn’t say the same for the House.
No comments:
Post a Comment