CIA Director John Ratcliffe and Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard have stirred the pot with their latest insights into what many are now calling the Russia collusion hoax. Former DNI James Clapper has indicated that he’s gearing up legally, saying he would “lawyer up.” Meanwhile, ex-CIA Director John Brennan took to MSNBC to portray himself as a victim, claiming that the president is merely trying to retaliate against those who’ve openly criticized him in the past.
John Kerry, who was reportedly part of the 2016 meeting where the Russia collusion narrative began to unfold, has been noticeably silent. He locked his tweets on X just before President Donald Trump’s inauguration, choosing to stay out of the limelight. Susan Miller, a former CIA operative with 39 years at the agency, is now among those on the defensive, and she doesn’t seem to be exactly what she presents herself as.
In her latest public appearances, Miller, a known associate of former Obama official and Democratic donor Caroline Kennedy, has been busy painting Gabbard as deceitful. She’s also denying the substantial new evidence about the Obama administration’s involvement in crafting the Russia collusion story. Last week, Gabbard released a declassified report from the House Intelligence Committee majority staff about the creation of the 2017 Intelligence Community Assessment.
This report has shed light on the Obama administration’s Intelligence Community Assessment, a document that set the stage for years of Russia-collusion claims, two impeachments, and several arrests. It found that the CIA, NSA, and FBI, under the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, misrepresented reports. Specifically, it mentioned that John Brennan, a vocal Trump critic, had ordered the publication of certain reports as “reliable,” without acknowledging their significant flaws.
The report further indicated that reliable intelligence reports, which challenged the notion that Putin sought to elect Trump, were ignored or selectively quoted. It pointed out that the Obama administration violated analytic standards by citing the discredited Steele dossier, funded partly by the Clinton campaign, despite concerns about its credibility. Brennan reportedly included this dossier in the ICA against internal opposition.
Moreover, the narrative that Russian President Vladimir Putin aimed to help Trump was supported by a single, unclear, and unverifiable sentence from a “substandard report.” CIA officers initially left this out but were ordered by Brennan to include it. The report also noted a failure to consider alternative explanations of Putin’s intentions that were indicated by more reliable intelligence.
The ICA was crafted by five CIA analysts handpicked by Brennan and was rushed out to publish two weeks before Trump’s inauguration. This has raised serious questions about the intentions behind the report’s hurried release. The newly declassified documents reveal what some are calling a “treasonous conspiracy” by top officials in the Obama administration.
The report accused these officials of attempting to subvert the will of the American people and undermine Trump’s presidency. The revelations have prompted a heated debate about the integrity and motivations of those involved in the Russia collusion narrative. The implications of these findings could resonate deeply within political circles for a long time.
The facts uncovered have stirred a whirlwind of reactions from conservative commentators and media outlets. Fox News and the New York Post have both highlighted the gravity of these claims, emphasizing the potential misuse of power at the highest levels. This has only fueled further scrutiny of the Obama administration’s actions during the transition of power.
Newsmax has also weighed in, underscoring the significance of the allegations and the need for accountability. The conservative media landscape is abuzz with discussions about the ramifications of this report. Many are calling for a deeper investigation into the origins and dissemination of the Russia collusion narrative.
Critics argue that the Obama administration’s handling of intelligence reports was politically motivated. They claim that this was an orchestrated effort to delegitimize Trump’s presidency before it even began. The report has reignited discussions about transparency and trust in the intelligence community.
Supporters of Trump see this as validation of their long-held belief that he was unfairly targeted. They view the report as evidence of a concerted effort to undermine his administration. The revelations have also prompted calls for greater scrutiny of intelligence operations and the potential for political bias.
While some remain skeptical of the findings, others are convinced that this is just the tip of the iceberg. The unveiling of these documents has sparked a renewed interest in the events surrounding the 2016 election. The political implications of this report could have lasting effects on both sides of the aisle.
As the story continues to unfold, the focus remains on understanding the full scope of the alleged conspiracy. The release of these documents has added a new layer to the ongoing debate about election integrity and political accountability. The conversation is far from over, and many are watching closely to see what developments may arise.
