Admiral Mike Rogers, tidligere leder for National Security Agency, forklaer seg for Senatets etterretningskomite 16 mai. Foto: Joshua Roberts/Reuters/Scanpix
Senatets etterretningskomite la onsdag frem første del av sin etterforskning av Russian collusion og konkluderte på samme måte som etterretningsvurderingen i januar 2017: Putin ville på virke valget og forhindre at Hillary ble valgt, ergo fremmet han Trumps kandidatur.
Etterretningskomiteen viser eksplisitt til rapporten som lederne for FBI, CIA og NSA presenterte for Trump i Trump Tower i januar 2017.
“Committee staff have spent 14 months reviewing the sources, tradecraft, and analytic work, and we see no reason to dispute the conclusions,” Burr said in a statement. “There is no doubt that Russia undertook an unprecedented effort to interfere with our 2016 elections. I look forward to completing the Committee’s inquiry and issuing our findings and recommendations to the American people.”
Warner said, “After a thorough review, our staff concluded that the ICA conclusions were accurate and on point. The Russian effort was extensive, sophisticated, and ordered by President Putin himself for the purpose of helping Donald Trump and hurting Hillary Clinton.”
Brennan er selvmotsigende
Det er Paul Sperry ofReal Clear Investigationssom har funnet ut at CIA-sjef John Brennan motsa de andre e-sjefene da han overfor e-komiteen i Representantenes hus påsto at Steele-rapporten ikke dannet basis for ICA-rapporten, e-tjenestenes samlede rapport, som ble presentert for Trump i januar 2017. Dette stemmer ikke. Steele-rapporten var en viktig del av rapporten.
I så fall kan Brennan har begått mened.
In May of 2017, Brennan told the House Intel Committee that the Steele dossier was «not in any way used as the basis for the intelligence community’s assessment» that Russia interfered in the election to help elect Donald Trump. Sperry points out that «Brennan has repeated this claim numerous times, including in February onMeet the Press.» (…)
Recently retired National Security Agency Director Michael Rogers and former Director of National Intelligence James Clapper have said otherwise — meaning Brennan may have perjured himself when he testified about anti-Trump Steele dossier.
Rogers stated in a classified letter to Congress that the DNC and Clinton campaign-funded memos did factor into the assessment, and Clapper conceded in a recent CNN interview that the ICA was based on “some of the substantive content of the dossier.”
Så sent som i mars 2018 skriver Mike Rogers til leder av e-komiteen i Representantenes hus, Devin Nunes, at Steele-rapporten dannet et to siders appendix til ICA-rapporten.
In a March 5, 2018, letter to House Intelligence Committee Chairman Devin Nunes, Adm. Rogers informed the committee that a two-page summary of the dossier — described as “the Christopher Steele information” — was “added” as an “appendix to the ICA draft,” and that consideration of that appendix was “part of the overall ICA review/approval process.”
Allerede i januar 2017 kom det frem at NSA ikke stilte seg helhjertet bak de mest bastante konklusjonene. Det var ikke sikkert at Putin bevisst fremmet Trumps kandidatur. Det kan ha vært mer komplisert.
His skepticism of the dossier may explain why the NSA parted company with other intelligence agencies and cast doubt on one of its crucial conclusions: that Vladimir Putin personally ordered a cyberattack on Hillary Clinton’s campaign to help Donald Trump win the White House.
Rogers has testified that while he was sure the Russians wanted to hurt Clinton, he wasn’t as confident as CIA and FBI officials that their actions were designed to help Trump, explaining that such as assessment «didn’t have the same level of sourcing and the same level of multiple sources.”
ICA-rapporten og appendixet er preget av det samme språket, som mann finner i Steele-rapporten. Og de kommer til samme konklusjon.
Det var heller ikke en rapport alle 17 etterretningsorganisasjoner stilte seg bak. Kun CIA FBI og NSA deltok. Defence Intelligence Agency og Department og Homeland Security ble ikke spurt.
Enda merkeligere var det at man ikke ba en ekspertgruppe være Djevelens advokat.
«Traditionally, controversial intelligence community assessments like this include dissenting views and the views of an outside review group,” said Fred Fleitz, who was a CIA analyst for 19 years. «It also should have been thoroughly vetted with all relevant IC agencies,” he added. «Why were DHS and DIA excluded?”
Fleitz suggests that the Obama administration limited the number of players involved in the analysis to skew the results. He believes the process was “manipulated” to reach a “predetermined political conclusion” that the incoming Republican president was compromised by the Russians.
Men det er verre enn som så: Brennan håndplukket analytikerne som skulle skrive rapporten. En av dem var Peter Strzok som var så åpent hatefull mot Trump at han måtte fjernes fra Bob Muellers team,da han kunne skade det.
But it gets worse — according to a source close to the House investigation, Brennan hand-picked the CIA and FBI analysts who worked on the ICA, one of whom was former FBI counterespionage agent Peter Strzok.
“Strzok was the intermediary between Brennan and [former FBI Director James] Comey, and he was one of the authors of the ICA,” the source told Sperry.
Den rapporten de tre etterretningssjefene presenterte for Trump i januar, luktet lang vei.
«This intelligence community assessment that came out in early January of 2017 was very, very strange,» said Fleitz.
Det virker derfor noe merkelig at etterretningskomiteen i Senatet er så enig, mens den i Representantenes hus er dypt splittet. Det er sistnevnte som har fått ut dokumenter fra justisdepartemtentet og FBI som har flyttet debatten. Noe slikt ser vi ikke i Senatet.