In addition, it appears the director of the DNI is saying this story is not part of a “Russia conspiracy” as a few Democrats are claiming.
Set aside the topic for a second.. how is any Congressman going to the media and making things up acceptable?
For the same reason as all Congressional behavior that is acceptable---voters don't hold them accountable.
As it stands, off-every-four-years elections tend to see sub-50% turnout.
I should have watched the interview and my comments further down are inaccurate.
But - oh wait - I didn't realize that Ratcliffe the guy that released dubious information about Hillary Clinton a few weeks before the election coming up.
https://www.businessinsider.com/dni-ratcliffe-declassifies-r...
''Andrew Weiss, a Russia specialist who is the James Family chair and vice president for studies at the Carnegie Endowment, described Ratcliffe's decision as "total national security malpractice,"''
Which totally violates the norms of the Intelligence Community and was done to help the President's re-election campaign:
https://www.lawfareblog.com/john-ratcliffes-dangerous-declas...
Why do people trust this guy? You shouldn't. Even if what he says turns out to be true, his actions reveal him as an un-trustworthy person on this issue. ]
-------------------------------------------------------
----- Please just ignore this stuff below :-) ---------
> the DNI says that they haven't passed any reports/briefings to Congress that say that.
While I didn't read/watch the interview/article in question, I just want to point out that the DNI statement, as you described it, is pretty carefully worded.
They "have not passed reports/briefings that say it's Russian disinformation". This leaves room for:
- Documents or meetings not officially considered reports/briefings.
- Documents or meetings with damning information but that draw no explicit conclusions, leaving it to the House Intelligence Committee to do that.
Obviously what I'm saying isn't a strong argument one way or the other. What I am saying, is, it's important to look at the big picture and to do so with a careful eye.
Personally I think the blog Lawfare does an excellent job of this and is a great guide for these sorts of issues. Here's their analysis of the Senate Intelligence Committee Report:
https://www.lawfareblog.com/collusion-reading-diary-what-did...
"One of the clever features of the Senate Intelligence Committee’s report is the committee’s apparent decision to draw no conclusions, merely to recount facts. This allowed the entire committee, irrespective of party or fealty to the president, to join in the factual findings."
And then ...
"To read these thousand pages and come away with the conclusion that they amount to evidence of “no collusion” really involves a protestation of faith, not a dispassionate assessment of presented evidence."
It's a very comprehensive document and I highly recommend it.
Though it's not related to the issue at hand I still recommend checking out Lawfare : ).
The whole "17 agencies" story being a great case in point. The 17 became 3, and the 3 became ~two dozen hand-picked analysts. None of that stops people like Schiff from continuing to spout the "17 agencies" line though.
https://consortiumnews.com/2017/05/23/new-cracks-in-russia-g...
Like Ray McGovern says, the biggest four letter word in DC is "accountability".
"U.S. intelligence agencies warned the White House last year that President Trump’s personal lawyer Rudolph W. Giuliani was the target of an influence operation by Russian intelligence, according to four former officials familiar with the matter.
The warnings were based on multiple sources, including intercepted communications, that showed Giuliani was interacting with people tied to Russian intelligence during a December 2019 trip to Ukraine, where he was gathering information that he thought would expose corrupt acts by former vice president Joe Biden and his son Hunter."
https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/giuliani-bi...
While some early Senate-confirmed Trump appointees, including his first DNI Dan Coats, were not transparent bootlicking shills in all their public comments, that's certainly not the case for any appointed as recently as this spring, like Ratcliffe.
https://www.businessinsider.com/trump-dni-john-ratcliffe-dec...
'Andrew Weiss, a Russia specialist who is the James Family chair and vice president for studies at the Carnegie Endowment, described Ratcliffe's decision as "total national security malpractice,"'
Something which violates the norms of the Intelligence Community and was clearly done to help the President's re-election campaign:
https://www.lawfareblog.com/john-ratcliffes-dangerous-declas...
Why do you trust this guy? You shouldn't, not on this. His actions reveal his priorities.
Do folks think that was a responsible, appropriate act for the Director of National Intelligence in line with their role and their obligations?