SUBSTACK | PUBLIC | MICHAEL SHELLENBERGER, MATT TAIBBI, AND ALEX GUTENTAG | FEBRUARY 15. 2024

PHOTO | RUSSIAN PRESIDENT VLADIMIR PUTIN (LEFT) LISTENS TO THEN-SECRETARY OF STATE, HILLARY CLINTON, DURING THE ASIA-PACIFIC ECONOMIC COOPERATION (APEC) SUMMIT IN RUSSIA’S FAR EASTERN PORT CITY VLADIVOSTOK ON SEPTEMBER 8, 2012 | CREDIT: AUSTRALIAN AFP PHOTO POOL | MIKHAIL METZEL/AFP/GETTYIMAGES

The Russians didn’t fear a Hillary Clinton presidency. “It was a relationship they were comfortable with,” CIA analysts believed

It was all a lie.

The Trump-Russia scandal made its formal launch on January 6th, 2017, when the office of the Director of National Intelligence James Clapper published what’s called an “Intelligence Community Assessment,” or “ICA,” as it’s universally known in Washington.

Release of the ICA dominated headlines, fixed Donald Trump in the minds of millions of Americans as a Manchurian candidate controlled by Vladamir Putin, and upended his in-coming administration.

The report declared that Russia and Putin interfered in the 2016 presidential election to “denigrate” Hillary Clinton and “harm her electability,” thanks to their “clear preference for President-elect [Donald] Trump.”

It was powerful stuff. And it was dead wrong.

The rest of this article is behind the paywall of an independent voice in journalism. If you value this reporting, please subscribe to ‘Public’, an important donor supported news source.

LINK TO COMPLETE ‘PUBLIC’ ARTICLE ON SUBSTACK

FULL ARTICLE SUMMARY BY COPY.AI :

This article discusses the claims made in the Intelligence Community Assessment (ICA) that was released on January 6th, 2017, regarding Russian interference in the 2016 US presidential election. The report stated that Russia and Vladimir Putin interfered in the election to denigrate Hillary Clinton and had a clear preference for Donald Trump. However, according to a source close to a House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence investigation, the evidence suggests that the ICA’s conclusions were wrong and that the intelligence was manipulated. The source alleges that former CIA Director John Brennan and the ICA authors embellished their conclusions by upgrading unreliable sources to reliable. Dissent within the group of analysts was also reportedly ignored. House investigators found that U.S. intelligence had information suggesting that Russia viewed Trump as “mercurial,” “unreliable,” and “not steady,” while seeing Clinton as “manageable.” The article states that the effort to manufacture the claim that Russia preferred Trump was led by Brennan, who is also accused of surveilling more than two dozen Trump aides and associates before the election. The investigation concludes that the surveillance campaign and the ICA were politically motivated and aimed at damaging Trump. The article draws a parallel to the intelligence report on weapons of mass destruction (WMD) in Iraq, suggesting the manipulation of intelligence for political purposes.

Last Updated on March 1, 2024 by Real KBrett