Results 1 to 6 of 6

Thread: FBI Memos Raise Deep Questions About Russia/Trump Intel Assessment

  1. #1 | Top
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    life
    Posts
    52,794
    Thanks
    13,341
    Thanked 22,579 Times in 15,814 Posts
    Groans
    249
    Groaned 1,951 Times in 1,862 Posts

    Default FBI Memos Raise Deep Questions About Russia/Trump Intel Assessment

    In newly obtained emails, bureau officials noted there was not enough intelligence to support the January 2017 findings by the CIA

    e FBI had concerns with the intelligence community’s (IC) January 2017 assessment that the Kremlin interfered in the presidential election with the specific intent of electing President Trump over Hillary Clinton.

    In newly obtained emails, bureau officials noted there was not enough intelligence to support the January 2017 findings by the CIA which concluded Vladimir Putin meddled in the 2016 election to help Trump, according to a numerous documents and text messages obtained by SaraACarter.com.

    However, while Strzok, Comey and others were disputing the findings of former CIA Director John Brennan and former DNI Director James Clapper behind closed doors, the public perception was that the FBI agreed with the intelligence community’s assessment, as noted in news reports in late 2016 and early 2017

    Strzok believed there wasn’t sufficient evidence to prove Russia wanted Trump in office, text messages suggest he was still intent on proving that members of the Trump campaign colluded with Moscow.

    And while Comey also disagreed with the conclusion of the intelligence assessment, he– like Strzok–believed the unverified dossier, compiled by former British spy Christopher Steele, should have been part of the Intelligence Community Assessment titled “Assessing Russian Activities and Intentions in Recent US Elections.” There is no dispute that the Kremlin meddled in the elections, but the suggestion that it did so to aid Trump set off a wave of controversy for the past several years.

    Then, the FBI waged a full investigation against the Trump campaign over an unverified dossier that alleged collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia, but it was also assessing Russia’s intent on meddling in the election.

    In December 2016 Strzok appeared before the House Intelligence Committee, along with some lawmakers, and expressed concern about the CIA assessment. Shortly after, on Dec. 10, 2016, the FBI received an email inquiry from a reporter asking if it was true that the FBI was uncertain about the CIA’s assessment that Russia was trying to help Trump win the election.

    Strzok sent an email to the FBI press office stating, “We did not have information to differentiate what their ultimate goal was.” He noted that Comey gave the Senate Intelligence Committee the same answer.

    “In other words, the activity is one-sided and clear but we can’t say the sole and primary purpose was specifically intended to help someone, hurt someone else or undermine the process
    he said in the email.

    When the declassified version of the IC Russia report was made public Jan. 6, 2017, the FBI had already addressed members of Congress, but it wouldn’t be until these emails and texts that the public would know the extent of the concerns.

    Strzok’s texts and emails from December 2016 through January 2017 also suggest the FBI was deeply concerned about information being shared with other intelligence agencies, as well as with White House officials.

  2. The Following User Says Thank You to anatta For This Post:

    Stretch (09-20-2018)

  3. #2 | Top
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    life
    Posts
    52,794
    Thanks
    13,341
    Thanked 22,579 Times in 15,814 Posts
    Groans
    249
    Groaned 1,951 Times in 1,862 Posts

    Default

    On Jan. 3, 2017 Strzok sent Lisa Page, his then-paramour and a former FBI lawyer, a text referencing a conversation he had with then-Assistant Director William Priestap, who was head of the counterintelligence division at the bureau. It would only be three days until IC leaders briefed Trump on the dossier and in the same time frame released its findings suggesting that Russia interfered into the election to assist Trump. The text messages were exchanged after 6:30 am just before Strzok and Page attended their routine morning FBI briefing.

    “He, like us, is concerned with oversharing,” said Strzok. “Doesn’t want Clapper giving CR cuts to WH (White House). All political just show our hand and potentially makes enemies.” It is not certain what Strzok means by ‘CR’ in this portion of the text.

    “Yeah, but keep in mind we were going to put that in the doc on Friday, with potentially larger distribution than just the dni,” said Page in response.

    Strzok responded, “the question is should we particularly to the entirety of the lame duck usic with partisan axes to grind.” USIC is in reference to the United States Intelligence Community.
    In previous text messages recovered by Congress, Strzok refers to a ‘sister’ agency and accused them of leaking to the press. Sister agency more than likely refers to the CIA, according to numerous intelligence and law enforcement officials. However, a slew of recently released text messages also suggest Strzok and Page were in communication with the press as well.

    What needs to happen is an investigation outside the DOJ into this whole mess…

    A former senior U.S. intelligence official told SaraACarter.com that Strzok, who was also “playing partisan politics was then worried that sharing information with the other agencies would be used by the Obama administration for political purposes is the real height of hypocrisy and his boss Comey was just the same. What needs to happen is an investigation outside the DOJ into this whole mess.”

    The disagreement between the FBI and the Intelligence Community Assessment didn’t stop the FBI from wanting to attach the unverified dossier to the report. And that was disputed by James R. Clapper, then director of national intelligence, and then CIA Director John O. Brennan, who both objected stating that the dossier was unconfirmed information from a former British spy and not vetted U.S. intelligence.

    Brennan has stated on the record that he did not see the dossier until December 2016. A spokesman for Brennan told this reporter in an interview earlier this year that “former FBI Director Comey has said publicly that he wanted to make sure President Obama and Trump knew about the dossier. Comey decided to attach it to the IC Assessment. There was even talk of including it as part of the IC Assessment but Brennan (and Clapper) in fact were the ones who didn’t allow the dossier to be part of it, and they didn’t allow that because they said the information wasn’t verified intelligence and that wasn’t what the IC Assessment was about.”

    In early December 2016, Strzok and Page texted that there were some conflicts between classified intelligence and the information that was already in the hands of White House officials. And they were both concerned that information would leak.

    “Man, our intel submission is going to be a BOMB,” said Strzok in a text on Dec. 18, 2016.

    “Oh god, why do you say that?” said Page. “Was planning to try to go in early to reach it before our mtg with Jim,“ referencing the FBI Chief of Staff James Rybicki.

    “Oh it’s fine. You’ve heard it all. I’m just saying the C (classified) portion is absolutely different from the bulk of the stuff in the community. And the community and especially the WH will jump all over it since it’s what they WANT to say and they can attribute it to us, not themselves,” Strzok texted back. “All the benefit, none of the political risk. We get all of that.”

    On December 19, 2016, Strzok and Page boast about the number of stories they had a hand in shaping. Page sends a text at 20:17 saying “And this. It will make your head spin to realize how many stories we played a personal role in. Sheesh, this has been quite a year… NYTimes: The most-read stories of 2016 (with a link).”

    Strzok responds “Jesus, I want to take people out for a drink. I want to take YOU out for a drink. I hope this upcoming presidency doesn’t fill my years with regret wondering what we might have done differently.”

    Then page responds to Strzok with a “sad” emoji face.
    https://saraacarter.com/fbi-memos-ra...el-assessment/

  4. The Following User Says Thank You to anatta For This Post:

    Stretch (09-20-2018)

  5. #3 | Top
    Join Date
    Mar 2016
    Posts
    15,536
    Thanks
    1,378
    Thanked 3,981 Times in 3,024 Posts
    Groans
    130
    Groaned 841 Times in 781 Posts

    Default

    remember when they initially said 17 intellegence agencies agreed on the findings? Amazing what declassifying documents can do.
    is on twitter @realtsuke

    https://tsukesthoughts.wordpress.com/

  6. #4 | Top
    Join Date
    Jun 2018
    Posts
    1,254
    Thanks
    152
    Thanked 717 Times in 457 Posts
    Groans
    6
    Groaned 45 Times in 42 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by anatta View Post
    On Jan. 3, 2017 Strzok sent Lisa Page, his then-paramour and a former FBI lawyer, a text referencing a conversation he had with then-Assistant Director William Priestap, who was head of the counterintelligence division at the bureau. It would only be three days until IC leaders briefed Trump on the dossier and in the same time frame released its findings suggesting that Russia interfered into the election to assist Trump. The text messages were exchanged after 6:30 am just before Strzok and Page attended their routine morning FBI briefing.

    “He, like us, is concerned with oversharing,” said Strzok. “Doesn’t want Clapper giving CR cuts to WH (White House). All political just show our hand and potentially makes enemies.” It is not certain what Strzok means by ‘CR’ in this portion of the text.

    “Yeah, but keep in mind we were going to put that in the doc on Friday, with potentially larger distribution than just the dni,” said Page in response.

    Strzok responded, “the question is should we particularly to the entirety of the lame duck usic with partisan axes to grind.” USIC is in reference to the United States Intelligence Community.
    In previous text messages recovered by Congress, Strzok refers to a ‘sister’ agency and accused them of leaking to the press. Sister agency more than likely refers to the CIA, according to numerous intelligence and law enforcement officials. However, a slew of recently released text messages also suggest Strzok and Page were in communication with the press as well.

    What needs to happen is an investigation outside the DOJ into this whole mess…

    A former senior U.S. intelligence official told SaraACarter.com that Strzok, who was also “playing partisan politics was then worried that sharing information with the other agencies would be used by the Obama administration for political purposes is the real height of hypocrisy and his boss Comey was just the same. What needs to happen is an investigation outside the DOJ into this whole mess.”

    The disagreement between the FBI and the Intelligence Community Assessment didn’t stop the FBI from wanting to attach the unverified dossier to the report. And that was disputed by James R. Clapper, then director of national intelligence, and then CIA Director John O. Brennan, who both objected stating that the dossier was unconfirmed information from a former British spy and not vetted U.S. intelligence.

    Brennan has stated on the record that he did not see the dossier until December 2016. A spokesman for Brennan told this reporter in an interview earlier this year that “former FBI Director Comey has said publicly that he wanted to make sure President Obama and Trump knew about the dossier. Comey decided to attach it to the IC Assessment. There was even talk of including it as part of the IC Assessment but Brennan (and Clapper) in fact were the ones who didn’t allow the dossier to be part of it, and they didn’t allow that because they said the information wasn’t verified intelligence and that wasn’t what the IC Assessment was about.”

    In early December 2016, Strzok and Page texted that there were some conflicts between classified intelligence and the information that was already in the hands of White House officials. And they were both concerned that information would leak.

    “Man, our intel submission is going to be a BOMB,” said Strzok in a text on Dec. 18, 2016.

    “Oh god, why do you say that?” said Page. “Was planning to try to go in early to reach it before our mtg with Jim,“ referencing the FBI Chief of Staff James Rybicki.

    “Oh it’s fine. You’ve heard it all. I’m just saying the C (classified) portion is absolutely different from the bulk of the stuff in the community. And the community and especially the WH will jump all over it since it’s what they WANT to say and they can attribute it to us, not themselves,” Strzok texted back. “All the benefit, none of the political risk. We get all of that.”

    On December 19, 2016, Strzok and Page boast about the number of stories they had a hand in shaping. Page sends a text at 20:17 saying “And this. It will make your head spin to realize how many stories we played a personal role in. Sheesh, this has been quite a year… NYTimes: The most-read stories of 2016 (with a link).”

    Strzok responds “Jesus, I want to take people out for a drink. I want to take YOU out for a drink. I hope this upcoming presidency doesn’t fill my years with regret wondering what we might have done differently.”

    Then page responds to Strzok with a “sad” emoji face.
    https://saraacarter.com/fbi-memos-ra...el-assessment/
    Save it sock puppet

  7. #5 | Top
    Join Date
    Jul 2017
    Posts
    43,479
    Thanks
    12,574
    Thanked 23,756 Times in 16,563 Posts
    Groans
    249
    Groaned 1,622 Times in 1,532 Posts

    Default

    By John Solomon
    Opinion Contributor

    For most of the past two years, the U.S. intelligence community has presented a united front on all the key conclusions in the January 2017 report that Russia meddled in the 2016 presidential election.

    Now, congressional investigators have unearthed text messages and emails showing the FBI feared there were some in the intelligence community with “partisan axes to grind” and suggesting there could be no singular conclusion that Moscow wanted to help elect Donald Trump.

    For instance, then-FBI agent Peter Strzok’s text and email messages in December 2016 and January 2017 show his boss feared that giving some classified information to the White House, then-Director of National Intelligence (DNI) James Clapper and the larger intelligence community in the final days of the Obama administration might result in political abuse.

    “He, like us, is concerned with over sharing. Doesn’t want Clapper giving CR cuts to WH. All political, just shows our hand and potentially makes enemies,” Strzok wrote to FBI lawyer Lisa Page on Jan. 3, 2017, relating a conversation he apparently had with then-Assistant Director William Priestap, the top counterintelligence official in the bureau.

    Investigators aren’t certain yet what “CR cuts” refers to. Some, though, think it could be a reference to “classified raw” intelligence, such as the unverified Steele dossier or possible intercepts. Others wonder whether it could refer to budget cuts in a "continuing resolution" though no such budget was pending at the time. Whatever the case, the political distrust of colleagues is clear. “WH,” of course, refers to the White House.

    “Yeah, but keep in mind we were going to put that in the doc on Friday, with potentially larger distribution than just the dni,” Page texted back. Strzok answered back, escalating his concerns: “The question is should we, particularly to the entirety of the lame duck usic with partisan axes to grind.” "USIC" is an acronym for the United States Intelligence Community.

    The text messages were exchanged at a critical time, less than 72 hours before the U.S. intelligence community would release an explosive report to then-President Obama, President-elect Donald Trump and the public concluding that Russia did in fact meddle in the 2016 election.

    That report concluded Russia’s intent was to help Trump win the presidency.

    But texts and emails uncovered by congressional investigators suggest there was some ambiguity in the classified information about sorting out the true intentions of Moscow.

    Just before Christmas in 2016, as Trump was preparing to assume the presidency, Strzok and Page texted sentiments of concern that there was some conflicts between classified intelligence and the information already in the intelligence community.

    Those conflicts, they feared, would surface as the FBI made its final contribution to the intelligence community report on Russia meddling.

    “Man, our intel submission is going to be a BOMB,” Strzok texted on the evening of Dec. 18, 2016.

    “Oh god, why do you say that?” Page wrote back. “Was planning to try to go in early to reach it before our mtg with Jim,” an apparent reference to FBI chief of staff James Rybicki.

    “Oh it’s fine. You’ve heard it all. I’m just saying the C portion is absolutely different from the bulk of the stuff in the community. And the community and especially the WH will jump all over it since it’s what they WANT to say and they can attribute it to us, not themselves.

    “All the benefit, none of the political risk. We get all of that,” Strzok added.

    At the time, the FBI had the unverified dossier written by a former British spy alleging unproven collusion between the Trump campaign and Moscow, as well as information from an Australian diplomat suggesting a Trump campaign aide had prior knowledge of Russian hacking of Clinton's emails.

    Congressional investigators believe Strzok and Page might be referencing that classified information, since it was something not widely known in the intelligence community at the time.

    But at the same time, the FBI also was debating whether it could definitely conclude that Russia’s intent in meddling in the 2016 election was to help Trump win. Strzok, in December, had talked with the House Intelligence Committee, and some lawmakers privately expressed concern that his analysis was different than that of the CIA, emails show.

    On Dec. 10, 2016, the FBI received an inquiry from a reporter about whether the FBI was uncertain about the emerging conclusion that Russia was trying to help Trump win. The reporter intended to report that FBI counterintelligence was “much less emphatic than the CIA about Russia intent.”

    Strzok weighed in to help the FBI press office address the reporter’s question, an email that has now captured congressional investigators' fancy because it states clearly the FBI couldn’t distinguish that any one of three possible motives drove Russia’s meddling.

    “The specific point I made was we did not have information to differentiate what their ultimate goal was,” Strzok emailed, adding that then-Director James Comey told Senate Intelligence something similar.

    “In other words, the activity is one-sided and clear but we can’t say the sole and primary purpose was specifically intended to help someone, hurt someone else or undermine the process. The reality is all three,” he wrote.

    Strzok’s email is more carefully couched than the official intelligence report that came out Jan. 6, 2017, from the Obama administration that simply declared: “We also assess Putin and the Russian Government aspired to help President-elect Trump’s election chances when possible by discrediting Secretary Clinton and publicly contrasting her unfavorably to him.”

    That report has been the official conclusion of the community for two years. But there has been evidence of dissent or uncertainty — not on Russia’s meddling but as it relates to Trump.

    The National Security Agency disclosed it only had “moderate confidence” in the conclusion that Putin was trying to help Trump. The House Intelligence Committee said it could not validate Putin’s intentions about Trump.

    And now Strzok’s recently disclosed emails and texts show the final process leading to the issuance of the Russia report was secretly mired in concerns about “partisan axes,” differences in intelligence community information and a subtle but important realization that the “primary purpose” for Russia’s meddling really couldn’t be determined.

    https://thehill.com/hilltv/rising/40...ussia-election

  8. #6 | Top
    Join Date
    Oct 2016
    Location
    land-locked in Ocala,FL
    Posts
    27,321
    Thanks
    30,862
    Thanked 16,758 Times in 11,557 Posts
    Groans
    1,063
    Groaned 889 Times in 847 Posts

    Default

    After all the left's lying, leaking, plotting, interfering and scheming.................."moderate confidence" and "primary purpose for Russia's meddling really couldn't be determined."
    shaking my head
    Abortion rights dogma can obscure human reason & harden the human heart so much that the same person who feels
    empathy for animal suffering can lack compassion for unborn children who experience lethal violence and excruciating
    pain in abortion.

    Unborn animals are protected in their nesting places, humans are not. To abort something is to end something
    which has begun. To abort life is to end it.



Similar Threads

  1. Woodward's revelations raise disturbing questions about Trump
    By floridafan in forum General Politics Forum
    Replies: 219
    Last Post: 09-15-2018, 10:07 PM
  2. Replies: 16
    Last Post: 09-05-2018, 09:25 AM
  3. Unanswered Senate Intel Committee Leaker Questions Haunt Russia Probe
    By hvilleherb in forum Current Events Forum
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 06-12-2018, 01:29 AM
  4. Replies: 6
    Last Post: 03-13-2018, 11:39 AM
  5. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 12-07-2017, 10:46 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Rules

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •