tick tock the walls are closing in, some cons say. i'd say that the odds of anything earth-shattering are small but about to be released documents will put the Hoax into much deeper context. it will be another decade or so before the normies and media concede what happened.

https://x.com/DNIGabbard/status/1946271402971312514

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5752281&forum_id=2/#49114088)

https://theothermccain.com/2025/07/19/to-cap-an-action-packed-week-of-winning-tulsi-nukes-russiagate/

https://twitchy.com/aaronwalker/2025/07/18/breaking-tulsi-gabbard-report-declassified-evidence-of-obama-admin-effort-to-subvert-trumps-first-term-n2415866

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5752281&forum_id=2/#49114374)

https://x.com/krassenstein/status/1946557531238683010?s=46

https://x.com/krassenstein/status/1946291971913662844?s=46

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5752281&forum_id=2/#49114384)

there is no doubt that Brennan, Comey, Clapper, Rice, Yates, and others pushed a phony theory for partisan ends. Obama has been carefully insulated from direct evidence so far but if you're not partisan you have to believe that Obama knew it was bullshit.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5752281&forum_id=2/#49114398)

“Gabbard’s claims run counter to a bipartisan Senate Intelligence Committee investigation that found Russia interfered in the 2016 election and noted that although Trump’s contact with Russian officials presented a “grave” intelligence threat, it was not clear if the president’s allies knowingly worked with Russia to bolster Trump’s chances of victory.”

“A 2019 report by Special Counsel Robert Mueller also found Russia interfered in the election.”

https://www.forbes.com/sites/antoniopequenoiv/2025/07/18/with-trump-under-scrutiny-over-epstein-tulsi-gabbard-calls-for-prosecution-of-obama-era-officials/

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5752281&forum_id=2/#49114401)

i don't have time to respond more fully right now, but you are conflating two very different things -- which is the standard ploy since the Russia Collusion Hoax was exposed as Hillary's fraudulent creation.

did the Russians attempt to influence the election? yes, apparently so, although (1) every major nation on earth tries to influence US elections and (2) the actual steps Russia took and the impact of those steps is disputed and in my view is wildly exaggerated. one thing everyone agrees on is what Trump said from the get-go, Russia and Trump did not collude.

another thing we all know is that Brennan knew that Hillary, Perkins Coie, Fusion, and the british guy Christopher Steele were concocted a false narrative of Trump colluding with Russia. Brennan even briefed Obama on the fact that Hillary was concocting it and would bring it public through hidden means.

but if Russia was trying to influence the election and if Hillary was concocted a Russian Collusoin fraud why not (1) call in Trump and give him a defensive briefing and then focus LEO efforts on stopping the influence, and (2) call in Hillary and say we know what you're doing and we're investigating it and you need to cut that shit out right now?

instead, the IC-DOJ-Obama team did not investigate Hillary's fraud about Trump's collusion and instead they treated it as legitimate to the massive detriment of Trump and his first presidency. Brennan even insisted that the baseless Steele Dossier be part of the IC assessment, and the IC community tried to entrap Carter Page and others near Trump. they got four fraudulent two-hop FISA warrants against a patriotic American and even used doctored evidence against him. (given that Page was a consultant to the Trump campaign, the two-hop rule presumably means that Trump himself was under surveillance.)

it's quite revealing that for all the indictments that Mueller pursued after all the subpoenas, document seizures, grand jury testimony, confidential interviews under oath, and other fact finding, no one was accused of, or indicted for, collusion and the Report says that there is no evidence of collusion. so at this point, the Krassenstein's of the world fall back on "omg Mueller found that Russians interfered!" as if that was the crucial issue.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5752281&forum_id=2/#49114460)

from the hints in the media it sounds like Bondi's DOJ might claim a wide-ranging conspiracy that includes what went down in Mar-a-lago and they will say that the SoL hasn't run because the conspiracy continued and that the matter can be venued in FL rather than DC (where the judges and juries will do anything they can to stop Trump). if that's what they're going to try, it's weak bullshit and will go nowhere.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5752281&forum_id=2/#49114476)

And all of those shills will be deployed to support Tulsi’s “bombshell”

No one gives a shit after the Epstein dud. Trump dented his own propaganda pipeline.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5752281&forum_id=2/#49125205)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SHj2r4NwRs4

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5752281&forum_id=2/#49115128)

IC assessed that Russia didn't have the intent or the tools to try to change the election outcome.

then Trump won.

even after that IC continued that assessment.

but in early December there was a PDB put together, saying the same thing. but that PDB was pulled suspiciously and was never released until Tulsi just did it.

the next day, Obama holds a meeting of his top National Security officials and the results of that meeting were just released. Obama directed a piece of intelligence that was manufactured to reverse the consistent IC assessments that preceded it. this Obama mandate is the one that we just learned was driven top down by Brennan to fit a narrative rather than driven from below from real intelligence. this was the assessment that Brennan insisted would include the Steele Dossier.

that doctored assessment was the basis for the Mueller appointment, for the fraudulent FISA warrants, and for the entire movement to stymie a lawfully elected POTUS.

===

i found her narrative persuasive. she's a straight shooter.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5752281&forum_id=2/#49115152)

Walls closing in!

This is HUGE!

Wait two weeks!

Arrests any day now!

Lmao cons come on guys. How have you not learned by now?

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5752281&forum_id=2/#49115165)

Obama absolutely done here (for real this time)!

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5752281&forum_id=2/#49115178)

but this dump once again makes it obvious why hours before Trump was inaugurated Obama called that bizarre meeting and kept saying that everything has to be by the book! and Susan Rice wrote an email to herself confirming that. i assume Obama knew the shitstorm that was coming down and that Brennan, Comey, and Clapper were hacks.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5752281&forum_id=2/#49115182)

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5752281&forum_id=2/#49115427)

there was a consistent finding and assessment that Russia lacked the tools to accomplishment any significant interference with the election -- so much so that the Presidential Daily Briefing was drafted to repeat that yet again but was pulled the day before the big meeting.

so Obama calls for a new assessment and *before* any new work was done the Obama administration started leaking to WaPo, NYT, CNN and others that there was interference and that Trump may have been involved.

ok, so how are they leaking the conclusion *before* the assessment is actually done or even barely begun? because they know what the conclusion will be under Brennan.

then, during the assessment we see Brennan and Clapper breaking protocol to insist on claims that fit a pre-existing narrative. which makes perfect sense because it's what they were leaking and it's what was pre-ordained.

it's a strong case against Brennan, Clapper, etc. there is still no direct or even circumstantial proof against Obama unless you assume in advance that Obama drove the false narrative.

watch the first 15-20 minutes of this:

https://x.com/megynkelly/status/1947869932235960550

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5752281&forum_id=2/#49125198)

fallback: Trump didn't collude but he was "receptive" to Russian support!

define "receptive."

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5752281&forum_id=2/#49125847)

Cons may think it’s okay, but I don’t agree.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5752281&forum_id=2/#49125932)

https://www.racket.news/p/in-brutal-document-release-the-russia

In Brutal Document Release, the Russia Hoax is Finally Exposed

Official claim that Putin "aspired" to help Trump was based on four pieces of evidence, all bogus, even "ridiculous," according to long-suppressed report just released by DNI Tulsi Gabbard

Matt Taibbi

Jul 23, 2025

∙ Paid

It was worse than we thought.

The January 6, 2017 Intelligence Community Assessment concluding that Russian President Vladimir Putin “developed a clear preference” for Donald Trump and “aspired to help his chances of victory” is revealed in a report released this morning by Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard to have been based on four pieces of evidence. One was the Steele Dossier. The surprise is that the other three were even less credible, each included over objections of the report’s CIA authors.

The first item was a “scant, unclear, and unverifiable fragment” of one sentence that the report’s five CIA authors read “five ways” and initially left out, only to have Director John Brennan order it back in. The second item was an email with “no date, no identified sender, no clear recipient, and no classification.” The third was supposedly backed by “liaison,” diplomatic, and press reporting, as well as signals intelligence (SIGINT), except the “SIGINT” didn’t mention Trump, the “liaison reporting” didn’t mention Trump and was from 2014, and the “diplomatic and media” reporting was a post-election review by a U.S. Ambassador citing a Russian pundit who said Putin and Trump should “work together like businessmen.” This was “evidence” that Putin “developed a clear preference” for Trump.

All three reports weren’t just unsourced and unreliable, but discarded fictions pulled out of the CIA’s trash heap. “They manipulated the manipulations,” is how ODNI Deputy Chief of Staff Alexa Henning put it.

The Assessment was written by just five CIA analysts hand-picked by Brennan, but even these most favored lieutenants couldn’t accept the key pieces of evidence. Two of the five went to Brennan to say, “We don’t have direct information that Putin wanted to get Trump elected,” only to be overruled. The same thing happened when members of the group objected to the Steele material, saying it didn’t meet even “basic tradecraft standards.” When confronted on this point, Brennan reportedly said, “Yes, but doesn’t it ring true?”

KILL SHOT: John Brennan, apprised of the Steele dossier’s evidentiary failings, reportedly said, “Yes, but doesn’t it ring true?”

Similarly, when FBI agents tasked with preparing source material were asked about use of the Steele reports, one replied, “Our instructions were that anything we had was to be used,” and that “We were to push this.” The analyst added, about the Steele material, that FBI leadership had decided it was “the right thing to do,” but “we were not able to verify it.” Use of the dossier was debated but ultimately insisted upon by Brennan and FBI Director James Comey, who wrote, “I thought it very important that it be included.”

The information comes from a secret review conducted by a team of House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence (HPSCI) investigators who worked “mostly at CIA Headquarters” and “spent over 2,300 hours reviewing the ICA and its source reports,” confirming what Racket and Public reported last year. A long list of other reporters, from Lee Smith to Aaron Maté to Paul Sperry to Ray McGovern to Margot Cleveland of The Federalist to Glenn Greenwald and the Internet sleuthing group “The Corner,” previously reported on the existence of this HPSCI report, which has been “locked in a vault” and “held hostage” at Langley since 2018, as current HPSCI chair Rick Crawford put it. Only after Donald Trump interceded in early July was this report returned to the Hill, and Gabbard’s ODNI has been working to declassify it ever since.

“The most egregious weaponization and politicization of intelligence in American history,” is how Gabbard described it today.

“Amazing,” is how former Judiciary Committee Chief Counsel Jason Foster describes the report. “It takes apart the ICA piece by piece.”

A staffer from the House intelligence Committee under Devin Nunes, who assigned the report in question, commented: “You don’t have to read much past the first page before it becomes crystal clear why the IC spent years trying to bury this report.”

Details about the poverty of the primary evidence linking Putin to Trump were not the only shock in the report. There were many, many more:

[PAYWALL]

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5752281&forum_id=2/#49125852)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1aj3ojV3Fkg

https://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/09/us/obama-russia-election-hack.html

in the article the NYT is reporting on what the final report will contain -- even though the task force was created the day before and no gathering had been done. this was the task force that we recently learned was commanded top down by Brennan and Clapper to draw certain conclusions and reinforce certain narratives.

"The finding about the Republican committee is expected to be included in a detailed report of “lessons learned” that Mr. Obama has ordered intelligence agencies to assemble before he leaves office on Jan. 20. That report is intended, in part, to create a comprehensive history of the Russian effort to influence the election, and to solidify the intelligence findings before Mr. Trump is sworn in."

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5752281&forum_id=2/#49127855)

Official claim that Putin "aspired" to help Trump was based on four pieces of evidence, all bogus, even "ridiculous," according to long-suppressed report just released by DNI Tulsi Gabbard

MATT TAIBBI

JUL 24, 2025

∙ PAID

It was worse than we thought.

The January 6, 2017 Intelligence Community Assessment concluding that Russian President Vladimir Putin “developed a clear preference” for Donald Trump and “aspired to help his chances of victory” is revealed in a report released this morning by Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard to have been based on four pieces of evidence. One was the Steele Dossier. The surprise is that the other three were even less credible, each included over objections of the report’s CIA authors.

The first item was a “scant, unclear, and unverifiable fragment” of one sentence that the report’s five CIA authors read “five ways” and initially left out, only to have Director John Brennan order it back in. The second item was an email with “no date, no identified sender, no clear recipient, and no classification.” The third was supposedly backed by “liaison,” diplomatic, and press reporting, as well as signals intelligence (SIGINT), except the “SIGINT” didn’t mention Trump, the “liaison reporting” didn’t mention Trump and was from 2014, and the “diplomatic and media” reporting was a post-election review by a U.S. Ambassador citing a Russian pundit who said Putin and Trump should “work together like businessmen.” This was “evidence” that Putin “developed a clear preference” for Trump.

All three reports weren’t just unsourced and unreliable, but discarded fictions pulled out of the CIA’s trash heap. “They manipulated the manipulations,” is how ODNI Deputy Chief of Staff Alexa Henning put it.

The Assessment was written by just five CIA analysts hand-picked by Brennan, but even these most favored lieutenants couldn’t accept the key pieces of evidence. Two of the five went to Brennan to say, “We don’t have direct information that Putin wanted to get Trump elected,” only to be overruled. The same thing happened when members of the group objected to the Steele material, saying it didn’t meet even “basic tradecraft standards.” When confronted on this point, Brennan reportedly said, “Yes, but doesn’t it ring true?”

Similarly, when FBI agents tasked with preparing source material were asked about use of the Steele reports, one replied, “Our instructions were that anything we had was to be used,” and that “We were to push this.” The analyst added, about the Steele material, that FBI leadership had decided it was “the right thing to do,” but “we were not able to verify it.” Use of the dossier was debated but ultimately insisted upon by Brennan and FBI Director James Comey, who wrote, “I thought it very important that it be included.”

The information comes from a secret review conducted by a team of House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence (HPSCI) investigators who worked “mostly at CIA Headquarters” and “spent over 2,300 hours reviewing the ICA and its source reports,” confirming what Racket and Public reported last year. A long list of other reporters, from Lee Smith to Aaron Maté to Paul Sperry to Ray McGovern to Margot Cleveland of The Federalist to Glenn Greenwald and the Internet sleuthing group “The Corner,” previously reported on the existence of this HPSCI report, which has been “locked in a vault” and “held hostage” at Langley since 2018, as current HPSCI chair Rick Crawford put it. Only after Donald Trump interceded in early July was this report returned to the Hill, and Gabbard’s ODNI has been working to declassify it ever since.

“The most egregious weaponization and politicization of intelligence in American history,” is how Gabbard described it today.

“Amazing,” is how former Judiciary Committee Chief Counsel Jason Foster describes the report. “It takes apart the ICA piece by piece.”

A staffer from the House intelligence Committee under Devin Nunes, who assigned the report in question, commented: “You don’t have to read much past the first page before it becomes crystal clear why the IC spent years trying to bury this report.”

Details about the poverty of the primary evidence linking Putin to Trump were not the only shock in the report. There were many, many more:

In addition to battering the “manipulated manipulations” used to undergird the notion that Putin acted to help Donald Trump, the report zeroes in on the real information the intelligence community had, but suppressed because it contradicted desired claims. In one section, it describes “significant intelligence” from an important human source, a “known confidant” of Putin who reported that “Putin told him he did not care who won the election,” that “Putin had often outlined the weaknesses of both major candidates,” and asserted that, in either case, “Russia was strategically placed to outmaneuver either one.”

The omission of a major real piece of human intelligence speaking to Putin’s thinking exposes the Brennan/Comey/Obama Intelligence Assessment as a joke. “The ICA selectively omitted quotes from key HUMINT and SIGINT reports that contradicted the judgments on Putin’s intentions,” the report noted, “while conversely it included quotes — from those same HUMINT and SIGINT reports — that supported the ICA thesis.” The investigators added: “This was done multiple times.”

The most damning items in today’s release are the “three substandard CIA HUMINT reports,” meaning the three pieces of alleged human intelligence used in addition to the Steele dossier to support the idea that Putin “aspired” to help Trump after developing a “clear preference” for him. Each of these Three Deformed Bears of intelligence is more embarrassing upon closer inspection. In order:

THE “FRAGMENT”

The Intelligence Assessment was pieced together from fifteen CIA reports overall, of which only three involved the question of Putin preferring Trump. “Most of the 15 [reports] were unremarkable,” the investigators wrote, “but three contained flawed information, and these three became foundational sources… cited to claim Putin aspired to help Trump win.”

The sole source for the line that Putin “aspired to help” Trump came from a “scant, unclear, and unverifiable fragment of a sentence,” bolded below:

--"Putin had made this decision [to leak DNC emails] after he had come to believe that the Democratic nominee had better odds of winning the U.S. presidential election, and that [Trump], [bold] whose victory Putin was counting on [bold], most likely would not be able to pull off a convincing victory."

In a detail not previously known, the ICA was written by just five CIA analysts. Regarding the above line, “whose victory Putin was counting on,” one senior CIA official said, “Five people read it five ways.” It was uncorroborated, with “uncertain meaning,” may have been a “garble,” and “would not have been published without [Brennan’s] orders.” Also, “it is not clear how it was obtained,” and at least one of the analysts who worked on the ICA thought the “victory” Putin was counting on involved Trump winning the nomination at the upcoming Republican convention.

The report added inferences that were not there. From “whose victory Putin was counting on,” which meant different things to everyone involved, Brennan and the ICA authors concluded that Putin “developed a preference for Trump” and ordered intelligence services to “assist Trump’s chances of victory when possible.”

The “fragment” was such junk that the ICA authors initially tried not to use it, but the DCIA — Director of the CIA John Brennan — corrected their manners:

-- "Experienced CIA officers responsible for Russia reporting — evaluating raw intelligence and ensuring that HUMINT reporting meets the threshold for publication — initially omitted the confusing fragment from the first version of the report, which was published on 20 December 2016. DCIA countermanded their decision, however, and ordered that the fragment be included so that it could be cited in the ICA. A revised report was published on 28 December 2016."

It was “deviating from their own IC standards over and over, all in the service of one narrative,” says Foster.

The “Fragment” was likely not the worst of the three reports, however. That honor likely belongs to the next:

“IMPLAUSIBLE — IF NOT RIDICULOUS”

When the Intelligence Community Assessment was published in January of 2017, the first bullet point supporting the idea of a “clear preference” for Trump read:

-- "As early as February 2016, a Russian political expert possessed a plan that recommended engagement with [Trump's] team because of the prospects for improved US-Russian relations, according to reporting from service."

Even the intelligence professionals later tasked with reviewing the ICA could not let this slide without editorial comment. The passage, they wrote, “omits critical report context which, had it been made available to the reader, would show the report to be implausible — if not ridiculous — and missing so many key details as to be unusable.”

Why unusable? Because “‘the plan’ was just an email with no date, no identified sender, no clear recipient, and no classification. CIA could not vouch for the ultimate source’s vetting, validation, or access.”

John Brennan pulled from the trash a 10-month-old “anonymous email proposal” by an unknown person to place “a well-known pro-Kremlin official” on Trump’s “election team” in order to “formulate a mutually acceptable agenda between Trump and Putin.” It appears that this “idea” came not from Russia but perhaps another foreign service, perhaps Ukraine’s. Hilariously, the identity of the country of origin for this email was redacted from everyone’s eyes, including Barack Obama’s. Noted investigators:

-- "There was no security justification for obscuring the identity of the service, as the ICA was written for the President, who is cleared for everything."

The “implausible — if not ridiculous” report was so cringeworthy, Brennan had to hide it even from the man who ordered it.

One last piece remained:

“NO EUPHORIA”

Another bullet supporting the notion that Putin had a “clear preference” for Trump was supposedly corroborated by “liaison, diplomatic, and press reporting, as well as sensitive signals intelligence (SIGINT).” But “in following-up every citation, none were found to corroborate the ICA claims.”

The “cited liaison reporting didn’t mention Trump at all, and was from 2014, before Trump was a candidate.” The diplomatic report was a “post-election overview of Moscow from the US Ambassador” that referenced a Russian pundit suggesting Trump and Putin should “work together like businessmen.” As the report noted, this was not exactly powerful evidence.

Moreover, that same Embassy cable quoted then-Deputy Foreign Minister Sergei Ryabkov as saying of Trump’s election, “We do not feel any euphoria,” citing a “bipartisan anti-Russian consensus,” which, the report noted, “contradicted the ICА judgment that the Russians preferred Trump.”

In sum, corroboration for the assertion that Putin developed a “clear preference” for Trump before the election included one item that was backdated and too early, one that was post-election and too late (and meaningless nonsense besides), and not one that was just right. If there’s such a thing as a no-hitter in intelligence, Brennan’s team was on the losing end of one in this ICA, which failed to produce one reliable fact supporting the idea of Putin “aspiring” to help Trump out of a “clear preference.”

One last note:

The report says Russia’s Foreign Intelligence Service (SVR) had an “arsenal” of “extraordinarily alarming” information on Hillary Clinton, potentially far more damaging than the information already leaked by Wikileaks. The SVR supposedly “possessed DNC communications that Clinton was suffering from ‘intensified psychoemotional problems, including uncontrolled fits of anger, aggression, and cheerfulness,’” and was “placed on a daily regimen of ‘heavy tranquilizers.’”

Worse, the report says the FSB had details of “secret meetings with multiple named US religious organizations, in which US State Department representatives offered — in exchange for supporting Secretary Clinton — ‘significant increases in financing’ from Department funds and ‘the patronage’ of State in dealing with ‘post-Soviet’ countries.”

Racket tried to seek comment from Clinton. There’s been no reply.

The report claims “Putin held back significant derogatory material that he had on Secretary Clinton,” material that in some cases Russia appeared to have acquired well before the reported “hack” of the Democratic National Committee.

It says “the SVR reported in January 2016 that it had information taken from a US think tank indicating that a high ranking official in the Democratic National Committee (DNC) knew about the application of political pressure on the FBI in the Clinton email investigation by a high ranking official of the US Department of Justice,” an apparent reference to correspondence from then-head of the DNC Debbie Wasserman Schultz about then-Attorney General Loretta Lynch.

The report released today notes Comey testified to the House Intelligence Committee in August 2016 that the SVR had emails in which Wasserman Schultz “was telling people that [former Attorney General Lynch] was working to control me, and keeping a named member of the Clinton campaign informed on what the FBI was doing in the [Clinton] email investigation.”

Though Comey and the FBI officially deemed the rumor not credible, Comey was concerned enough to tell Department of Justice Inspector General Michael Horowitz that the existence of these emails was a factor in his decision to announce the completion of the Clinton email investigation early, on July 5, 2016. If they affected Comey’s decisions, that’s a strong indication that the emails both exist and were in Russia’s possession, and might have been released by Putin if he wanted to do more damage to Clinton in that campaign. As today’s report notes, he did not do so, even after being advised by army intelligence (GRU) that Trump would not win absent an intervention of “remarkable” derogatory information, which they apparently had.

“Not only did he hold it back,” the report reads, “he did so when it mattered most, in the closing weeks of the campaign as the polls narrowed.”

A reason not to dismiss these claims entirely comes from the last major surprise in the report: the “arsenal” of negative information on Clinton came from the same trove of purloined material a source called “T1” had earlier provided to the FBI in the course of the Hillary Clinton email investigation. Ironically, it’s the same material written about in Racket yesterday, in conjunction with the seemingly unrelated declassification of part of an Inspector General report on the FBI’s Midyear Exam probe. In other words, while Gabbard’s release may be the closing word on the legitimacy of the ICA, she may have opened a new vein of questions at the intersection of Russiagate and the Clinton Email investigation. All that is in the future, however.

For now, this is a massive repudiation of the Trump-Russia narrative, and a near- perfect repeat of 2002-2003, when some of the same people helped package bunk evidence to bring America to war with Iraq. James Clapper later wrote a book called Facts and Fears in which he described being ordered by Dick Cheney to “find the WMD sites,” then boasted that the images he provided as head of the National Imagery and Mapping Agency “carried the day” when Colin Powell used them in his infamous speech to the UN in support of war. In hindsight, Clapper described who was to blame for the WMD fiasco that followed. The failure, he said, belongs:

-- "Squarely on the shoulders of the administration members who were pushing a narrative of a rogue WMD program in Iraq and on the intelligence officers, including me, who were so eager to help that we found what wasn’t really there."

The material that was leaked to newspapers and television stations with such fanfare on December 9th, 2016 was the same trick of finding things that weren’t “really there,” with intelligence officials ordered to “push this” because “doesn’t it ring true?” It’s the same scam, except aimed at an incoming president instead of Saddam Hussein.

The litmus test now will involve waiting to see if any of the principals of the story, like Clapper or Brennan or Comey or even Obama, come up with alternative explanations for how they came to their key conclusion. “Don’t hold your breath,” one source advised.

The fight to get this material out is becoming an notable subtext. On July 14th, at the Turning Point convention, Gabbard told audiences, “The Deep State is fighting us every step of the way.” There have been internecine disputes throughout, over everything from today’s HPSCI report to the testimony of the former DNI whistleblower referenced in last weekend’s release by Gabbard. There are factions within Donald Trump’s own government who are opposed to this material’s release. Thankfully, for now, he’s ignoring them.

More to come.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5752281&forum_id=2/#49127913)

that's a power that Mueller, Durham, the IG (Horowitz), and the congressional committees lacked. each of them had to abide by the internal silos of the federal government.

this power of Tulsi's has the Deep State and IC very worried, which is why Warner (who leaked info to harm Trump) and Cotton so worried.

https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/justice-department-announces-formation-strike-force-assess-evidence-publicized-odni

usual disclaimer: the pejury and conspiracy theories still appear to be entirely bullshit. i'm just interested in finding out what actually happened.

one hypothesis: Obama and Comey were super careful about creating evidence. Brennan is a different matter.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5752281&forum_id=2/#49127288)

@LindseyGrahamSC

and I are urging

@AGPamBondi

to appoint a special counsel to investigate the extent to which former President Obama, his staff, & administration officials manipulated the U.S. national security apparatus during Russiagate.

https://x.com/JohnCornyn/status/1948421734018744486

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5752281&forum_id=2/#49127878)

we already know that Warner and Cotton are trying to head Tulsi off at the pass by cutting off her ability to gather info across the various silos. it's that legal power that makes her so powerful and scary. otherwise, each silo protects its own shit from everyone else.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5752281&forum_id=2/#49127890)

Tulsi is significantly brighter than either Trump or Biden.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5752281&forum_id=2/#49128519)

Russiagate Explained: The Sins of the 2017 Intelligence Community Assessment

Notable problems with the "Assessing Russian Activities and Intentions in Recent US Elections" report. The ICA's most salacious, oft-reported parts were a scam.

GREG COLLARD

JUL 24, 2025

A key part of the House Permanent Selection Committee on Intelligence (HPSCI) review is about then-CIA director John Brennan’s reliance on an obscure fragment to determine in the 2017 ICA that Putin “aspired to help Trump’s chances of victory when possible.”

The fragment, which is in bold below, comes from a raw human source intelligence report, or HUMINT in intelligence-speak.

“Putin had made this decision [to leak DNC emails) after he had come to believe t h a t the Democratic nominee had better odds of winning the U.S. presidential election, and that [candidate Trump], whose victory Putin was counting on, most likely would not be able to pull off a convincing victory.”

You might think that means Putin wanted Trump to win. That’s one interpretation.

But there were five different interpretations among the five people who wrote the ICA.

A senior CIA operations officers remarked:

“We don’t know what was meant by that,” and “five people read it five ways,” the HPSCI reports says.

Usually that’s no problem, because as the Intelligence Community Directive standards (ICD 203) make clear, alternative interpretations should be included. Incredibly, the ICA failed to do that even though there was great disagreement on the fragment’s meaning.

"The significance of this fragment to the ICA case that Putin "aspired" for candidate Trump to win cannot be overstated. The major "high confidence" judgment of the ICA rests on one opinion about a text fragment with uncertain meaning, that may be a garble, and for which it is not clear how it was obtained. This text-which would not have been published without DCIA's orders to do so—is cited using only one interpretation of its meaning and without considering alternative interpretations."

The HPSCI gives some examples of alternative interpretations for “whose victory Putin was counting on.” Since the information was acquired in July 2016, it could have meant Putin “expected” a Trump victory at the upcoming Republican National Convention. The HPSCI notes that the convention’s outcome “was still uncertain to do active efforts to deny Trump a majority of convention delegates. This was a headline issue for the US political media at the time, though many pundits nonetheless expected — or ‘counted on’ — a Trump victory.”

I encourage you to read the declassified HPSCI report for yourself. In the meantime, some other findings from the report are listed below. There are enough findings that make clear the ICA reeks to make even a roach turn away. Unfortunately, too many pols in the Adam Schiff mold have lower standards.

-Three of the 15 HUMIT reports the ICA relied on contained flawed information, yet “these three became foundational sources the ICA cited to claim Putin aspired to help Trump win.”

-The three reports were published “on DCIA (then-CIA director John Brennan) orders, despite veteran CIA officer judgments that they contained substandard information that was unclear, of uncertain origin, potentially biased, implausible, or in the words of senior operations officers, ‘odd'.’”

-“The original report does not directly say, as the ICA implies, that Putin launched lead operations to help Trump win.”

-“The ICA omits critical report context which, had it been made available to the reader, would show the report to be implausible—if not ridiculous—and missing so many key details as to be impossible.”

-“The ICA selectively excluded information from reliable intelligence sources that senior Russian officials had serious reservation about how a potential Trump administration could be bad for Moscow and complicate repairing relations with Washington.”

-“Far from showing a consensus ‘clear preference for Trump’, the evidence indicates Putin and Russian officials saw downsides to a potential Trump administration. The intelligence also showed, that regardless of who won, Moscow expected a prolonged struggle to repair strained relations with Washington.”

Citing intelligence findings that don’t exist

The ICA report says, “We assess that Russian leaders never entirely abandoned hope for a defeat of Secretary Clinton.” However, the intelligences the ICA cites to make that conclusion report does not say that. The raw intelligence, the HPSCI report says:

-Does not state— not does it infer—that Russian leaders "never abandoned hope" for defeating Clinton, nor does it even use the word "hope" or similar phrasing.

-Does not in any way describe the aspirations, plans or intentions of Putin or other Russian leaders.

-Does not describe Putin's "aspiration to help Trump's chances of victory" nor does it propose contrasting Clinton unfavorably to Trump.

The SVR’s “Derogatory Information” on Hillary Clinton

The HPSCI report says that “Putin's decision not to leak additional derogatory information on Secretary Clinton as the polls narrowed undermine the ICA's claim that he ‘aspired’ to help Trump win and “never entirely abandoned hope for a defeat of Secretary Clinton.”

Racket has asked Clinton to comment on the below “derogatory information” that SVR compiled. We haven’t heard back from her office. It’s important to clarify the assertions about Clinton may be important without being true. Even if it was bad intelligence, it existed, and the ICA chose not to include it. Meanwhile, it ignored the multitude of problems with the intelligence relied on to denigrate Trump.

The HPSCI report says the “generic description of the material Putin held back makes the reader unaware of significant information available to Moscow to denigrate Secretary Clinton. This violated ICD 203 directives that analysis ‘be informed by all relevant information available’ given that documents leaked during the election were far less damaging to Secretary Clinton than those Putin chose not to leak.” Examples of the derogatory information held back:

-“As of September 2016, the Russian Foreign Intelligence Service (SVR) had Democratic National Committee (DNC) information that President Obama and party leaders found the state of Secretary Clinton's health to be ‘extraordinarily alarming’ and felt it could have ‘serious negative impact’ on her election prospects. Her health information was being kept in ‘strictest secrecy’ and even close advisors were not being fully informed.”

-“The SVR possessed DNC communications that Clinton was suffering from ‘intensified psycho-emotional problems, including uncontrolled fits of anger, aggression, and cheerfulness.’ Clinton was placed on a daily regimen of ‘heavy tranquilizers’ and while afraid of losing, she remained ‘obsessed with a thirst for power.’”

-“The SVR also had information that Clinton suffered from ‘Type 2 diabetes, Ischemic heart disease, deep vein thrombosis, and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease.’ “

-“The SVR possessed a campaign email discussing a plan approved by Secretary Clinton to link Putin and Russian hackers to candidate Trump in order to ‘distract the [American] public’ from the Clinton email server scandal.”

-“The Russian Federal Security Service (FSB) in August had details of secret meetings with multiple named US religious organizations, in which US State Department representatives offered - in exchange for supporting Secretary Clinton-‘significant increases in financing’ from Department funds and "the patronage" of State in dealing with ‘post-Soviet’ countries.

The Steele Dossier

-The ICA referred to the dossier as "Russian plans and intentions," falsely implying to high-level US policymakers that the dossier had intelligence value for understanding Moscow's influence operations.

-Two senior CIA officers-one from Russia operations and the other from Russia analysis—argued with DCIA that the dossier should not be included at all in the ICA, because it failed to meet basic tradecraft standards, according to a senior officer present at the meeting.

-The same officer said that DCIA refused to remove it, and when confronted with the dossier’s many flaws, responded, “Yes, but doesn’t it ring true?”

-CIA veterans noted that they could not imagine any previous director allowing such information in a formal CIA product, much less one intended for two Presidents, and then overriding the objections of experienced senior officers to do so. (emphasis HPSCI)

This list is far from complete, as you’ll see from the HPSCI report listed below and Matt’s story, “In Brutal Disclosure, Russia Hoax Finally Revealed.”

Many of these findings will come as no surprise to a lot of people, although it might be still be eye-opening to them and maybe others who haven’t reached a conclusion on the merits of the ICA. For sure, there will also be people who remain convinced that nothing untoward occurred. Nonetheless, it appears the highest levels of government during the final days of the Obama administration orchestrated a deception designed to deceive us all.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5752281&forum_id=2/#49127924)

===

Officials warned the Steele dossier suffered from ‘POOR SOURCE TRADECRAFT’ and compared it to the National Enquirer.

enior intelligence officials strenuously fought the demands of former FBI Director James Comey and other Obama intelligence chiefs to include the false and unverified Steele dossier in an official assessment of Russian activities ordered by President Barack Obama in the closing weeks of his presidency, records reviewed exclusively by The Federalist show. The records, which are related to ongoing criminal investigations into Comey and other top intelligence officials for their roles in launching the Russia collusion hoax, provide damning evidence of Obama intelligence chiefs’ malfeasance beyond the explosive information released Wednesday by Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard.

Previous government investigations into the Russia collusion hoax dryly described the opposition merely as officials having “expressed concern” about using the infamous Steele dossier because it was “not completely vetted.” But records reviewed by The Federalist reveal career intelligence officials expressed outright shock at the poor quality of the reporting that the FBI repeatedly insisted be included in the Intelligence Community Assessment (ICA) — and objected to any reference to the dodgy dossier.

“Based solely on what we DO know now, my bottom line is this – unless FBI is prepared to provide much better sourcing – I believe this should NOT be included in the paper,” one official wrote, caps and all. Noting that the document had not been formally issued as an FBI product, the official stressed it suffered from “POOR SOURCE TRADECRAFT,” had “extremely sketchy” sourcing, and “simply does not meet normal [intelligence community] standards.”

The Steele dossier, a product of the Hillary Clinton presidential campaign, was a collection of salacious and unverified stories about rival presidential candidate Donald Trump supposedly colluding with Russia. Clinton secretly funded the information operation and the group she hired to create the dossier spread the false information it contained to reporters, politicians, and the FBI.

Recent disclosures from Gabbard and CIA Director John Ratcliffe revealed that Obama and his top intelligence officials coordinated an information operation against President-elect Donald Trump to falsely paint him as having colluded with Russia to steal the 2016 election. First, they suppressed a Presidential Daily Brief, or PDB, that concluded that Russia’s election activities did not affect the election. President-elect Trump and his incoming National Security Advisor Mike Flynn would have received a copy of the PDB had the Obama administration not eighty-sixed the final report mere hours before its publication.

Then, at the direction of Obama and under the tight fist of disgraced former CIA Director John Brennan, a small cabal in the intelligence community rushed out the ICA which fraudulently concluded Russia meddled in the election to help Trump win the 2016 presidential election. (Earlier exclusive reporting by The Federalist revealed how CIA Director John Brennan overruled and disparaged top officials who complained that his claim about Russia’s preference for Trump had “no evidence” to support it.)

https://thefederalist.com/2025/07/24/exclusive-this-should-not-be-included-read-intelligence-officials-objections-to-extremely-sketchy-steele-dossier/

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5752281&forum_id=2/#49128453)

https://www.realclearinvestigations.com/articles/2025/07/24/how_obama_admin_turned_unverifiable_report_into_russiagate_dynamite_1124640.html

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5752281&forum_id=2/#49128492)