Thread by @SethAbramson

(THREAD) This thread aims to clear up widespread confusion over the provenance, production, and purpose of the forthcoming fifth volume of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence Trump-Russia report. I hope you'll read on and retweet, as voters need to know the truth on this.

1/ As I emphasized in my recent audio commentary on this forthcoming report—which focuses exclusively on the counterintelligence component of the SSCI Trump-Russia investigation—"Volume 5" (as it's come to be called in shorthand) is likely to be "damning."

2/ The question has always been *how* damning. Why? Because the Mueller Report was damning—as anyone who read it knows. Mueller's report covered the "criminal" side of the Trump-Russia probe; this covers the "counterintelligence" side, which—as my books reveal—is no less damning.

3/ One reason I spent months focusing on pg. 10 of Volume 1 of the Mueller Report is that it reveals that Mueller sent some stock of evidence—we don't know how large—to the Trump-Russia counterintelligence investigation. That suggested to many that that investigation was ongoing.

4/ This also means that whatever archive of counterintelligence information the FBI Counterintelligence Division has on the Trump-Russia affair, some of it came from Robert Mueller. Mueller underscored that such evidence was wholly excluded from his report on the criminal probe.

5/ You can see, therefore, why there's been so much excitement—particularly on this feed, for over a year—at the prospect that the FBI Counterintelligence Division has an ongoing Trump-Russia investigation that contains (among much else) unreleased Mueller investigation material.

6/ Just so, given the narrow scope of Mueller's report—and the narrowness of the key inquiry in a criminal probe (proof beyond a reasonable doubt) versus a counterintelligence one (evidence of compromise or other national security risk)—the FBI CD investigation breeds excitement.

7/ Mueller's report was also narrow in other ways: it focused only on Russia, and focused only on the narrow crime of conspiracy—and at that, only a before-the-fact conspiracy, rather than aiding and abetting a conspiracy after the fact. The FBI CD probe held no such limitations.

8/ But despite all this reasonable basis for excitement about the FBI CD probe, not only have we not heard a peep from FBI CD about its investigation—which is older than Mueller's, as it began in 2015 whereas his began in 2017—but even Schiff long said the FBI wouldn't brief him.

9/ All of this is one reason I published Proof of Conspiracy with Macmillan in the fall of 2019. I wanted to compile the closest approximation of the FBI CD report as I possibly could, using exclusively thousands of major-media investigative reports on the contours of that probe.

10/ Proof of Conspiracy (2019) consequently focused on crimes Mueller's report didn't consider—particularly bribery—and on courses of Trump collusion Mueller didn't address in his final (public) work product: collusion with Saudi Arabia, Israel, the UAE, Qatar, and other nations.

11/ The whole time I was writing Proof of Conspiracy—*and* after it was published—I called for the FBI CD to declassify and release any report it had produced on the Trump-Russia affair (both Mueller's portion, and any other). If no report existed, I said one should be done ASAP.

12/ Why do I mention this? Because I wasn't the only one who felt any FBI CD report on Trump would be far broader than Mueller's report in terms of crimes considered, type of evidence deemed relevant, standard of proof, and number of international courses of collusion considered.

13/ And the desire for such an FBI CD investigation to be ongoing, and for such an FBI CD report to have been produced (or be in the process of production, or even merely capable of future production) was so great that some people fantasized it could come out before the election.

14/ The rub: Trump controls the US intelligence community; the US intelligence community's record of transparency on Trump has been spotty (see its false statement to the NYT in October '16 that it knew of no Trump-Russia ties); and it hasn't acted since Mueller's report dropped.

15/ Moreover, the FBI operates under a standing policy of not interfering with elections, and Bill Barr has supplanted that with a new edict that *no investigation of a candidate may be reported out to voters* in the months immediately preceding an election. This is a key point.

16/ It's a key point because we have already seen Barr *actively* interfering with *any* federal investigation that touches on Trump's interests: Giuliani; Flynn; Stone; Fruman; Parnas; and more. The idea that he'd let FBI CD drop a major report pre-election is, frankly, absurd.

17/ Unfortunately, all this led to a new cottage industry by disinformation accounts pretending to be part of a "true" #Resistance: these accounts began claiming, a few months ago, that *Congress* would see to it that the FBI CD report was dropped immediately before the election.

18/ This claim was most aggressively sold on Twitter by the "Blazer Legacy" disinformation entity. The entity had two aims: attack Trump critics with track records of publishing damning work on Trump; convince Democratic voters that Congress was about to "nab" Trump pre-election.

19/ Unfortunately, while "hope porn" can get a disinformation entity 22K followers in 4 weeks, the reality is the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence publicly declared in 2019 that it agreed with Mueller on there being no evidence of a before-the-fact Trump-Russia conspiracy.

20/ As I've often underscored, Trump critics never alleged a before-the-fact Trump-Russia conspiracy involving hacking or propaganda—the claim was *always* that Trump had been bribed by Russia, solicited illegal aid from Russia and aided and abetted Russian crimes after the fact.

21/ In May, the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence finished its work on Volume 5—work completed by SSCI staffers within the legislative branch, with an unknown and still-never-clarified level of access to FBI CD (or for that matter CIA) materials. It sent its report to ODNI.

22/ "Volume 5" of the SSCI Trump-Russia report went to ODNI to determine how much of the report the USIC would demand be redacted, and how much it would agree to declassify. Sens. Warner and Burr created a separate "clean" version they could read from the Senate floor if need be.

23/ Because Trump runs the intelligence community now through his DNI, the former Rep. Ratcliffe—a QAnon cultist—Warner and Burr had real reason to fear that ODNI would hold up the declassification of the report, and a "clean" version that could be read publicly would be needed.

24/ Apparently, "Volume 5" wasn't even damning enough for QAnon cultist Ratcliffe to block it, as just a matter of days ago Ratcliffe returned the report to the SSCI with redactions—meaning, ODNI was agreeing that the report could be released by Congress before the 2020 election.

25/ ODNI and SSCI are now in a "reconciliation" process, to determine if they can agree on which items should be redacted and which declassified. But the fact that ODNI moved quickly—just 75 days post-receipt of Volume 5—suggests the report doesn't scare Trump's minions overmuch.

26/ What Ratcliffe knows is even a report as damning as Mueller's—and as I've now said repeatedly, I believe Volume 5 will be as damning as the Mueller Report—won't hurt Trump because (a) no one will read it, (b) America already accepted Mueller's conclusions without much tumult.

27/ But the odds the radical Trumpist/QAnon supporter Ratcliffe is working in cahoots with Democrats in the Senate to "nab" Trump pre-election are vanishingly small—I'd even say zero. It's just not in keeping with Ratcliffe's career, SSCI's past statements, or how politics works.

28/ And the DNI easily could have held onto Volume 5 *much* longer if it deemed it so damning of Trump as to end his candidacy—which is what the "Blazer Legacy" disinformation entity falsely claims it will do, insisting the report pegs Trump as a formally recruited Kremlin agent.

29/ As the major-media investigative reports I compiled for the Proof series detailed over and over—12,000 such sources over 2,500 pages—Trump is compromised by Russia and other nations via his business deals. He has—in short—accepted criminal bribes to pervert US foreign policy.

30/ As a matter of both criminal law and counterintelligence, that is *not* the same thing as President Trump having been *formally recruited* as a Russian intelligence agent under direct orders from Putin—something I have never argued and *the evidence we have does not support*.

31/ If Volume 5 of the SSCI report comes out pre-election and reveals that Trump is a formally recruited Kremlin asset—which it won't—I'll say now that I will be *thrilled*. I will *cheer* that finding, as it will finally end an ongoing mystery and Trump's terrorizing of America.

32/ But from a legal and national security view, it doesn't matter if Trump was formally recruited by the GRU (who indirect Trump adviser Konstantin Kilimnik works for) or SVR—the Russian intel agency that worked hard to recruit Trump adviser Page—or if Trump "just" took bribes.

33/ Bribes are illegal—and when a presidential candidate takes them pre-election, or a president takes them post-election, they constitute a national security threat. It's not letting Trump off the hook to say he didn't undergo a formal Kremlin recruitment process many years ago.

34/ By the same token, saying that all the evidence we have suggests that Volume 5 will "only" be as "damning" as Mueller's report—which was *very* damning—and that, unfortunately, it won't be the same thing as the FBI CD report we all want, is not running interference for Trump.

35/ It's been argued that SSCI staffers were given *unfettered access* to the FBI CD files—and the CIA files Brennan compiled in 2015, when seven allied intelligence agencies reported to the CIA that Trump agents were meeting Russian intel agents in Europe—but we don't know that.

36/ Indeed, it's not clear why the USIC would *refuse to brief Democratic Rep. Adam Schiff* on its 2015-born Trump-Russia investigation, but *open its books fully* to Democratic Sen. Mark Warner.

That makes no sense—and is inconsistent with DNI Ratcliffe's documented radicalism.

37/ Just so, it's unclear why Barr (even as he fast-tracks Giuliani's Kremlin disinformation scheme) would be *aggressively* destroying all Trump-Russia, Trump-Ukraine, and Trump-Anyone federal probes in his purview—as the FBI is—but let Congress "nab" Trump via ODNI cooperation.

38/ But there's another thing to consider, which is that *far* more damning information about Trump being a national security threat due to compromise is in the public sphere than people realize. The Proof series is already jaw-dropping; Volume 5 could merely replicate that data.

39/ What I mean is, if what is in the Proof series—all of which is taken from major-media reports—were *simply to be republished as a Senate report*, it would cause Americans' heads to explode. It would be news for *weeks*. Anyone who has read the Proof series will confirm this.

40/ So when I say Volume 5 may be as "damning" as the Mueller Report—which was very damning—*or* the Proof series, which is very damning, I acknowledge the Senate writing the same words I already have would have a significant impact. I'm glad to say Mark Warner follows this feed.

41/ Perhaps the only thing the disinformation feed known as @BlazerLegacy and I agree on is that Senator Warner is a hero. I hope his staffers following this feed and the Proof series closely has been helpful to them. That doesn't mean they had full access to FBI CD or CIA files.

42/ Indeed, it's the separation of powers enshrined in the U.S. Constitution—one of the things that *actually* makes America great—that means Warner and his team *can't* simply order FBI CD or the CIA to brief them. Rep. Schiff (who also follows this feed) already ran into that.

43/ As a side note, I'll say it's *crazy* to think that an anonymous disinformation account, @BlazerLegacy, is simultaneously calling Warner and Schiff—who both follow my verified, non-anonymous feed, and my Twitter and book research—"heroes," but *also* says I'm a Kremlin agent.

44/ In any case, that's neither here nor there—there will *always* be those who choose to believe an anonymous disinformation account whose owner(s) claim they're being hunted by the Russian mob and all Trump-critic authors are actually Kremlin agents over me, Warner, and Schiff.

45/ In short, the reason Schiff went public with being stonewalled by the USIC; the reason Warner created a clean version of Volume 5 to read on the Senate floor; the reason Schiff and Warner follow me and the Proof series; is the USIC isn't being as forthcoming as it should be.

46/ To be clear, the USIC holding back its files from disclosure to the public pre-dates Barr's edict—and frankly is so far-ranging that former CIA director John Brennan just revealed that Trump's USIC wouldn't even let him access his records for the purposes of writing a memoir.

47/ So there's no grand conspiracy against Trump in the intelligence community, as the narrative spun by @BlazerLegacy alleges (an apparent attempt to orchestrate a Democratic-voter "letdown" over that *and* the contents of Volume 5). It's just the USIC being controlled by Trump.

48/ So, to recap: SSCI Volume 5 will be damning, either as damning as the Mueller Report (very) or the Proof series (very) but won't unmask Trump as a formally recruited Kremlin agent; if the USIC permits it to come out pre-election, it probably means it is "less" damning; and...

49/ ...there's every reason to fear Trump's USIC *continues* to be opaque about Trump counterintelligence findings, as evidenced by stonewalling Schiff, lying to the NYT in 2016, never releasing a report post-Mueller, and leaving Warner thinking a clean Volume 5 might be needed.

50/ I've said it often, and will end by saying it again: the truth will *eventually* come out—and will establish Trump as a bigger traitor to America than Benedict Arnold was.

Yes, read Volume 5. Yes, read the Proof series. But *block* disinformation accounts like @BlazerLegacy.