Thread by @GeorgeCroner

I see where @KimStrassel has taken a swipe at @NormEisen for Eisen's endorsement of the report discussed in today's @washingtonpost that addresses Barr's politicized DoJ.

https://twitter.com/KimStrassel/status/1313947452861411328?s=20

Kim, you're quite insistent about not letting facts in the way of taking myopic /1

swipes at Comey/Brennan even when Mueller, Horowitz, and the entire IC have convincingly demonstrated that (1) the Russians interfered, in 2016, (2) Putin wanted to hurt Clinton, and (3) the Russians wanted to (and did) help Trump. This is what the unanimous Intel Community /2

Assessment concluded, and that ICA was thoroughly vetted by the Republican-controlled Senate Intel Committee who described it as "a coherent and well-constructed intelligence basis for the case of unprecedented Russian interference in the 2016 US /3

presidential election" where the analysts "employed proper analytic tradecraft" and "were under no politically motivated pressure to reach specific conclusions."

While you're at it, you might want to read Vol. V of that Senate Intel Committee report - you know, /4

the volume that describes Manafort as "a grave counterintelligence threat" while suggesting there is evidence that Trump lied about his discussions with Roger Stone regarding the WikiLeaks release of stolen Democratic emails.

Also, you should pick up Robert Draper's piece /5

describing how Trump's installation of partisan hacks as DNI have completely undermined the pride and professionalism of the US Intel Community. Here's the link in case you missed that one too: nytimes.com/2020/08/08/mag…. /6

In sum, it's time for you to quit using Comey and Brennan as fall guys for Barr's effort to validate Trump's lies about the "Russian hoax." Full disclosure: I'm a member of the group that produced the report that is the subject of @NormEisen's Tweet and /7

of the Washington Post article washingtonpost.com/politics/2020/… In fact, I wrote the part of the report that the WashPo refers to as the "meatiest" addressing the dangers that Barr's misguided "Durham investigation" poses to foreign intelligence analysis. /8

If you want to debate the point, I'm available anytime. /9