I just dove into the declassified HPSCI report on the 2016 election, and holy cow, publishing this level of detail is one of the most insanely irresponsible things a US official has ever done. @DNIGabbard & @DCIARatcliffe have given a huge gift to Putin & the SVR in particular.
The SVR has now scoured this report and all the previously-classified details (which include dates, quotes, etc.), and now whatever methods the IC used to collect this information have likely been eliminated.
If someone had leaked this info, they'd be in prison for a long time.
So in attempt to help Trump distract from Epstein, @DNIGabbard and @DCIARatcliffe have likely burned multiple sensitive collection sources against Russia, an avowed enemy of the United States. If I were them, I would not throw around the word "treasonous" so freely.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
I've been obsessed with Trump saying he "wished her well" regarding Ghislaine Maxwell, and how neither the media nor Dems have made an issue about it. It turns out @jonathanvswan did ask him about back in 2020, and holy shit, his answer then is even worse. Follow along.
Here's the full video. Jump to the 25:40 mark & prepare to be amazed. It's worse than you could imagine. Rather than taking Swan's invitation to clarify, Trump doubles down, repeatedly expressing sympathy for her in light of her boyfriend's demise.
"I'm not looking for anything bad for her," Trump notes, while also stating that we need to let the criminal process play out. It's classic Trump - he's always sympathizing with the plight of criminals & never pre-judges their cases.
I finally had time to analyze the recent CIA report about the "ICA" regarding Russia's involvement in the 2016 election.
It's a very important document, as it shows that the leadership of the CIA's Directorate of Analysis is now engaging in politics, undermining all trust in it.
People like @DCIARatcliffe and @DDCIAEllis have used the report to reinvigorate all their favorite grievances about the "Deep State" and the 2016 election. They are doing this even though the report itself does nothing to undermine the conclusion that Russia actively sought to harm Hillary Clinton in the 2016 election, an unprecedented attack on our sovereignty by an enemy of the United States.
Ratcliffe and Ellis have also touted the fact that the report was written by "career" CIA officers -- the head of the Directorate of Analysis, normally a career official, is listed as the author. That may be the case. But if true, it shows that the leadership of that office has now chosen to be pawns in a partisan political debate. Given this, I'm not sure we can trust any future analysis coming out of that office. If they'll bend their standards for Trump and Ratcliffe here, why wouldn't they do it on any other topic?
Nothing to see here. Just the CIA Deputy Director, @michaeljayellis, promoting a Breitbart article suggesting that former Director Brennan be prosecuted for perjury. Rather than rise to the office he holds, it looks like Ellis has decided to be a political hack. Amateur hour.
Another reason it's amateur hour is that neither the recent CIA paper nor the Breibart article actually mention what Brennan told SSCI. They'd both get an F if one was grading their work, as would Ellis for promoting it.
Here's the evidence; you can judge for yourself. On the left is what the recent CIA paper says (which, notably, is unsourced). The next two screenshots are from @SecRubio's very detailed report about the ICA.
So it looks like Brennan told SSCI that while he had some concerns about including it, he ultimately decided to relent to Comey and the FBI, who insisted on including it for the sake of completeness. I'm having trouble seeing how that's perjury if the allegation in the CIA paper is that Brennan ultimately supported its inclusion. That's what he told SSCI. Relenting = a decision to include it.
There's a myth spreading in the MAGA-sphere saying that since Hegseth is an Original Classification Authority (OCA), whatever he says goes in terms of classification. That's a red herring, for reasons I'll explain.
The war plan information was likely first classified by CENTCOM.
CENTCOM officials would classify this information derivatively, using the CENTCOM classification guide, which is required by DOD classification policy. As explained below, the CENTCOM classification guide would have treated this information as SECRET.
So once this information reached Hegseth's desk, it would have already been classified as SECRET. There was no "original" classification decision to be made at this point. The only action he could have taken at this point was to affirmatively declassify it.
As @BradMossEsq points out, this message from Walz reveals that the USG had real-time coverage of one of the targets at a very time. If this came from an IC asset, this would be classified at the SECRET or TOP SECRET level, per the ODNI classification guide.
@BradMossEsq While I don't think it would be controlling necessarily, the ODNI classification guide also makes it pretty clear that information about military planning like this is classified, at the TOP SECRET level.
It took a while, but I finally got the For You tab to look less like Stormfront & more like a regular feed. I spent two days clicking "Not Interested in this post" on over 100 right-wing accounts that Elon kept resurfacing. After an epic battle, I finally defeated the algorithm.
It really was a battle. As you've experienced, prior to doing this I usually saw some combination of Elon, Vivek, Vance, CatTurd, or some other freak of the week in three of the first four posts, and then it the feed became more mixed between incel & regular content after that.
This was especially strange for me, because I follow only one or two right-wing accounts. I don't look like a good target. Anyway, the algorithm did not make it easy. I'd click "Not interested" in several Elon posts in short succession, and the algorithm kept resurfacing them.