Login
  • 1

Senate Intel Breaks With House on Issue of Russian Interference in 2016

Leaders of Senate Intel met with former intelligence officials to review information related to the 2016 election.

Say, what’s the difference between the House Intelligence Committee and the Senate Intelligence Committee?

The Senate Intelligence Committee isn’t burdened with Devin Nunes.

Other than that, in delivering a statement on Wednesday, Senate Intel leadership backed up the assessment of the U.S. intelligence community.

“We see no reason to dispute the conclusions,” Chairman Richard Burr (R-N.C.) said in a statement.

“There is no doubt that Russia undertook an unprecedented effort to interfere with our 2016 elections.”

The Senate Intel investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 election is still ongoing, but for the past few months, they’ve been going over the January 2017 assessment put together by top intelligence community officials.

So what were the exact points of that particular assessment:

The assessment found that Russia sought to interfere in the election for three reasons: to undermine U.S. democracy, to damage Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton and to help Trump win the White House.

Top intelligence officials met for a review behind closed doors with committee members on Wednesday, before Burr and Vice Chairman Mark Warner (D-Va.) made their statement to the public.

“After a thorough review, our staff concluded that the [intelligence community assessment] conclusions were accurate and on point,” Warner said. “The Russian effort was extensive, sophisticated, and ordered by President Putin himself for the purpose of helping Donald Trump and hurting Hillary Clinton.”

When the House Intelligence Committee delivered their conclusions, it was pretty much the opposite.

Russia was not out to get Donald Trump elected.

That’s about as opposite as the findings can be. Weren’t they talking to the same people and privy to the same information?

However, some Republicans on the House Intelligence panel signaled disagreement with some of the final conclusions. Rep. Trey Gowdy (R-S.C.) said in March that it was “clear, based on the evidence, Russia had disdain for Secretary Clinton and was motivated in whole or in part by a desire to harm her candidacy or undermine her Presidency had she prevailed.”

Senate Intel is expected to formally wrap up their probe in August.

The Senate panel has already released its initial findings on Russian cyberattacks against U.S. voting infrastructure, finding that Moscow conducted an “unprecedented, coordinated cyber campaign” against the nation’s digital election systems.

Those meeting on Wednesday with Senate Intel were former CIA Director John Brennan, former National Security Agency Director Mike Rogers, and former Director of National Intelligence James Clapper.

Former FBI Director James Comey was also invited, but declined, due to a conflict in his schedule.

I think I'll keep tracking the House Intelligence Committee findings because, you know, Devin Nunes and the fact that there has been absolutely Zero evidence to show that the Trump Campaign colluded or otherwise gave assistance or had knowledge of any Russian interference. I believe
that if the DNC handed over the two servers that the Russians hacked we could get evidence there. That is unless the server hacks were just a ruse, kind of like the FISA Warrants were.

You absolutely cannot correctly say that there has been absolutely zero evidence. What you believe about the DNC makes no difference to the case; what matters is what Mueller and his team have and what they're doing with it. It's an ongoing investigation, and to say long before the final report comes out that you are in possession of all the facts or even enough of them to make this determination for yourself based on what's come out in the news is premature. If you need some perspective, check the dates for independent counsel investigations just in the last few decades. Only one or two lasted less than two years. We haven't even hit that mark yet with the Mueller investigation, and people are already comfortable with saying he should wrap it up because he doesn't have anything. That's not how these things work - they are nowhere near as cut and dried, as nice and neat as we'd like them to be.

5

Jc you need to do some critical reading here. Nobody said there was collusion. They said the Russians wanted to push the needle towards Trump. Those are two very different things. I mean did you really think Russian trolls had no agenda? Of course they did, just like you do.

4

Adam Schiff said there was collusion, that he had evidence of it, but he never produced it.

Better that the Senate would be "burdened" with Nunes than to meet with Brennan who voted for this man for President.

Stories