4 ms·

Just caught that interview and it goes further. Rep Adam Schiff is claiming "the Intelligence Community says it's Russian disinformation" and then the DNI says

Just caught that interview and it goes further. Rep Adam Schiff is claiming "the Intelligence Community says it's Russian disinformation" and then the DNI says that they haven't passed any reports/briefings to Congress that say that. So Schiff is making claims for the IC without talking with them and they appear to be false. Set aside the topic for a second.. how is any Congressman going to the media and making things up acceptable?

shadowgovt 6y ago
> how is any Congressman going to the media and making things up acceptable? For the same reason as all Congressional behavior that is acceptable---voters don't hold them accountable.
- a1369209993 6y ago
  That's misleading; the underlying problem is that voters can't hold them accountble, because voters have at most 1 bit per two years of influence of Congressional behavior.
  - shadowgovt 6y ago
    I can't help but think that argument would hold more water if most eligible voters even chose to employ that bit. As it stands, off-every-four-years elections tend to see sub-50% turnout.
adamsea 6y ago
[EDIT: I should have watched the interview and my comments further down are inaccurate. But - oh wait - I didn't realize that Ratcliffe the guy that released dubious information about Hillary Clinton a few weeks before the election coming up. https://www.businessinsider.com/dni-ratcliffe-declassifies-russian-intelligence-disinformation-clinton-election-2020-9 https://www.businessinsider.com/dni-ratcliffe-declassifies-r... ''Andrew Weiss, a Russia specialist who is the James Family chair and vice president for studies at the Carnegie Endowment, described Ratcliffe's decision as "total national security malpractice,"'' Which totally violates the norms of the Intelligence Community and was done to help the President's re-election campaign: https://www.lawfareblog.com/john-ratcliffes-dangerous-declassification-game https://www.lawfareblog.com/john-ratcliffes-dangerous-declas... Why do people trust this guy? You shouldn't. Even if what he says turns out to be true, his actions reveal him as an un-trustworthy person on this issue. ] ------------------------------------------------------- ----- Please just ignore this stuff below :-) --------- > the DNI says that they haven't passed any reports/briefings to Congress that say that. While I didn't read/watch the interview/article in question, I just want to point out that the DNI statement, as you described it, is pretty carefully worded. They "have not passed reports/briefings that say it's Russian disinformation". This leaves room for: - Documents or meetings not officially considered reports/briefings. - Documents or meetings with damning information but that draw no explicit conclusions, leaving it to the House Intelligence Committee to do that. Obviously what I'm saying isn't a strong argument one way or the other. What I am saying, is, it's important to look at the big picture and to do so with a careful eye. Personally I think the blog Lawfare does an excellent job of this and is a great guide for these sorts of issues. Here's their analysis of the Senate Intelligence Committee Report: https://www.lawfareblog.com/collusion-reading-diary-what-did-senate-intelligence-committee-find https://www.lawfareblog.com/collusion-reading-diary-what-did... "One of the clever features of the Senate Intelligence Committee’s report is the committee’s apparent decision to draw no conclusions, merely to recount facts. This allowed the entire committee, irrespective of party or fealty to the president, to join in the factual findings." And then ... "To read these thousand pages and come away with the conclusion that they amount to evidence of “no collusion” really involves a protestation of faith, not a dispassionate assessment of presented evidence." It's a very comprehensive document and I highly recommend it.
- mc32 6y ago
  His comments don’t seem to leave as much room as you claim: “Let me be clear. The intelligence community doesn't believe that because there is no intelligence that supports that.”
  - adamsea 6y ago
    Gotcha. Thanks for the feedback. Sounds like I should have watched/read the interview : ( Though it's not related to the issue at hand I still recommend checking out Lawfare : ).
    - esja 6y ago
      Lawfare (and Ben Wittes in particular) misinformed a hell of a lot of people about Russiagate. They aren’t any sort of model of journalistic responsibility.
      - adamsea 6y ago
        We have to agree to disagree. I’ve found Lawfare to be thoughtful, diligent, and reputable. If you could share a specific article you had issue with I’d be curious to see it.
- caseysoftware 6y ago
  Before you pick apart the specificity of the wording of a statement, maybe you should read and/or listen to it.
arminiusreturns 6y ago
Mostly because they got away with it when it came to Russiagate, and the fact that they were never held to account for the lies and half-truths (and many people still pushing them), precedent has been set that they can cudgel the public with that thing. The whole "17 agencies" story being a great case in point. The 17 became 3, and the 3 became ~two dozen hand-picked analysts. None of that stops people like Schiff from continuing to spout the "17 agencies" line though. https://consortiumnews.com/2017/05/23/new-cracks-in-russia-gate-assessment/ https://consortiumnews.com/2017/05/23/new-cracks-in-russia-g... Like Ray McGovern says, the biggest four letter word in DC is "accountability".
- Bhilai 6y ago
  Russiagate is well documented in the Mueller report, read for yourself.
matthewdgreen 6y ago
I presume the claim Schiff is referencing is this one: "U.S. intelligence agencies warned the White House last year that President Trump’s personal lawyer Rudolph W. Giuliani was the target of an influence operation by Russian intelligence, according to four former officials familiar with the matter. The warnings were based on multiple sources, including intercepted communications, that showed Giuliani was interacting with people tied to Russian intelligence during a December 2019 trip to Ukraine, where he was gathering information that he thought would expose corrupt acts by former vice president Joe Biden and his son Hunter." https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/giuliani-biden-ukraine-russian-disinformation/2020/10/15/43158900-0ef5-11eb-b1e8-16b59b92b36d_story.html https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/giuliani-bi...
- sawjet 6y ago
  Where is the evidence?
  - sawjet 6y ago
    Let's remember that Schiff had "clear evidence of collusion" back in 2019.

shadowgovt 6y ago

> how is any Congressman going to the media and making things up acceptable? For the same reason as all Congressional behavior that is acceptable---voters don't hold them accountable.

a1369209993 6y ago
That's misleading; the underlying problem is that voters can't hold them accountble, because voters have at most 1 bit per two years of influence of Congressional behavior.
- shadowgovt 6y ago
  I can't help but think that argument would hold more water if most eligible voters even chose to employ that bit. As it stands, off-every-four-years elections tend to see sub-50% turnout.

adamsea 6y ago

[EDIT: I should have watched the interview and my comments further down are inaccurate. But - oh wait - I didn't realize that Ratcliffe the guy that released dubious information about Hillary Clinton a few weeks before the election coming up. https://www.businessinsider.com/dni-ratcliffe-declassifies-russian-intelligence-disinformation-clinton-election-2020-9 https://www.businessinsider.com/dni-ratcliffe-declassifies-r... ''Andrew Weiss, a Russia specialist who is the James Family chair and vice president for studies at the Carnegie Endowment, described Ratcliffe's decision as "total national security malpractice,"'' Which totally violates the norms of the Intelligence Community and was done to help the President's re-election campaign: https://www.lawfareblog.com/john-ratcliffes-dangerous-declassification-game https://www.lawfareblog.com/john-ratcliffes-dangerous-declas... Why do people trust this guy? You shouldn't. Even if what he says turns out to be true, his actions reveal him as an un-trustworthy person on this issue. ] ------------------------------------------------------- ----- Please just ignore this stuff below :-) --------- > the DNI says that they haven't passed any reports/briefings to Congress that say that. While I didn't read/watch the interview/article in question, I just want to point out that the DNI statement, as you described it, is pretty carefully worded. They "have not passed reports/briefings that say it's Russian disinformation". This leaves room for: - Documents or meetings not officially considered reports/briefings. - Documents or meetings with damning information but that draw no explicit conclusions, leaving it to the House Intelligence Committee to do that. Obviously what I'm saying isn't a strong argument one way or the other. What I am saying, is, it's important to look at the big picture and to do so with a careful eye. Personally I think the blog Lawfare does an excellent job of this and is a great guide for these sorts of issues. Here's their analysis of the Senate Intelligence Committee Report: https://www.lawfareblog.com/collusion-reading-diary-what-did-senate-intelligence-committee-find https://www.lawfareblog.com/collusion-reading-diary-what-did... "One of the clever features of the Senate Intelligence Committee’s report is the committee’s apparent decision to draw no conclusions, merely to recount facts. This allowed the entire committee, irrespective of party or fealty to the president, to join in the factual findings." And then ... "To read these thousand pages and come away with the conclusion that they amount to evidence of “no collusion” really involves a protestation of faith, not a dispassionate assessment of presented evidence." It's a very comprehensive document and I highly recommend it.

mc32 6y ago
His comments don’t seem to leave as much room as you claim: “Let me be clear. The intelligence community doesn't believe that because there is no intelligence that supports that.”
- adamsea 6y ago
  Gotcha. Thanks for the feedback. Sounds like I should have watched/read the interview : ( Though it's not related to the issue at hand I still recommend checking out Lawfare : ).
  - esja 6y ago
    Lawfare (and Ben Wittes in particular) misinformed a hell of a lot of people about Russiagate. They aren’t any sort of model of journalistic responsibility.
    - adamsea 6y ago
      We have to agree to disagree. I’ve found Lawfare to be thoughtful, diligent, and reputable. If you could share a specific article you had issue with I’d be curious to see it.
caseysoftware 6y ago
Before you pick apart the specificity of the wording of a statement, maybe you should read and/or listen to it.

arminiusreturns 6y ago

Mostly because they got away with it when it came to Russiagate, and the fact that they were never held to account for the lies and half-truths (and many people still pushing them), precedent has been set that they can cudgel the public with that thing. The whole "17 agencies" story being a great case in point. The 17 became 3, and the 3 became ~two dozen hand-picked analysts. None of that stops people like Schiff from continuing to spout the "17 agencies" line though. https://consortiumnews.com/2017/05/23/new-cracks-in-russia-gate-assessment/ https://consortiumnews.com/2017/05/23/new-cracks-in-russia-g... Like Ray McGovern says, the biggest four letter word in DC is "accountability".

Bhilai 6y ago
Russiagate is well documented in the Mueller report, read for yourself.

matthewdgreen 6y ago

I presume the claim Schiff is referencing is this one: "U.S. intelligence agencies warned the White House last year that President Trump’s personal lawyer Rudolph W. Giuliani was the target of an influence operation by Russian intelligence, according to four former officials familiar with the matter. The warnings were based on multiple sources, including intercepted communications, that showed Giuliani was interacting with people tied to Russian intelligence during a December 2019 trip to Ukraine, where he was gathering information that he thought would expose corrupt acts by former vice president Joe Biden and his son Hunter." https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/giuliani-biden-ukraine-russian-disinformation/2020/10/15/43158900-0ef5-11eb-b1e8-16b59b92b36d_story.html https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/giuliani-bi...

sawjet 6y ago
Where is the evidence?
- sawjet 6y ago
  Let's remember that Schiff had "clear evidence of collusion" back in 2019.