[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

[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.