It’s not the first time President Trump and the intelligence community have been at odds, but as Twitchy reported, people were throwing around the word “treason” quite a bit today at the suggestion that Trump had sided with Russian President Vladimir Putin and agreed that there was no Russian meddling in the 2016 election.
In short, the Kremlin denies that Trump and Putin talked about the 2016 election during their encounter at the APEC summit; Trump suggested they did; and CIA director Mike Pompeo and former director Michael Hayden both confirmed U.S. intelligence findings that Russia had tampered in the election, with Hayden tweeting:
CIA just told me: The Dir stands by and has always stood by the January 2017 Intelligence Community Assessment entitled: Assessing Russian Activities and Intentions in Recent U.S. Elections. The intelligence assessment with regard to Russian election meddling has not changed.
— Gen Michael Hayden (@GenMhayden) November 11, 2017
At a time when people on social media are calling for Trump to be executed for treason, it’s nice to check in with someone like National Review contributing editor Andrew McCarthy for a balanced viewpoint.
He shouldn’t do it, but I don’t care if Trump slams IC leadership political hackery – plenty of IC agents did that last few years. But we should all object to his doing it for benefit of murderous anti-American dictator.
— Andy McCarthy (@AndrewCMcCarthy) November 11, 2017
And in response to Hayden’s tweet:
I accept the conclusion & have great respect for Gen Hayden & Dir Pompeo. OTOH, I wouldn’t dare go into court with IC put out & say it was proved, & it remains inexplicable that IC relies on Dem contractor rather than seize & examine servers. https://t.co/wivCldJmEa
— Andy McCarthy (@AndrewCMcCarthy) November 11, 2017
Recommended
That’s a lot to jam into a tweet (even a 280-character one), but it’s a fair assessment. A full year after an election that The Resistance still doesn’t consider legitimate, no way is Trump going to concede an inch on the narrative that Russians hacked the election and handed it to him. And as far as proof that Russia in any way influenced the election … The Resistance has been waiting a year for that as well.
And yeah … why didn’t the IC seize the DNC’s servers that had supposedly been hacked by the Russians?
Isn’t it fair at this point to question the IC’s assessment that Russia was trying to help @realDonaldTrump ?
— Jeff Cunningham (@jeffrygc) November 11, 2017
I take them to be cutting to fundamental question: Did Russia do it? The mind-reading about why has always been squishier & shifting over time. Safest to say Putin wants what would make us most ineffective. Changes w/ circumstances.
— Andy McCarthy (@AndrewCMcCarthy) November 11, 2017
Agree, but the conflation of meddling with why they did it is why @realDonaldTrump cannot embrace the meddling from my perspective. I believe it would help if IC acknowledged the answer to Why is squishy!
— Jeff Cunningham (@jeffrygc) November 11, 2017
https://twitter.com/azgazette/status/929491796916297729
https://twitter.com/dale_je/status/929502572414754816
IC is highly politicized, Dir. Pompeo relying on those who participated on politicizing IC.
Only CIA and FBI had high confidence
Nebulous word "meddling" used, not "hacking." Russians have been meddling for decades
No quantitative analysis if "meddling" actually had an effect
— J.J. (@IMHObyJJ) November 11, 2017
Ah yes that Jan 2017 assessment where the NSA was only "moderate" in confidence? That assessment was highly suspect. That was a Political piece if work driven by Comey,Clapper, and Brennen. It is a joke!
— Gerry (@GerryPo) November 11, 2017
It’s called an “assessment” for that very reason. This is our best idea of what’s happened based on evidence. Not what can be proven.
— JJ (@JohJustin) November 11, 2017
I'd happily argue against the assessment in court. And I'd focus on impeaching its authors based upon their own bias.
— Ox Searcher (@ioncesawanox) November 11, 2017
Yes. Correct. The parsing of words by #Clapper and #Comey during public testimony is concerning. Seemingly deceptive— intentionally so.
— Wayne Sida (@neurosidafex) November 12, 2017
I don’t accept it. I don’t accept anything that emanated from the Brennan CIA, Clapper NSA or Comey FBI. We already know, from prev reports, the IC used to change intel reports prior to briefing Obama so he could plausibly deny. Why’s this any different?
— Mr CAH (@cahtx01) November 11, 2017
https://twitter.com/mwpetty007/status/929476481667010561
* * *
Related:
TRAITOR? Citizens calling for impeachment, public execution of Trump over comments on Russian meddling https://t.co/jIqBja2B32
— Twitchy Team (@TwitchyTeam) November 11, 2017
Join the conversation as a VIP Member