Why would anyone ever believe Putin wanted Trump to be president? It never made sense – except to those who believe Trump admired a fellow dictator, and vice-versa, and that Trump had promised him favors. But it was a way the left saw to undermine Trump, something to which they’ve dedicated their lives for the last ten years and counting.
The January 6, 2017 Intelligence Community Assessment concluding that Russian President Vladimir Putin “developed a clear preference” for Donald Trump and “aspired to help his chances of victory” is revealed in a report released this morning by Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard to have been based on four pieces of evidence. One was the Steele Dossier. The surprise is that the other three were even less credible, each included over objections of the report’s CIA authors.
The first item was a “scant, unclear, and unverifiable fragment” of one sentence that the report’s five CIA authors read “five ways” and initially left out, only to have Director John Brennan order it back in. The second item was an email with “no date, no identified sender, no clear recipient, and no classification.” The third was supposedly backed by “liaison,” diplomatic, and press reporting, as well as signals intelligence (SIGINT), except the “SIGINT” didn’t mention Trump, the “liaison reporting” didn’t mention Trump and was from 2014, and the “diplomatic and media” reporting was a post-election review by a U.S. Ambassador citing a Russian pundit who said Putin and Trump should “work together like businessmen.” This was “evidence” that Putin “developed a clear preference” for Trump.
All three reports weren’t just unsourced and unreliable, but discarded fictions pulled out of the CIA’s trash heap. …
The Assessment was written by just five CIA analysts hand-picked by Brennan, but even these most favored lieutenants couldn’t accept the key pieces of evidence. Two of the five went to Brennan to say, “We don’t have direct information that Putin wanted to get Trump elected,” only to be overruled. The same thing happened when members of the group objected to the Steele material, saying it didn’t meet even “basic tradecraft standards.” When confronted on this point, Brennan reportedly said, “Yes, but doesn’t it ring true?”
It served A Higher Truth, much like the Rathergate memo.
The report on which this was based was written eight years ago but Taibbi notes that it was “locked at Langley ever since” and only released at Trump’s behest, to be studied by Gabbard’s group. “Langley” refers to CIA headquarters. When the intelligence community does shady things, it can hide them by classifying them.
And of course on Taibbi’s X thread we get some predictable responses such as this:
Matt why are you covering this instead of Epstein?
The Democrats have their talking point.

