Anonymous wrote:To no one’s surprise, Devin Nunes was the HPSCI member who ran to the White House to tell Trump what was in Maguire’s briefing.
https://amp.cnn.com/cnn/2020/02/21/politics/intelligence-briefing-republican-behind-the-scenes/index.html?__twitter_impression=true

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So Shelby Pierson didn’t spin the intelligence to make it more palatable for the super sensitive snowflake republicans.
Ok.

No. There is no evidence that this is the case.

But the US does not have evidence that Russia's interference this cycle is aimed at reelecting Trump, the officials said.
"The intelligence doesn't say that," one senior national security official told CNN.

One source familiar with the matter said Pierson was merely providing her view of the intelligence as she faced a series of questions from lawmakers trying to pin her down on whether the intelligence showed a Russian preference for Trump.
It's the type of situation intelligence briefers are prepped to avoid, the source said, in part so as not to wade into partisan controversy.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:as I understood it, some of the evidence provided to obtain FISA warrants was questionable at best. But even so, the warrants had merit, and the FBI has ample cause to be investigating Russian interference in 2016.
Why are we still talking about this?
I mean other than the fact that Russia is doing it again.

Nope, it was a bs, political hatchet job from your local super friendly ODNI. A partisan hack hole if ever one existed.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:as I understood it, some of the evidence provided to obtain FISA warrants was questionable at best. But even so, the warrants had merit, and the FBI has ample cause to be investigating Russian interference in 2016.
Why are we still talking about this?
I mean other than the fact that Russia is doing it again.

Nope, it was a bs, political hatchet job from your local super friendly ODNI. A partisan hack hole if ever one existed.

Anonymous wrote:as I understood it, some of the evidence provided to obtain FISA warrants was questionable at best. But even so, the warrants had merit, and the FBI has ample cause to be investigating Russian interference in 2016.
Why are we still talking about this?
I mean other than the fact that Russia is doing it again.

Anonymous wrote:So Shelby Pierson didn’t spin the intelligence to make it more palatable for the super sensitive snowflake republicans.
Ok.

But the US does not have evidence that Russia's interference this cycle is aimed at reelecting Trump, the officials said.
"The intelligence doesn't say that," one senior national security official told CNN.

One source familiar with the matter said Pierson was merely providing her view of the intelligence as she faced a series of questions from lawmakers trying to pin her down on whether the intelligence showed a Russian preference for Trump.
It's the type of situation intelligence briefers are prepped to avoid, the source said, in part so as not to wade into partisan controversy.

Anonymous wrote:Well, look at this..... Many of us are not surprised at all. Shelby Pierson should be fired. And, Trump should do everything he can to clean out the IC. Get rid of these people.
And, Adam Schiff is an idiot again.

The US intelligence community's top election security official appears to have overstated the intelligence community's formal assessment of Russian interference in the 2020 election, omitting important nuance during a briefing with lawmakers earlier this month, three national security officials told CNN.

The official, Shelby Pierson, told lawmakers on the House Intelligence Committee that Russia is interfering in the 2020 election with the goal of helping President Donald Trump get reelected.
The US intelligence community has assessed that Russia is interfering in the 2020 election and has separately assessed that Russia views Trump as a leader they can work with. But the US does not have evidence that Russia's interference this cycle is aimed at reelecting Trump, the officials said.
"The intelligence doesn't say that," one senior national security official told CNN. "A more reasonable interpretation of the intelligence is not that they have a preference, it's a step short of that. It's more that they understand the President is someone they can work with, he's a dealmaker."

Pierson's characterization of Russian interference led to pointed questions from lawmakers, which officials said caused Pierson to overstep and assert that Russia has a preference for Trump to be reelected.
One intelligence official said that Pierson's characterization of the intelligence was "misleading" and a national security official said Pierson failed to provide the "nuance" needed to accurately convey the US intelligence conclusions.

https://www.cnn.com/2020/02/23/politics/intelligence-briefer-russian-interference-trump-sanders/index.html

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:To no one’s surprise, Devin Nunes was the HPSCI member who ran to the White House to tell Trump what was in Maguire’s briefing.
https://amp.cnn.com/cnn/2020/02/21/politics/intelligence-briefing-republican-behind-the-scenes/index.html?__twitter_impression=true

No, he didn't.

California Rep. Devin Nunes said he intends to sue the Washington Post over a report that said he informed President Trump about a classified briefing about Russian interference in the 2020 election.

Nunes, the top Republican on the House Intelligence Committee, made the announcement during a Friday evening interview on Fox News's The Story with Martha MacCallum, which was guest-hosted by Harris Faulkner.

“I don’t know what planet the Washington Post is on," Nunes said. "But they’ll have an opportunity in federal court in the next couple weeks to explain who their sources are, because I’m going to have to take them to court because I didn't go to the White House. I didn't talk to President Trump, Harris. So, this is the same garbage."

“They build a narrative, they plant a narrative, they write fake news stories about it of things that shouldn’t even be talked about, you know, this classified information," Nunes said. "And then, they run these stories. Who the hell is leaking this?”

The Washington Post did not immediately return a request for comment.

Jack Langer, Nunes' communications director, told the Washington Examiner: “The Washington Post has been a crucial instrument used by resistance leakers for three years to perpetuate the Russia collusion hoax. Now they’ve published more false information about Rep. Nunes, so they’ll get a chance to make their case in federal court. Honestly, sometimes it seems like the Post’s anonymous sources are Republican plants feeding them false information in order to further discredit their reporting.”

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/devin-nunes-vows-to-sue-washington-post-for-garbage-report-on-classified-russia-briefing

Hmmmm.... who to believe, an award winning newspaper or a corrupt politician with a record of lying?

I believe Nunes over any anonymous source the WaPo credits with their information.
After the last 3 years, Nunes has proven himself to be honest - the WaPo - not so much.

Hahahahahahaah! Thanks for the laugh!! Hilarious.

The US intelligence community's top election security official appears to have overstated the intelligence community's formal assessment of Russian interference in the 2020 election, omitting important nuance during a briefing with lawmakers earlier this month, three national security officials told CNN.

The official, Shelby Pierson, told lawmakers on the House Intelligence Committee that Russia is interfering in the 2020 election with the goal of helping President Donald Trump get reelected.
The US intelligence community has assessed that Russia is interfering in the 2020 election and has separately assessed that Russia views Trump as a leader they can work with. But the US does not have evidence that Russia's interference this cycle is aimed at reelecting Trump, the officials said.
"The intelligence doesn't say that," one senior national security official told CNN. "A more reasonable interpretation of the intelligence is not that they have a preference, it's a step short of that. It's more that they understand the President is someone they can work with, he's a dealmaker."

Pierson's characterization of Russian interference led to pointed questions from lawmakers, which officials said caused Pierson to overstep and assert that Russia has a preference for Trump to be reelected.
One intelligence official said that Pierson's characterization of the intelligence was "misleading" and a national security official said Pierson failed to provide the "nuance" needed to accurately convey the US intelligence conclusions.

Anonymous wrote:as I understood it, some of the evidence provided to obtain FISA warrants was questionable at best. But even so, the warrants had merit, and the FBI has ample cause to be investigating Russian interference in 2016.
Why are we still talking about this?
I mean other than the fact that Russia is doing it again.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:To no one’s surprise, Devin Nunes was the HPSCI member who ran to the White House to tell Trump what was in Maguire’s briefing.
https://amp.cnn.com/cnn/2020/02/21/politics/intelligence-briefing-republican-behind-the-scenes/index.html?__twitter_impression=true

No, he didn't.

California Rep. Devin Nunes said he intends to sue the Washington Post over a report that said he informed President Trump about a classified briefing about Russian interference in the 2020 election.

Nunes, the top Republican on the House Intelligence Committee, made the announcement during a Friday evening interview on Fox News's The Story with Martha MacCallum, which was guest-hosted by Harris Faulkner.

“I don’t know what planet the Washington Post is on," Nunes said. "But they’ll have an opportunity in federal court in the next couple weeks to explain who their sources are, because I’m going to have to take them to court because I didn't go to the White House. I didn't talk to President Trump, Harris. So, this is the same garbage."

“They build a narrative, they plant a narrative, they write fake news stories about it of things that shouldn’t even be talked about, you know, this classified information," Nunes said. "And then, they run these stories. Who the hell is leaking this?”

The Washington Post did not immediately return a request for comment.

Jack Langer, Nunes' communications director, told the Washington Examiner: “The Washington Post has been a crucial instrument used by resistance leakers for three years to perpetuate the Russia collusion hoax. Now they’ve published more false information about Rep. Nunes, so they’ll get a chance to make their case in federal court. Honestly, sometimes it seems like the Post’s anonymous sources are Republican plants feeding them false information in order to further discredit their reporting.”

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/devin-nunes-vows-to-sue-washington-post-for-garbage-report-on-classified-russia-briefing

Hmmmm.... who to believe, an award winning newspaper or a corrupt politician with a record of lying?

I believe Nunes over any anonymous source the WaPo credits with their information.
After the last 3 years, Nunes has proven himself to be honest - the WaPo - not so much.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:To no one’s surprise, Devin Nunes was the HPSCI member who ran to the White House to tell Trump what was in Maguire’s briefing.
https://amp.cnn.com/cnn/2020/02/21/politics/intelligence-briefing-republican-behind-the-scenes/index.html?__twitter_impression=true

No, he didn't.

California Rep. Devin Nunes said he intends to sue the Washington Post over a report that said he informed President Trump about a classified briefing about Russian interference in the 2020 election.

Nunes, the top Republican on the House Intelligence Committee, made the announcement during a Friday evening interview on Fox News's The Story with Martha MacCallum, which was guest-hosted by Harris Faulkner.

“I don’t know what planet the Washington Post is on," Nunes said. "But they’ll have an opportunity in federal court in the next couple weeks to explain who their sources are, because I’m going to have to take them to court because I didn't go to the White House. I didn't talk to President Trump, Harris. So, this is the same garbage."

“They build a narrative, they plant a narrative, they write fake news stories about it of things that shouldn’t even be talked about, you know, this classified information," Nunes said. "And then, they run these stories. Who the hell is leaking this?”

The Washington Post did not immediately return a request for comment.

Jack Langer, Nunes' communications director, told the Washington Examiner: “The Washington Post has been a crucial instrument used by resistance leakers for three years to perpetuate the Russia collusion hoax. Now they’ve published more false information about Rep. Nunes, so they’ll get a chance to make their case in federal court. Honestly, sometimes it seems like the Post’s anonymous sources are Republican plants feeding them false information in order to further discredit their reporting.”

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/devin-nunes-vows-to-sue-washington-post-for-garbage-report-on-classified-russia-briefing

Hmmmm.... who to believe, an award winning newspaper or a corrupt politician with a record of lying?

I believe Nunes over any anonymous source the WaPo credits with their information.
After the last 3 years, Nunes has proven himself to be honest - the WaPo - not so much.

Also Nunes has shown himself to be extremely litigious and dishonest (his family farm).

WaPo can and does retract stories. Because they're a good newspaper.

The WaPo was among many MSM that hailed the FISA memo written by Schiff, which proved to be a bunch of BS, and criticized the memo written by Nunes, which was proven accurate.
After that, and their entire coverage of Russia gate, I have little confidence in their reporting, particularly when they use anonymous sourcing.