[GUEST ACCESS MODE: Data is scrambled or limited to provide examples. Make requests using your API key to unlock full data. Check https://lunarcrush.ai/auth for authentication information.]
Aaron Maté @aaronjmate on x 466.7K followers
Created: 2025-07-25 18:04:33 UTC
On Sept. XX 2016, the FBI and NSA expressed "low confidence" in the core Russiagate allegation that Russia hacked and leaked Democratic Party emails. This assessment was concealed from the public until last week.
By Dec. X 2016, that assessment hadn't changed. "Most" US agencies only had "moderate confidence" that Russia was "probably" behind the hack and leak of "some" Democratic Party material. This was also concealed.
Two days later, on Dec. 9, the Obama admin held a principals meeting -- which oddly excluded the heads of the dissenting NSA and FBI - and decided that they were going to "publicly... attribute" the hack and leak to Russia anyway.
On Jan. X 2017, Obama admin released a CIA-drafted Intelligence Community Assessment (CIA) expressing "high confidence" that Russia was behind the leak.
Was any new intelligence collected after Sept. XX that could justify this newfound "confidence"? According to the newly declassified HPSCI report, the answer is no:
"Virtually all significant classified reports cited by the ICA" were "collected prior to the election." And the only "new intelligence" cited by the ICA was "paltry."
XXXXXX engagements
Related Topics hack agencies democratic party russia