[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.]  Mollie [@MZHemingway](/creator/twitter/MZHemingway) on x 1.5M followers Created: 2025-07-23 20:25:37 UTC A few things here. A many years after the fact, five-volume, CIA-fed report is not the same thing as hatching a coup in a private meeting with your intel chiefs to suppress a PDB and replace it with rushed and inaccurate info on your way out the door. That LITERALLY included, as the first CNN story noted, the Steele dossier. HAVING SAID THAT, I actually think you raise an interesting point. It is true that the SSCI released a report on Russia that many left-wingers have said supports their key Russia collusion hoax claims. You note that it says that the committee found that SSCI agreed with Brennan on all this stuff including the contentious issue of Putin intervening to help Trump. We now have extensive debunkings -- destruction, really -- of Brennan's claims that he pushed in the ICA. Perhaps the SSCI simply regurgitated those false claims, much in the way CNN did and continues to do. Or perhaps they had their own investigation. Do you know? It would not be good if they regurgitated the Brennan-crafted claims, of course. But does anyone know the BASIS for their claim about Putin's motivations? Other than just a review and regurgitation of the ICA that somehow managed to miss all the emails and documents now being released? Did they have different info than the info we now have seen get debunked? I'm asking genuinely here. My version is just seas of blacked out lines so it's very difficult to know what to trust and what not to trust, particularly now seeing how false the claims pushed by many media were. I'm sure you agree that just quoting the SSCI without really digging into the basis of the claim is stenography, rather than journalism. On this story even more than most others. XXXXXX engagements  [Post Link](https://x.com/MZHemingway/status/1948117316363043088)
[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.]
Mollie @MZHemingway on x 1.5M followers
Created: 2025-07-23 20:25:37 UTC
A few things here. A many years after the fact, five-volume, CIA-fed report is not the same thing as hatching a coup in a private meeting with your intel chiefs to suppress a PDB and replace it with rushed and inaccurate info on your way out the door. That LITERALLY included, as the first CNN story noted, the Steele dossier.
HAVING SAID THAT, I actually think you raise an interesting point. It is true that the SSCI released a report on Russia that many left-wingers have said supports their key Russia collusion hoax claims.
You note that it says that the committee found that SSCI agreed with Brennan on all this stuff including the contentious issue of Putin intervening to help Trump. We now have extensive debunkings -- destruction, really -- of Brennan's claims that he pushed in the ICA. Perhaps the SSCI simply regurgitated those false claims, much in the way CNN did and continues to do. Or perhaps they had their own investigation. Do you know?
It would not be good if they regurgitated the Brennan-crafted claims, of course. But does anyone know the BASIS for their claim about Putin's motivations? Other than just a review and regurgitation of the ICA that somehow managed to miss all the emails and documents now being released? Did they have different info than the info we now have seen get debunked?
I'm asking genuinely here.
My version is just seas of blacked out lines so it's very difficult to know what to trust and what not to trust, particularly now seeing how false the claims pushed by many media were.
I'm sure you agree that just quoting the SSCI without really digging into the basis of the claim is stenography, rather than journalism. On this story even more than most others.
XXXXXX engagements
