Crowd-sourcing Request: FBI, CIA and NSA Leadership Testify Before Congress…

It goes without saying the U.S. institutional media apparatus have cherry-picked the most useful parts of the collective testimony today to frame their necessary talking points. FBI Director Christopher Wray, CIA Director Mike Pompeo, Director of National Intelligence Dan Coats, Defense Intelligence Agency Director Lt. Gen. Robert Ashley, NSA Director Adm. Michael Rogers and National Geospatial Intelligence Agency Director Robert Cardillo.

However, with that said, and understanding the aggregate intelligence apparatus are working together with some of the more genuinely significant members of three congressional committees (Chairman Nunes, Chairman Grassley and Chairman Goodlatte); and accepting larger understandings become increasingly worthwhile amid the segments the media apparatus would prefer to overlook; here’s the full congressional testimony of the intelligence agencies:

Feel free to use the comment section to draw attention to any particular points you feel might be of significant interest.  Please note the exact time within the video as it relates to your comment.  Thanks.

(L-R) FBI Director Christopher Wray, CIA Director Mike Pompeo, Director of National Intelligence Dan Coats, Defense Intelligence Agency Director Lt. Gen. Robert Ashley, NSA Director Adm. Michael Rogers and National Geospatial Intelligence Agency Director Robert Cardillo

This entry was posted in CIA, Deep State, Dept Of Justice, FBI, NSA, Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

185 Responses to Crowd-sourcing Request: FBI, CIA and NSA Leadership Testify Before Congress…

  1. jmclever says:

    at about the 00:09:15 mark, Sen. Warner describes that Russia made a coordinated attack against state and local elections — electoral activity — in 21 states. This is very misleading (consider the speaker!) I feel that the Senate Democrats are gearing up to continue their McCarthy era blame everything on the Russians, and by extension President Trump, for the 2018 elections. Then “muh Russia” can still be a thing for the 2020 election cycle.

    Here are some excerpts from testimony to the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence (IOW the same people playing fast and loose with the facts are first hand recipients of those facts.)

    While not a definitive source in identifying individual activity attributed to Russian government cyber actors, it established that Internet-connected election-related networks, including websites, in 21 states were potentially targeted by Russian government cyber actors. Although we’ve refined our understanding of individual targeted networks, supported by classified reporting, the scale and scope noted in that October 2016 report still generally characterizes our observations: a small number of networks were successfully compromised, there were a larger number of states where attempts to compromise networks were unsuccessful, and there were an even greater number of states where only preparatory activity like scanning was observed.
    In September, our products at the classified and unclassified levels reported that we had no indication that adversaries or criminals were planning cyber operations against the U.S. election infrastructure that would change the outcome of the coming U.S. election. Further, we assessed that multiple checks and redundancies in U.S. election infrastructure—including diversity of systems, non-Internet connected voting machines, pre-election testing, and processes for media, campaign, and election officials to check, audit, and validate results—make it likely that cyber manipulation of U.S. election systems intended to change the outcome of a national election would be detected.

    During that period, we assessed that cyber operations targeting election infrastructure could be intended or used to undermine public confidence in electoral processes and potentially the outcome.
    “Russian intelligence obtained and maintained access to elements of multiple U.S. state or local electoral boards.” Additionally, “DHS assesse[d] that the types of systems Russian actors targeted or compromised were not involved in vote tallying.”1 As we continue to judge any and all newly available information, DHS has not altered any of those prior assessments.


    • jmclever says:

      My very general summary of this testimony is that the Russians are trying, as they always have, to mess with American politics via psy ops to undermine the American Spirit and faith in our institutions and processes. They will keep trying and, if we are not wary of plots, someday they may succeed but not at the level of the current accusations. This is not interference, intervention, or collusion as every democrat from the top down has alleged. In fact, if the Russian’s goal is to undermine faith in our electoral process, our leadership and our constitutional republic, then the Democrats are certainly cooperating in that effort and succeeding with those who blindly follow them.


      • jmclever says:

        Senator Warner continues to interchangeably use intervene and interfere in his questioning of the panel 00:45:58 and asks the panel to confirm that the Russians are still at it and will continue to try to intervene/interfere. IMHO he is setting up the news stories that will be generated by the public hearing. At no point does he or any other Senate Democrat ever point out that the Russians were unsuccessful in their attempts.

        Liked by 1 person

        • jmclever says:

          00:55:16 Senator Risch refers to the earlier testimony that I cited above in pointing out that the Russian attempts to use social media to sway public opinion were ineffectual, cheap, low grade, and also applied to other countries’ elections like France and Germany. I appreciate Sen. Risch’s assessment that the American people are ready to know the truth of what is being attempted via social media and to be informed and aware of it.


          • jmclever says:

            @02:00:50 Kamala Harris suggests that President Trump should recuse himself from anything having to do with Russian interference in 2016 election. She came unglued when it came to POTUS declassifying documents (Nunes memo and possible future documents). Recusal does not apply to one who enforces the law that others have put into effect. It applies to those making the law or prosecuting/defending a person to maintain impartiality. As a lawyer, Harris should know that.

            It appears that the Sen Democrats are organizing themselves to continue the “mush Russia” trope for as long as possible to hamstring POTUS Trump’s administration into the 2018 and 2020 elections.


        • BigMamaTEA says:

          Bravo jmclever…..You are now starting to see how slippery these congress-critters are!!!!!!

          Liked by 1 person

  2. jmclever says:

    02:30:17 Senator Burr remarks that they (the committee) will be working towards conclusions w.r.t. cooperation or collusion by “an individual, campaign, or company in efforts to influence elections or create societal chaos.”

    This tells me that the committee is interested in more than just “muh Russia.” At least on the surface of things. Remember the riots and violence that bloodied rally goers in some cases and cancelled rallies at other times? Could all this be included in “election interference?” Are BLM and AntiFa included in some of the committee’s work? (I know. I know.)

    But what if?…It seems as if the CoC and Soros’ Open Society are in competition with each other, so our CoC Senators might be instructed to go after AntiFa and BLM. Black Hats squabbling among themselves is often a golden opportunity for White Hats to gain the victory.

    This article outlines the Soros versus USCoC dynamic.

    There is a lot of Soros money floating around in progressive PACs that influences elections all the way to the county level. It’s how police departments and mayoral administrations become so progressive as to become sanctuary cities. Case in point: Albuquerque/Bernalillo County New Mexico. Scene of rally violence, sanctuary city, Fed police showed up under Obama’s DoJ

    This link is a great place to start if you want to learn about Soros and his influence on US elections, politics and society


  3. Lburg says:

    Because I didn’t understand the importance of what was being discussed about Section 232, I went to the source documents. First, the Department of Commerce:

    Then, written testimonies from the hearing:

    I read one – from Yu Gu – First Secretary, People’s Republic of China, Ministry of Commerce. Then another from Karl Tachelet EUROFER Director, International Affairs and all I could think about was keeping my head from exploding.

    Since when do representatives from any other country have any voice in whether or not we are ‘allowed’ to declare that steel production is or is not a national security issue? (rhetorical question)

    For example, Tachelet: “In this regard, we note that many of the subsectors identified by the Department of Homeland Security as “critical infrastructure applications” have little or no relevance to national security and should be removed from the analysis.”

    And Gu: “Finally, in light of the lack of a unified definition of “national security” within the
    WTO framework, such action may trigger other Members to invoke similar national
    security interests to protect their own allegedly critical industries from imports, which
    would create unnecessary and harmful barriers to trade.”

    Seems to me that the nay sayers gathered around the table with President Trump did more than out themselves as obstructionists to president Trump, they aligned themselves with the onerous new world order (WTO). Makes me wonder what they have to gain by aligning themselves this way and trying to track down donations has become a week long exercise that is very likely to dead end.

    I suppose that it could just be that they have not yet learned how to win, but in the current environment, [insert suspicious cat here].


  4. MikeN says:

    Washington Times story Dec 10, says Fusion was pushing the story about the server at Trump Tower talking to a Russian bank.
    The story starts with some security experts that have access to data no one else has. What if this is just a cover for the surveillance being conducted on TrumpTower? Or maybe they had this info pushed onto them, to launder the surveillance?


    • BigMamaTEA says:

      MikeN, I believe that surveillance was going on for a lot longer than we know, and then when the evil ones got caught, they had to “invent” a crime to attempt to justify what they’d been doing.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s