Both John Ratcliffe and Tulsi Gabbard released rehashes of the 2017 Intelligence Community Assessment (ICA), finding parallels in their criticisms. They both concluded that the confidence level for asserting Putin's intent to assist Trump was overstated. Both reports criticized John Brennan's role as overly influential and noted issues with the investigation timeline. Moreover, they expressed concerns over the extensive dissemination of the highest classified version of the ICA to numerous officials, which had unintended consequences in later analyses. Despite this, each document treated elements of intelligence differently, highlighting significant interpretative differences.
Both John Ratcliffe and Tulsi Gabbard criticize the confidence level of the judgment regarding Putin's aspirations to assist Trump in the 2016 election.
Both reports highlight that John Brennan influenced the process in a problematic manner and express concerns about the short timeline of the investigations.
Ratcliffe's document does not mention the SRV documents that were released contemporaneously, indicating a potential omission in his analysis.
The treatment of intelligence pieces underlying the 'aspired' judgment differs between the CIA report and HPSCI, showing a divergence in interpretation.
Collection
[
|
...
]