Intel Officials Refuse To Brief DHS Chairman or House Intel CMMTE or Electors on Russian Hacking

House Republicans on the House Intelligence Committee are crying foul after the FBI, CIA, and National Intelligence directors refused to brief them on the Russian cyber attacks that occurred during the presidential campaign. The Washington Post reported on Friday that according to anonymous sources, the CIA determined that Russia interfered in the election with the purpose of helping Trump's campaign.

According to members of the House Intelligence Committee, that was the first time they had heard that analysis, even though intel officials had been briefing the panel on Russian cyber attacks for many months.

In an effort to fulfill his committee's oversight responsibilities, Chairman Devin Nunes requested that National Intelligence Director James Clapper, along with FBI Director James Comey and CIA Director John Brennan, brief committee members in a closed session on Thursday. Nunes was not pleased Wednesday when the briefing had to be canceled due to their refusal to appear.

pjmedia.com...

Intelligence officials have declined to brief electors on the extent of Russian interference with the election before they cast their ballots for president Monday, NPR has reported.

A group of 54 Democratic electors wrote an open letter to Director of National Intelligence James Clapper last week asking him to explain how Russian cyberspies hacked Democratic e-mail accounts and whether they did so to help elect Donald Trump, but NPR says Clapper refused the request late Friday.

nypost.com...

The CIA denied a request from Senate Homeland Security Committee Chairman Ron Johnson for a briefing on Russia’s involvement in the 2016 U.S. presidential election, making him the second national security committee chairman this week to be denied information from intelligence officials.

“I returned to Washington this week and requested the CIA to provide a briefing on Russia’s cyber capabilities and its involvement with the U.S. presidential election,” the Wisconsin Republican said in a statement issued Friday. “The CIA refused this request.”

morningconsult.com...

President-elect Donald Trump's senior adviser Kellyanne Conway: CIA Would Rather Leak Documents to Media Than Come Forward and TestifyThe only one's to be briefed is the media.

Where is the proof of Russian hacking? Do you believe the claim without proof? Is this just a ploy to persuade the Electors before they cast their ballots for president Monday?

Must be they don't *really* have any "proof".

Makes sense now.

If there was any proof they would have released it.

The only reason I can see not to release it if they have it is to avoid a diplomatic incident or to avoid pissing off Russia, considering this is all over the media the above cant be the reason why its not being released therefore the only logical conclusion is that the Russian hacking story is BS or wild unfounded speculation at best

The very last agency I'd actually believe is the CIA followed by every other federal agency, specifically anyone who serves at the pleasure of the current Chi-raq adminstration.

Propaganda.

Remember, they legalized using us government propaganda to lie to the people it in Obama's second term.

Anything they say without actual undeniable proof is suspect. (and even then, it could be fabricated)

The Electors themselves have no right to any "intel." Their job is simple, straight-forward, and largely proscribed, i.e.: They have no legal "right" to do anything but vote the way their states tell them to vote (which varies a bit.) Being an "Elector" is a formal duty that has no other right or responsibilities. Having said that, the way they have been treated this election, with threats to themselves and their families, is reprehensible.

a reply to: gmoneystunt

and yet the washington post and new york times put out articles on Friday claiming the FBI / DNI were completely behind the CIA lie.. err assessment. The same article also notes the DNI / FBI refused comment when asked.

I wonder if the left realizes just how stupid they look?

a reply to: gmoneystunt

Congress just needs to subpoena them to testify rather than "ask nicely".

If they don't show after being subpoenaed, they go to jail. They are not above or exempt from the law.

Period.

originally posted by: schuyler
The Electors themselves have no right to any "intel." Their job is simple, straight-forward, and largely proscribed, i.e.: They have no legal "right" to do anything but vote the way their states tell them to vote (which varies a bit.) Being an "Elector" is a formal duty that has no other right or responsibilities. Having said that, the way they have been treated this election, with threats to themselves and their families, is reprehensible.

Do you think this is "fake news" to persuade the Electors before they cast their ballots for president Monday?

originally posted by: IkNOwSTuff
If there was any proof they would have released it.

The usual counter to that, is that if they released the proof, they'd be revealing sources and methods, that would then compromise their ability to detect and track such activity in the future.

originally posted by: AMPTAH

originally posted by: IkNOwSTuff
If there was any proof they would have released it.

The usual counter to that, is that if they released the proof, they'd be revealing sources and methods, that would then compromise their ability to detect and track such activity in the future.

The counter to that would be then they never have to release the intel. So we will never know if the Russians hacked anything. Technically the intel does not exists if its never released. It would be a conspiracy theory

a reply to: schuyler

I just read their oath and it does say they have to go with what they feel right. They have a duty to speak up if they do not think the new president is up to the job.

lol, of course they wont, cause they dont have evidence

originally posted by: AMPTAH

originally posted by: IkNOwSTuff
If there was any proof they would have released it.

The usual counter to that, is that if they released the proof, they'd be revealing sources and methods, that would then compromise their ability to detect and track such activity in the future.

BS

If they found anything theyve already revealed they can plus it doesnt get much more serious than influencing an eletion, if there was ever a time to reveal sources this would be it.

It is so blatantly a political stunt called forth by president Obama, because he knows his legacy is officially going to be dog Sh*t even though it always has been. After the election he was all melancholy, and didn't care, and said the American people had spoken, then insisted that no hacking was evident in any way.

Then after a few weeks has had time to stew on his big rejection from the American people, and with his level of arrogance and actual hatred for everything traditional to America, is now angry and ready to stomp his feet and get revenge.

Enter in this sudden BS from his boys Comey and CIA and DHS who say "hacking by Russia" without the ability to show a shred of evidence for it, or even follow the lawful requests of congress and senate officials.

Obama is the most deplorable remnant of an old sewer system that is rife with all the kinds of virtues of darkness and defamation, and desolation. This is Obama's real legacy.

originally posted by: xuenchen
Must be they don't *really* have any "proof".

Makes sense now.

I am going with what you said, they don't have real proof. Sounds like a weapons of Mass destruction in Iraq remake.

Don't these people in government know most Americans can think. Evidently they do not believe our legislature can think either. We need a change in Washington.

a reply to: rickymouse

a reply to: schuyler

Don't they also swear a loyalty oath that states they will vote according to the states decided winning candidate? I'm not trying to be a smart-ass, I'm honestly asking.

originally posted by: Natas0114
a reply to: schuyler

Don't they also swear a loyalty oath that states they will vote according to the states decided winning candidate? I'm not trying to be a smart-ass, I'm honestly asking.

Its a state law in at least Colorado that they must vote for the winners of the popular vote in the state or they will face repercussions that would be beyond removing them as electors.

www.coloradoindependent.com...

originally posted by: gmoneystunt
Its a state law in at least Colorado that they must vote for the winners of the popular vote in the state or they will face repercussions that would be beyond removing them as electors.

It's not "a vote" if they "must" pick the winner.

Of course, some states have laws that try to make them cast their vote one way and not the other, or face a penalty.

But, that is yet to be fully tested in the highest court of the land.

Maybe this election will test all those contradictions in law.

To force a person to vote a particular way, is called "a rigged vote".

It's illegal.