1/ My new op-ed on why a @HouseIntelComm report on a US intel assessment of Russian meddling in the 2016 election is more believeable than a recent report on this issue by the Senate intel committee https://fxn.ws/2VO6jtB  @KenDilanianNBC @julianbarnes @npfandos @realDonaldTrump

2/ I explain that analytic tradecraft rules clearly were not followed for the 1/17 ICA on Russian meddling in he election. Intel agencies were inexplicably excluded from drafting this assessment. Only 2-dozen hand-picked analysts from 3 IC agencies worked on the report.

3/ Why were agencies working on this issue like DIA and DHS excluded? Why did associates of John Brennan do the actual drafting? All of these problems run contrary to IC protocols to produce objective, accurate and credible analyses that are community products.

4/ The ICA also lacked dissenting views and an annex of outside reviewers. But the most important problem concerned the use of evidence on Putin's motivations for meddling in the US election. The Senate report said IC procedures were followed here, the House report disagreed.

5/ I gave a specific example of this that has not been made public until now. House Intel Committee investigators were told there was conflicting evidence on Putin's motivations. They learned of strong evidence that Putin wanted Clinton to win and Trump to lose.

6/ On the other hand, the House Intel staff learned of weak evidence that did not meet IC standards that Putin wanted Trump to win.
House intel staff members and a committee member told me CIA Director Brennan prevented the anti-Clinton intel from being included in the ICA.

7/ CIA analysts objected to the exclusion of this intelligence.

But Brennan also directed that the weak anti-Trump intel be included in the ICA over the objections of CIA analysts.

8/ Contrary to the Dem Trump-Russia collusion narrative, Putin wanting Clinton to win the election makes sense. She was a known quantity who the Russians had walked all over when she was SecState. Trump was an unknown who could bring anti-Russia hawks into his admin.

9/ So if what I wrote in my op-ed is true, why didn't the Senate Intel Committee come to the same conclusions? I also explain this in my op-ed.
First, it is unfair to reject the House Intel report out of hand simply because it was written by the GOP majority.

10/ At the same time, the Senate Intel report is not credible just because it is bipartisan. It is more reasonable to regard any bipartisan report on this subject as suspicious. Democratic lawmakers have been fanatically united . . .

11/ . . . in promoting the false Trump-Russia collusion narrative. So it is impossible to believe that a Democratic Senate Intelligence Committee member would allow any references in the panel’s reports that intelligence was slanted and weaponized to undermine Trump’s presidency.

12/ And sadly, Sen Burr has been a weak Sen Intel Committee Chairman, so much so that many in DC have joked that the Dem Vice Chairman Mark Warner actually runs the committee. As a result, its impossible to see how this report could include anything favorable to the president.

13/ You also might ask why intel officers would give different accounts to the Senate and House Intel Committees. This is easy to explain. Many intel agency managers are liberals and very anti-Trump. As a result, intel officers be willing to level with GOP House intel staff. . .

/14 . . . but not bipartisan Senate intel staff investigators because they worried that whatever they told the Senate staff would get back to their managers and hurt their careers. I witnessed this problem during my intelligence career.

/15. I'm confident the House Intel assessment of the ICA is correct and that the Senate report is a whitewash. I'm glad acting-DNI Grenell has asked for the intel used for the ICA. I'm hopeful federal prosecutor John Durham will resolve this issue in his investigation.