A few days ago, the liberal media jumped for glee, a new report from the Senate Intelligence Committee appears to confirm that Russia meddled in the 2016 election. To be more accurate, they confirmed what some in the intelligence committee had released in 2017. I mean, I just shrug. For me, there was never a doubt that the Russians tried to interfere, I just don’t think $100,000 in Facebook memes was enough to sway the election. Also, there remains zero evidence of a Trump-Kremlin collusion plot during the 2016 election. Foreign governments interfering in other nation’s elections is nothing new, sorry. It’s not. Can we move on from this? The US did this often in the Cold War era and during the 2014 Israeli elections. Russia still does it often with its former Soviet neighbors. Welcome to geopolitics, liberal media. And folks, like Deep State Ken here from NBC News, just need to go under a rock and stay there for the ensuing three centuries for peddling this collusion myth, which was solely based on a document—the Steele dossier—that has been roundly refuted as inaccurate garbage. It is, after all, a piece of biased political opposition research funded by the Clinton campaign and compiled by former MI6 spook Christopher Steele. For two years, these liberal journalists engulfed the nation in a fairy tale. And this dossier, also known as the Trump dossier, was used to secure a spy warrant against former Trump campaign aide Carter Page, whose life has been ruined by the allegation that he was somehow the Dark Lord of the Sith in this alleged mythical plot. It was a hoax, a fantastic lie that was never at any point backed up by any solid evidence. It was just liberal hot air and bias keeping this corpse of a narrative alive, until ex-Special Counsel Robert Mueller and Department of Justice Inspector General Michael Horowitz shot it all to hell, a political double-tap.

So, what’s new with this latest document? Well, for starters, Fred Fleitz, the former Chief of Staff to the National Security Council and ex-CIA analyst, wrote an op-ed citing the many alarming tidbits, namely that a lot of the report is blacked out. Also, yes, the Senate Committee is bipartisan, but with Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA), an alleged leaker and liar, muddying the waters on the other end of the pond—there’s no way to accept any assessment on this and the bias doesn’t stop with Schiff. Yes, Schiff who met with the so-called Ukraine whistleblower prior to him filing his complaint against the president which got the impeachment Hail Mary effort going. Schiff knew the whistleblower, met with him and weaponized his complaint to be used in a pathetic impeachment push that distracted the nation from preparing for the Wuhan coronavirus outbreak. Schiff said he didn’t have contact. Even The Washington Post had to call him out for that, but sorry, let's return to this Russia nonsense. It would seem that former CIA Director John Brennan allegedly suppressed information collected that pointed another conclusion: the Russians would benefit more from a Hillary win in the 2016 election. Also, like Schiff, his review was biased. Fleitz has more:

1/ This report reads like a whitewash, Ken, that is, what can be read - over half of it is blacked out. These para are very troubling. The IC often writes complex assesssments on short timelimes. Why were the analysts for the ICA limited to 2 dozen from only 3 agencies? pic.twitter.com/eAv5nd0tnX — Fred Fleitz (@FredFleitz) April 21, 2020

…although the protocols require intelligence community assessments to be “community products” and vetted with all intelligence agencies and analysts with equities in a given subject, only three intelligence agencies were asked to draft this assessment: the CIA, National Security Agency and FBI. With the 14 other intelligence agencies left out, the three participating agencies included only two dozen “handpicked” analysts. Other intelligence agencies working on this issue, such as the Defense Intelligence Agency and the Department of Homeland Security, were excluded. In addition, House Intelligence Committee staff revealed the actual drafting of the intelligence community assessment was done by three close associates of former CIA Director Brennan, who has proven to be the most politicized intelligence chief in American history. Contrary to common practice for controversial intelligence community assessments, Brennan’s team allowed no dissenting views or even an annex with reviews by outside experts. These were extraordinary violations of intelligence community rules to ensure that analysis is accurate and trusted. The Senate committee reports ignored these foundational violations. The Senate Intelligence Committee report falsely claims that “all analytical lines are supported with all-source intelligence” and that analysts who wrote the intelligence community assessment consistently said they “were under no politically motivated pressure to reach specific conclusions.” House Intelligence Committee staff members found the opposite. They told me there was conflicting intelligence evidence on Russian motivations for meddling in the 2016 election. More gravely, they said that CIA Director Brennan suppressed facts or analysis that showed why it was not in Russia’s interests to support Trump and why Putin stood to benefit from Hillary Clinton’s election. They also told me that Brennan suppressed that intelligence over the objections of CIA analysts.

Well, that’s a rather deep state move, John? Is this part of the dirty laundry that these Obama officials thought would remain buried because Hillary Clinton was a sure thing in 2016? I think we deserve some more answers regarding this allegation, no?

He elaborated further on other aspects of this review in a lengthy Twitter thread:

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. — Fred Fleitz (@FredFleitz) April 22, 2020

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. — Fred Fleitz (@FredFleitz) April 22, 2020

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. — Fred Fleitz (@FredFleitz) April 22, 2020

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. — Fred Fleitz (@FredFleitz) April 22, 2020

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 . . . — Fred Fleitz (@FredFleitz) April 22, 2020

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. — Fred Fleitz (@FredFleitz) April 22, 2020

/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. — Fred Fleitz (@FredFleitz) April 22, 2020