In her estimation, how much of the media hysteria has been fueled by those whose primary goal is to get Trump out of the White House?<\/p>\n
\u201cThe media hysteria is clear,\u201d she mused, \u201cwhen one plays what I call the \u2018substitution game\u2019 and considers how the same \u2018news\u2019 is treated if the parties are switched.\u201d<\/p>\n
The latest hysteria is over an allegation that Trump adviser (and son-in-law) Jared Kushner attempted to establish a back-channel line of communication between the Russian government and Trump\u2019s transition team.<\/p>\n
In its analysis, the Associated Press<\/a> noted, \u201cBack-channel talks have been common in U.S. diplomacy, especially when Washington lacks formal ties with another government it wants to speak with.\u201d<\/p>\n As an example, it cited how the Obama administration \u201capproved months of secret meetings between U.S. and Iranian officials to clinch an interim 2013 nuclear deal.\u201d<\/p>\n So, how does the alleged collusion between the Trump administration compare to Obama\u2019s use of back-channels with Iran, before he was elected?<\/p>\n First of all, Attkisson observed, \u201cFrankly, I haven\u2019t heard anyone even play out what the supposed collusion was.\u201d<\/p>\n Bottom line?\u201cFor example,\u201d she wondered, \u201cdo they allege that Trump secretly met with (Russian President Vladimir) Putin and told him that if Putin hacked into the DNC (Democratic National Committee) computers and released any damaging emails to WikiLeaks, that he (Trump) would lift sanctions against Russia if he got elected?\u201d<\/p>\n \u201cIt\u2019s hard to know what the supposed collusion would amount to.\u201d<\/p>\n \u201cOn the other hand,\u201d she stated, \u201cWe know factually that the Obama administration had secret dealings outside of the public and Congress with the world\u2019s largest state sponsor of terrorism, Iran.\u201d<\/p>\n \u201cAnd that, as part of the deal, the Obama administration unilaterally decided to return a great deal of money, in cash, to Iran in amounts that were misrepresented to the public.\u201d<\/p>\n Attkisson also noted that, in fact, reporters have no way to verify or know for sure what exactly transpired.<\/p>\n She segued to the current scenario by first observing, \u201cI would also say that I disagree that all contacts with Russia are inherently suspicious, but if they are when Trump-related officials make them, then one has to consider that the Obama administration state department under John Kerry had a record number of contacts with his Russian counterpart in the first months of the election year 2016.\u201d<\/p>\n She rattled off other examples of Obama\u2019s close contacts with Russia:<\/p>\n That\u2019s when Attkisson observed, \u201cAgain, I don\u2019t think any of this amounts to collusion between the Obama administration and Russia, but under the definition currently used by Trump critics, it would be.\u201d<\/p>\n How would she respond to those who say that Obama\u2019s back-channeling with Iran was different than what Trump is accused of doing with Russia because Iran wasn\u2019t trying to interfere with our elections?<\/p>\n Injecting a big-picture perspective, Attkisson said, \u201cI think it could be argued that Iran is a more serious threat to the U.S. because it\u2019s the world\u2019s largest state sponsor of terrorism.\u201d<\/p>\n \u201cAnd through our nuclear deal we quite literally provided them with enormous sums that can be directly spent to further terrorist acts against us and our allies.\u201d<\/p>\n She soberly added, \u201cAlthough Russia is a serious concern, Iran has indicated it would like the U.S. and Israel wiped off the face of the planet.\u201d<\/p>\n Had she seen hard evidence of collusion or improper ties between the Trump administration or campaign team and Russia?<\/p>\n \u201cNo,\u201d was the simple answer.<\/p>\n She added, \u201cNobody has, to my knowledge.\u201d<\/p>\n Attkisson is hardly alone in that assessment.<\/p>\n As WND has reported repeatedly<\/a>, top Democrats have all admitted investigators have not found any evidence of any collusion between Russia and the Trump campaign or administration.<\/p>\n Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., who serves on the Senate Judiciary and Intelligence committees, twice said she had seen no such evidence. Other Democrats on the Senate Intelligence Committee have said they don\u2019t expect to find any evidence of collusion.<\/p>\n Fierce Trump critic Rep. Adam Schiff, D-Calif, the ranking member of the House Intelligence Committee, has had to admit there is no evidence of collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n Obama\u2019s own former top spies, CIA chief John Brennan, director of national intelligence James Clapper, as well as former acting CIA Director Michael Morell, have all said they have seen no evidence of collusion between the Trump team and the Russian government.<\/p>\n On Tuesday, Clapper reiterated that point, telling CNN, \u201cAs I\u2019ve said before, I\u2019ve testified to this effect, I saw no direct evidence of political collusion between the campaign, the Trump campaign and the Russians.\u201d<\/p>\n He also said he saw nothing to indicate that the content of conversations between Russian officials and the Trump team were anything but routine and appropriate.<\/p>\n So why do the media and Trump critics keep insisting there was collusion?<\/p>\n It seems to come from the mistaken belief, repeated endlessly by the media as gospel, that all 17 intelligence agencies had come to the conclusion, in a report ordered by Obama, that Russia interfered with the election.<\/p>\n The mistaken belief is so prevalent, even among powerful elected officials, that one prominent senator, and one of Trump\u2019s biggest critics, was surprised to be publicly corrected by Clapper when he tried to assert it as an indisputable fact during a hearing.<\/p>\n This is the exchange during a Senate Judiciary subcommittee hearing on May 8, in which Sen. Al Franken, D-Minn., learned the truth about that report.<\/p>\n Franken<\/strong>: And I want to thank General Clapper and \u2013 and Attorney General Yates for \u2013 for appearing today. We have \u2013 the intelligence communities have concluded, all 17 of them, that Russia interfered with this election. And we all know how that\u2019s right.<\/p>\n Clapper<\/strong>: Senator, as I pointed out in my statement Senator Franken, it was there were only three agencies that directly involved in this assessment plus my office\u2026<\/p>\n Franken<\/strong>: But all 17 signed on to that?<\/p>\n Clapper<\/strong>: Well, we didn\u2019t go through that \u2013 that process, this was a special situation because of the time limits and my \u2013 what I knew to be to who could really contribute to this and the sensitivity of the situation, we decided it was a constant judgment to restrict it to those three. I\u2019m not aware of anyone who dissented or \u2013 or disagreed when it came out.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n But, despite what Clapper asserted, it wasn\u2019t even a finding of those three agencies, the CIA, FBI and NSA.<\/p>\n It was a conclusion made by an irregular and hand-picked panel of what were called experts, who actually may have been, according to a former CIA officer, highly politicized.<\/p>\n Fred Fleitz served in U.S. national security positions for 25 years at the CIA, DIA, Department of State and the House Intelligence Committee staff.<\/p>\n As someone intimately familiar with the inner workings of the intelligence community, Fleitz penned an article for Fox News<\/a> on May 12, that spelled out what really happened.<\/p>\n Fleitz was then surprised to hear Clapper explain in his testimony that two dozen or so \u201cseasoned experts\u201d were \u201chandpicked\u201d from the contributing agencies and drafted the ICA \u201cunder the aegis of his former office\u201d (the Office of the Director of National Intelligence.)He had written previously that when the U.S. Intelligence Community issued an \u2018Intelligence Community Assessment\u2019 (ICA) on January 6, 2017,\u00a0that found Russia deliberately interfered in the 2016 presidential election to benefit Trump\u2019s candidacy, he \u201cwas suspicious because it reached unusually clear judgments on a politically explosive issue with no dissenting views.\u201d<\/p>\n Wrote Fleitz, \u201cThis process drastically differed from the Intelligence Community\u2019s normal procedures.\u201d<\/p>\n Describing just how unusual that was, he said, \u201cHand-picking a handful of analysts from just three intelligence agencies to write such a controversial assessment went against standing rules to vet such analyses throughout the Intelligence Community within its existing structure.\u201d<\/p>\n Furthermore, \u201cThe idea of using hand-picked intelligence analysts selected through some unknown process to write an assessment on such a politically sensitive topic carries a strong stench of politicization.\u201d<\/p>\n Fleitz also noted that former FBI Director James Comey had testified that the report\u2019s conclusion of Russian interference was based on logic, not evidence.<\/p>\n \u201cSo we now know,\u201d surmised the former CIA officer, \u201cthis was a subjective judgment made by a hand-picked group of intelligence analysts.\u201d<\/p>\n Former FBI Director James Comey<\/p>\n<\/div>\n \u201cOne has to ask how these hand-picked analysts were picked. Who picked them? Who was excluded?\u201d<\/p>\n Fleitz called it a major problem that \u201cthe process gave John Brennan, CIA\u2019s hyper-partisan former director, enormous influence over the drafting of the ICA.\u201d<\/p>\n \u201cGiven Brennan\u2019s scathing criticism of Mr. Trump before and after the election, he should have had no role whatsoever in the drafting of this assessment. Instead, Brennan probably selected the CIA analysts who worked on the ICA and reviewed and approved their conclusions.\u201d<\/p>\n In other words, it seems Fleitz thought it not impossible that Brennan rigged the report to arrive at the conclusion he wanted.<\/p>\n Which makes Brennan\u2019s testimony before the House Intelligence Committee on May 24, all the more relevant, because even though he testified he saw no evidence of collusion, the former CIA director admitted it was he who set in motion the FBI\u2019s investigation into whether the Trump team colluded with the Russians.<\/p>\n\n
\n
\n
![\"Former](\"http:\/\/www.wnd.com\/files\/2016\/07\/x-comey-300x180.jpg\")
<\/p>\n