Did Vladimir Putin like Hillary Clinton Donald Trump in 2016? Declassified intelligence report makes a shocking claim. world News
In a twist for a long -running Riagate saga, newly formed intelligence documents suggest that the 2017 intelligence community evaluation (ICA) may have incorrectly presented the real priorities of Russian President Vladimir Putin in the 2016 US election. Unlike widely accepted narratives, Russia did to promote Donald Trump’s opportunities, reports show that Hillary Clinton, the leading intelligence indicator who liked Putin, was ignored or rejected. ICA’s failure in detecting alternative hypotheses has been called “serious tradecraft mistake” with high-effects results, affecting top US government decisions in three branches. These revelations are transferring Rousgate’s focus with alleged collusion with Trump to ignore intelligence about Clinton.
Decassified reports: CIA The ignorant sign Putin may want to win Clinton
According to finding #7 from the Decassified oversight report, ICA failed to make a systematic evaluation of alternative explanations, a main requirement of intelligence tradecraft under ICD 203. In particular, it dismissed the possibility that Putin did not care who won, or even Clinton was strategic reasons for the presidency.Undeeping evidence states that:
- Putin may have seen Clinton as a more weak and approximate opponent, potentially easy to manipulate diplomatically.
- Russia puts back the more harmful Compromat on Clinton, suggesting a calculated trick to maintain the leverage on the future Clinton Administration, which would not be present with Trump.
- ICA authors’ insistence on the “single-track hypothesis” inspired him to ignore the opposite intelligence and try to shape weak evidence to support this conclusion that Putin favored Trump.
A ‘high impact’ intelligence failure with political results
The report criticizes the functioning of the ICA, especially given its massive impact. The document was broadcast among 250 US authorities, including members of executive, legislative and judicial branches, and heavily affected public opinion. Analysts argue that ICA’s failure in account for alternative principles misleads American policy makers at an important time.Ahead:
- ICA’s narrow focus promoted years of biased conflict and reduced public belief in democratic institutions.
- Putin may have claimed “aspiration” to help Trump, while there may be a lack of solid grounding, while the real strategic option was sidelined as a strong evidence indicating Clinton.
- Intelligence internal sources now acknowledged the possibility of “glossied” to the ICA that Putin stopped the pre-election operation for future use, especially against Clinton.
Rethink the story
The recent disintegration of intelligence documents has put a new light on the origin and direction of the Rousgate story. While Donald Trump faced the years of investigation on the alleged Russian relations, including investigation, public doubts and political results, now it appears that some intelligence suggesting Vladimir Putin could prefer Hillary Clinton, but he was not given equal attention. If true, it raises difficult questions about the role of selective disclosure and political impact within intelligence channels.For Trump and his supporters, it works not only before false collusion allegations, but also before the commencement of handing over to his presidential post, by an attempt to establish a comprehensive installation. The fact that this evidence was still hidden, suggests institutional bias at the highest level.As America enters another election cycle, the importance of transparency and trust in democratic institutions becomes even more important. Both sides of political partition may agree that the public is entitled to a complete accounting, not only what happened, but who decided what the American people knew.
