And NO MSM will ask
Setting the stage for what?
i feel pity for you anon
i can tell you are in a lot of pain
maybe you should just take a step back and breathe in deeply
Jack F. Matlock Jr.
US Ambassador to Russia
not the fucking tv show
ffs
https://www.rt.com/news/431830-russian-meddling-report-biased/
US intel report on Russian meddling 'shabby & politically motivated' – Ex-US envoy to Soviet Union
A former US ambassador to the Soviet Union has slammed the intelligence report on alleged Russian election meddling, saying it lacks hard facts and omits relevant agencies, while media and politicians have failed to ask questions.
Jack Matlock served as US ambassador to the Soviet Union from 1987 to 1991, and was also the president's special assistant for national security in the 1980s. Drawing on his vast governmental and diplomatic experience, Matlock doubts that the report – published by the CIA, the FBI, and the NSA last January – gave a real assessment of any Russian role in the electoral process. He says that, even though most commentators think otherwise, the intelligence community didn't prove Russian interference.
He says those who used the report "without even the pretense of due diligence" to make a flamboyant statement or a headline "objectively acted as co-conspirators in an effort to block any improvement in relations with Russia."
In an article published last week, the former diplomat explains what in his opinion is wrong with "this shabby, politically motivated" document.
http://jackmatlock.com/2018/06/musings-ii-the-intellience-community-russian-interference-and-due-diligence/
The report states that it represents the findings of three intelligence agencies: CIA, FBI, and NSA, but even that is misleading in that it implies that there was a consensus of relevant analysts in these three agencies. In fact, the report was prepared by a group of analysts from the three agencies pre-selected by their directors, with the selection process generally overseen by James Clapper, then Director of National Intelligence (DNI). Clapper told the Senate in testimony May 8, 2017, that it was prepared by “two dozen or so analysts—hand-picked, seasoned experts from each of the contributing agencies.” If you can hand-pick the analysts, you can hand-pick the conclusions. The analysts selected would have understood what Director Clapper wanted since he made no secret of his views. Why would they endanger their careers by not delivering?
What should have struck any congressperson or reporter was that the procedure Clapper followed was the same as that used in 2003 to produce the report falsely claiming that Saddam Hussein had retained stocks of weapons of mass destruction. That should be worrisome enough to inspire questions, but that is not the only anomaly.