Five revelations in Senate intel report on 2016 Russian interference

Whatever it was, it wasn’t enough for Mueller to bring charges.That fact pattern alone led the committee to label Manafort, who is serving prison time for unrelated offenses, a "grave counterintelligence threat.” Whether he actually “colluded” with the 2016 Russian intelligence operation may never be determined.The committee — including some key Trump allies — determined that Trump knew his campaign was communicating about Wikileaks, even though he told Mueller he didn’t recall that.Trump, in written responses to the special counsel’s office, stated: "I do not recall discussing WikiLeaks with [Stone], nor do I recall being aware of Mr. Stone having discussed WikiLeaks with individuals associated with my campaign."Trump further claimed that he had "no recollection of the specifics of any conversations I had with Mr. Stone between June 1, 2016 and November 8, 2016."Despite Trump's recollection, the report says, “the Committee assesses that Trump did, in fact, speak with Stone about WikiLeaks and with members of his Campaign about Stone's access to WikiLeaks on multiple occasions.”This site is protected by recaptcha Privacy Policy | Terms of ServiceThat puts Trump in the middle of his campaign’s eager embrace of material he knew had been stolen by a foreign intelligence agency.The report doesn’t accuse Trump of lying, but it lays out a pattern of discussions with Stone that makes it difficult to believe Trump didn’t remember.The Senate investigation didn’t try to verify or disprove the allegations included in the Steele dossier, a set of memos about Trump compiled by former British spy Christopher Steele, but it did examine Steele’s work process and whether the FBI should have viewed the dossier credibly.The committee found that Steele’s tradecraft in the dossier was “generally poor” compared to the intelligence community’s standards, often relying on sources “several steps removed from the information they provided.” The senators also said there were “several opportunities for interested parties to insert disinformation” – a conclusion that buttresses concerns that elements of Russian disinformation may have made their way into the dossier amid other accurate portions.The committee also found multiple links between Steele and Oleg Deripaska, a Russian oligarch, and indications that Deripaska had early knowledge of Steele's work.