Background to this whole flap abt McConnell is unstated assumption that Gang of Eight are sometimes supposed to be cut-outs. That's not good
There should be no scenario where the IC is unwilling to back its intelligence and instead asks these overseers to go back it instead.
-
-
So, given lack of consensus in IC at the time, no public statements warranted? (Not saying that's a bad thing, just trying to clarify.)
-
There was consensus on some points. Not on whether RU state was hacking election sites.
-
Also consensus that sites were targeted by someone. IMHO a limited statement stronger than the one McConnell later approved was warranted.
-
What's your evidence for that?
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.