Well, obviously, yes. And others notably Mark Morell, former acting director of CIA has spoken about our concerns about a prosecuting attorney critiquing the judgment of intelligence analysts after the fact using what prosecuting attorneys, the evidentiary bar they use, which is probable cause as opposed to the evidentiary bar that intelligence analysts of necessity have to use to draw conclusions.
James Clapper raises concerns about the implications of a prosecuting attorney questioning the judgments made by intelligence analysts regarding Russian interference.
Share
More from James Clapper
I think, I'll use the example of what is still the major Russian prize, which is Kyiv. And so they, they're having difficulty surrounding it. But assuming they did, and then they try to strangle the lines of communication bombard the city…
This has devolved into an ad hoc - ad hocing, at this point, this bizarre news conference, from Ministry of Defense, which trying to sort of rationalize, and explain, the Russian Military predicament, really, in Ukraine.
I expect this report will be filled with ambiguity as well and people depending on their leanings will extract what they want out of this report.
It shows once again not that we need proof of it, where the President's head really is and all this. And it's not on national security, not on the pandemic, not on the massive Russian cyber espionage.
Other voices in this conversation
