Michael Schellenberger

Rank 25 of 47
|
Score 18
7/31/2025, 4:01:18 PM
X
In reply to:
Michael Shellenberger
@shellenberger
·
42d
Everyone involved acknowledged the credibility of the source of the Russian intelligence reports and hacked emails, referred to as “T1,” which appears to have been the Netherlands’ General Intelligence and Security Service (AIVD), which hacked into the Russian hacking group “Cozy
Michael Shellenberger
@shellenberger
·
42d
Another red flag for Baker was that Lynch had asked Comey to downplay the Clinton email investigation by referring to it as a "matter" rather than an investigation.
Michael Shellenberger
@shellenberger
·
42d
One of those suspicious behaviors was Lynch's meeting with Bill Clinton on a airport tarmac in Phoenix.

"As his wife is under federal investigation for her use of a private email server, former President Bill Clinton met privately with U.S. Attorney General Loretta Lynch at the
Michael Shellenberger
@shellenberger
·
42d
What’s more, FBI General Counsel James Baker, “unlike his colleagues, did not dismiss the credibility” of the Russian reports that Obama had pressured Attorney General Loretta Lynch to pressure the FBI to drop the investigation into Hillary Clinton's emails, particularly given
Michael Shellenberger
@shellenberger
·
42d
In contrast to the CIA, the FBI rejected the intelligence and invented flimsy reasons not to trust it. The FBI's dismissive attitude also contrasts sharply with the FBI's credulousness toward any evidence that implictated the Trump campaign.
Michael Shellenberger
@shellenberger
·
42d
The newly declassified appendix to the Durham report is game-changing. It showed that the CIA believed Russian intelligence memos, which analyzed hacked emails and alleged a Clinton Plan to vilify Trump by linking him to Russia, were credible.

"The CIA prepared a written

The statement critiques the FBI's selective use of intelligence from the Dutch agency, suggesting inconsistency in handling information related to Russian election interference and Hillary Clinton. It implies bias or double standards in the FBI's actions, contributing to public discourse on governmental transparency and accountability.

  1. Principle 1:
    I will strive to do no harm with my words and actions.
    The statement raises concerns about potential harm caused by selective intelligence use, suggesting a violation of impartiality. [-1]
  2. Principle 2:
    I will respect the privacy and dignity of others and will not engage in cyberbullying, harassment, or hate speech.
    It questions the integrity of the FBI's actions, potentially impacting the privacy and dignity of those involved, but does not engage in direct harassment or hate speech.
  3. Principle 4:
    I will engage in constructive criticism and dialogue with those in disagreement and will not engage in personal attacks or ad hominem arguments.
    The statement engages in criticism of the FBI's actions, which could be seen as constructive if it encourages accountability, but it risks being perceived as a personal attack on the agency's credibility. [-1]