This NY Times Analysis of the New Russia Collusion Info Misses the Forest for the Trees

<![CDATA[After reading this analysis piece in the NY Times I felt like I just wanted to tap this two month old post of mine and send it to author Charlie Savage. Savage has written a story about the recent release of new documents by DNI Tulsi Gabbard about the push to get the intelligence community to conclude that Russia wanted Trump to win the election. It's titled "New Reports on Russian Interference Don’t Show What Trump Says They Do" but the subhead has a lot more nuance: "The administration’s claims are overblown, but newly declassified information provides some messy details about a January 2017 intelligence assessment of Moscow’s election interference."]]>