https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/2017/world/national-security/donald-trump-pursues-vladimir-putin-russian-election-hacking/?wpisrc=nl_popup&wpmm=1

First question - Had anybody else heard of this? That the intelligence agencies supplied ironclad proof to the Trump administration of Vladimir Putin's direct instructions to hack the election? Edit: interfere with the election..not hack.

Second question - Why is a new claim of solid undeniable proof that Putin personally directed the efforts of Russia to undermine the 2016 election covered at the very bottom of the article? Would this not be considered "lead paragraph" material?

Third question - The article states that Clapper, Brennan and Comey had a secure line video conference discussing the material and how they would present it. Why did Comey not inform Clapper of information he had regarding the FBI's investigation into the matter?

Excerpts from Clapper's and Yate's testimony before Congress...it's obvious they don't have their stories straight here. And it's time to take a closer look.

GRAHAM: Without objection. General Clapper, on March 5, 2017, you said the following to a question. Here's the question.

Does intelligence exist that can definitely answer the following question, whether there were improper contacts between the Trump campaign and Russian officials? You said we did not include any evidence in our report.

And I say our, that's the NSA, the FBI, the CIA, with my office, the Director of National Intelligence, that had anything — that had any reflection of collusion between members of the Trump campaign and the Russians. There was no evidence of that included in our report.

Chuck Todd (ph) then asked, I understand that, but does it exist? You say no, not to my knowledge. Is that still accurate?

CLAPPER: It is.

GRAHAM: Ms. Yates, do you have any evidence — are you aware of any evidence that would suggest that in the 2016 campaign anybody in the Trump campaign colluded — colluded with the Russian government intelligence services in improper fashion?

YATES: And Senator, my answer to that question would require me to reveal classified information. And so, I — I can't answer that.

GRAHAM: Well, I don't get that because he just said he issued the report. And he said he doesn't know of any. So, what would you know that's not in the report?

(CROSSTALK)

CLAPPER: Are you asking me, or …

GRAHAM: No, her.

CLAPPER: Oh.

YATES: Well, I think that Director Clapper also said that he was unaware of the FBI counter intelligence investigations.

GRAHAM: Would it be fair to say that the counter-intelligence investigation was not mature enough to come to his — to get in the report. Is that fair, Mr. — Mr. Clapper?

CLAPPER: I — that's an — that's a possibility.

GRAHAM: What I don't get is how the FBI can have a counter- intelligence investigation suggesting collusion, and you, as director of National Intelligence not know about it, and the FBI sign on to a report that basically said there was no collusion.

CLAPPER: I can only speculate why that's so. There wasn't — the evidence, if there was any, didn't reach the evidentiary bar in terms of the level of confidence that we were striving for in that intelligence community assessment.

GRAHAM: OK, that makes perfect sense to me. Follow up on that, are you familiar with a dossier about Mr. Trump compiled with some guy in England?

CLAPPER: I am.

GRAHAM: Did you find that to be a credible report?

CLAPPER: Well, we didn't make a judgment on that. And that's — that's one reason why we did not include it in the body of our intelligence community assessment.

GRAHAM: You didn't find it credible enough to be included?

CLAPPER: We couldn't corroborate the sourcing, particularly the second -- third-order sources.

GRAHAM: Ms. Yates, are you familiar with the dossier?

YATES: (OFF-MIKE)

CLAPPER: Microphone.

GRAHAM: Microphone.

YATES: If I could try to clarify one answer before as well, because I think, Senator Graham, you may have misunderstood me. You asked me whether I was aware of any evidence of collusion, and I declined to answer because answering would reveal classified information.

I believe that that's the same answer that Director Comey gave to this committee when he was asked this question as well. And he made clear, and I'd like to make clear, that just because I say I can't answer it, you should not draw from that an assumption that that means that the answer is yes.

GRAHAM: OK, fair enough.

CLAPPER: I also think, if I may, sir, that this illustrates what I was trying to get at in my statement about the unique position that FBI straddles between intelligence and law enforcement.

Again..to reinforce the logical question..how was it possible that Clapper was not aware of the complete scope of Comey's information regarding Russia's interference on January 6th the day they briefed President Trump?

Most important question - What are these paragraphs from the WaPo article really telling us?

"U.S. officials declined to discuss whether the stream of recent intelligence on Russia has been shared with Trump. Current and former officials said that his daily intelligence update — known as the president’s daily brief, or PDB — is often structured to avoid upsetting him"

Russia-related intelligence that might draw Trump’s ire is in some cases included only in the written assessment and not raised orally, said a former senior intelligence official familiar with the matter. In other cases, Trump’s main briefer — a veteran CIA analyst — adjusts the order of his presentation and text, aiming to soften the impact.

“If you talk about Russia, meddling, interference — that takes the PDB off the rails,” said a second former senior U.S. intelligence official.

Brian Hale, a spokesman for the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, said the briefing is “written by senior-level, career intelligence officers,” and that the intelligence community “always provides objective intelligence — including on Russia — to the president and his staff.”

In essence..what it's really saying is that the intelligence agencies have not been giving accurate verbal information to the president during the daily briefings.

It's also creating a situation whereby accountability for failing to fully brief the President can be avoided.

All in all, I would have to say that what the WaPo article managed to portray was more evidence that the intelligence agencies are waging a war on the Trump administration.

The most disturbing thing I observe from all of this is the fact that under the banner "in the interests of National Security", the intelligence agencies will never have to show the American people the proof they captured that directly implicates Putin.