Matt Taibbi lays out why Liberals are destroying Free Speech

[Ghost of a Rider]

Yes and if you get COVID from someone one job, you place everyone at risk.

There's no way to determine definitively when or where a person got infected. Symptoms can take anywhere from a few days to two weeks to appear and sometimes not at all.

Hundreds of U.S. students quarantined amid measles ...​

View attachment 1257549
NBC News
https://www.nbcnews.com › health › health-news › mea...

Oct 10, 2025 — Unvaccinated children who were exposed to the virus will be “excluded” from school for three weeks.

Because we had a communist supreme court.

Separately, the court did allow the administration's requirement that most health care workers in the U.S., roughly 10 million, be vaccinated against COVID-19.

Measles has a tried and true vaccine. The covid vaccine was not. In the beginning when the vaccine was rushed out, we were told it would prevent infection. Turned out it did not. Then they said it would prevent spread. It did not. Then they said it would prevent reinfection. It did not. Then they said it would prevent death. It did not.

Only after observing its effects and side effects for a year or so did they finally settle on: It eases symptoms. In the meantime people were experiencing all kinds of side effects that those pushing the vaccine either ignored or explained away as "misinformation" which they then tried to censor. That brings us back around to what we're discussing here: free speech.

The administration, health officials and even Fauci himself had no f***ing clue what the vaccine would do or how effective it would be. They thought they knew but they didn't. Yet they tried to control what the public could say about it anyway.

 

[ColonelAngus]

We are halfway through 2026. All the data is in.

If you cannot see the source of COVID, THE MAGNITUDE OF ITS LETHALITY, AND THE EFFECTIVENESS OF THE SHOT were all lied about, you are simply a blind sheep.

 

[toobfreak]

This claim stems from the 2009 controversy widely known as "Climategate". It does not represent modern consensus,

At least according to those who support the theories of MMCC.

Change is certainly natural and continual.

Yep. Change is constant and essential. The reason why I don't lose my shirt worrying about the world ending.

It is also the main reason species have gone extinct.

Probably very true. Climate change has probably been a factor involved in every mass and minor extinction. 99% of all species that have ever lived are extinct, all without any need for involvement or contribution by man.

So YOU don't see a solution so we should all stop working on it? Got it.

Not at all. I'm all for doing our best to minimize our footprint on the world and right now we are doing our best. Problem is that we NEED fossil fuels and technology is not yet to the point where we can rely on getting 100% of our energy all from green, renewable sources, so for now, until we can, the Earth will deal with it. Put another way, we have already come a very l-o-n-g way from how we were polluting 100 years ago! So give people a little credit.

ITMT, understand that if 99% of all species are defunct via natural processes, chances are good mankind will go extinct at some point too. Who knows, with technology or a base on Mars, maybe we will beat the odds, but eventually, even the Sun will go extinct.

 

[alang1216]

At least according to those who support the theories of MMCC.

You mean most scientists around the world?

Over 99% of actively publishing climate scientists, alongside virtually every major scientific institution and national government worldwide, support the theory that human activities are the primary driver of climate change. [1, 2]
The scientific consensus is supported by a broad coalition of organizations and entities, including: [1]

• Global Scientific Bodies: The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) act as leading authorities, compiling research from thousands of experts worldwide.
• National Science Academies: The science academies of all major industrialized nations (including the U.S. National Academy of Sciences) endorse the consensus that global warming is human-induced.
• Major Scientific Associations: Leading organizations such as the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) and the American Geophysical Union (AGU) have issued formal statements confirming greenhouse gas emissions are the dominant cause of recent warming.
• Governments and International Coalitions: The United Nations (UN) and the signatories of the Paris Agreement incorporate this scientific foundation into their policies and global action plans

Yep. Change is constant and essential. The reason why I don't lose my shirt worrying about the world ending.

Essential to what?

Probably very true. Climate change has probably been a factor involved in every mass and minor extinction. 99% of all species that have ever lived are extinct, all without any need for involvement or contribution by man.

I'm not as casual about having my heirs go extinct.

Not at all. I'm all for doing our best to minimize our footprint on the world and right now we are doing our best. Problem is that we NEED fossil fuels and technology is not yet to the point where we can rely on getting 100% of our energy all from green, renewable sources, so for now, until we can, the Earth will deal with it. Put another way, we have already come a very l-o-n-g way from how we were polluting 100 years ago! So give people a little credit.

Do we agree that 100% renewable energy is the goal?

ITMT, understand that if 99% of all species are defunct via natural processes, chances are good mankind will go extinct at some point too. Who knows, with technology or a base on Mars, maybe we will beat the odds, but eventually, even the Sun will go extinct.

Sorry but I care about my offspring.

 

[toobfreak]

You mean most scientists around the world?

Most scientists also once believed the Earth was flat and you'd sail off the edge, history is replete with the majority being wrong about all kinds of things, so that argument carries no water.

Over 99% of actively publishing climate scientists, alongside virtually every major scientific institution and national government worldwide, support the theory that human activities are the primary driver of climate change.

And if they were to disagree, the science community would drum them out of business and end their careers. Do you think that has any influence over people's public views?

Essential to what?

To the Earth, otherwise the Earth would not always keep changing. Take the seasons--- always changing, and much of the life cycle depends on that.

I'm not as casual about having my heirs go extinct.

Now you are predicting the future too? What if there is an ice age coming and you are only ADDING to their problem by making the planet even colder when MMCC might have kept us warmer? Thing is, we just never really KNOW because we are not God.

Do we agree that 100% renewable energy is the goal?

Sure, why not if it becomes possible, practical and affordable.

Sorry but I care about my offspring.

Everyone cares. Every good and horrible thing ever done, whether by saint or tyrant, was done because at the time, they THOUGHT it was the RIGHT thing to do.

 

[Lockback]

Most scientists also once believed the Earth was flat and you'd sail off the edge, history is replete with the majority being wrong about all kinds of things, so that argument carries no water.


And if they were to disagree, the science community would drum them out of business and end their careers. Do you think that has any influence over people's public views?


To the Earth, otherwise the Earth would not always keep changing. Take the seasons--- always changing, and much of the life cycle depends on that.


Now you are predicting the future too? What if there is an ice age coming and you are only ADDING to their problem by making the planet even colder when MMCC might have kept us warmer? Thing is, we just never really KNOW because we are not God.


Sure, why not if it becomes possible, practical and affordable.


Everyone cares. Every good and horrible thing ever done, whether by saint or tyrant, was done because at the time, they THOUGHT it was the RIGHT thing to do.

Brilliant.
Rational.
Logical.
Correct.

 

[alang1216]

Most scientists also once believed the Earth was flat and you'd sail off the edge, history is replete with the majority being wrong about all kinds of things, so that argument carries no water.

I think most people may have believed that but what passed for scientists back then probably didn't.

Claudius Ptolemy (c. 150 AD) estimated the Earth's circumference to be roughly 180,000 stadia. In modern units, this roughly translates to a circumference of about \(28,800 \text{ km}\) (\(18,000 \text{ miles}\)). Using the formula for a sphere, \(C = \pi d\), this gives the ancient Greek astronomer an estimated Earth diameter of approximately \(9,165 \text{ km}\) (\(5,700 \text{ miles}\)). [1, 2, 3]
Ptolemy's measurement—which was actually adapted from the earlier work of Posidonius—underestimated the true size of the Earth by roughly 28%. Centuries earlier, Eratosthenes had come remarkably close to the correct size, but Ptolemy preferred the smaller figure. Because of Ptolemy's massive influence as a cartographer, this smaller diameter remained heavily cited into the Renaissance and is historically believed to be the figure Christopher Columbus used to plan his voyage to the Far East. [1, 2, 3, 4]
For context, the actual modern measurements of our planet are:

• Equatorial Diameter: \(12,756 \text{ km}\) (\(7,926 \text{ miles}\))
• Equatorial Circumference: \(40,075 \text{ km}\) (\(24,901 \text{ miles}\)) [1, 2, 3]

And if they were to disagree, the science community would drum them out of business and end their careers. Do you think that has any influence over people's public views?

That would happen if they could not offer evidence. Einstein rewrote establish science and was revered.

To the Earth, otherwise the Earth would not always keep changing. Take the seasons--- always changing, and much of the life cycle depends on that.

Do you think the Earth cares?

Now you are predicting the future too? What if there is an ice age coming and you are only ADDING to their problem by making the planet even colder when MMCC might have kept us warmer? Thing is, we just never really KNOW because we are not God.

What if we went with the best science we have at the time and use that as a guide while continuing to check and double check the evidence. Beats waiting to see what happens, I think.

Sure, why not if it becomes possible, practical and affordable.

Would it be worth encouraging the development? Maybe government incentives?

Everyone cares. Every good and horrible thing ever done, whether by saint or tyrant, was done because at the time, they THOUGHT it was the RIGHT thing to do.

Agreed, but if you care you take action. You don't just hope for the best.

 

[toobfreak]

I think most people may have believed that but what passed for scientists back then probably didn't.
Claudius Ptolemy

Please do not lecture me on ancient scientists and philosophers, I am well acquired with the field. Even to this day, people in specialized fields still get their pet theories for which they scorn and deride others for not agreeing with. Do you know there is no actual proof of a big bang? Just an assumption. In fact, I think it was Fred Hoyle (an astronomer) who originally coined the term, intending it mockingly.

When Peter Higgs proposed a massive mother scalar boson with no spin, they laughed at him. 20 years later, they awarded him for the idea and built the LHC in order to find it. When Einstein proposed his paper on special relativity, no one would even read it because Einstein was considered a loser, on the fringe of the science community, and if not for one man breaking down and reading the paper and realizing the implications, Einstein might have gone undiscovered, relegated to approving patents in a government office. The impetus of science is to stay put and hold true to accepted and popular theory and dogma, and to resist all efforts to change them and advance until such change is overwhelming and unavoidable.

Even an old buddy of mine once told me that in school when he told his math teach he had a better way of working an algebraic problem, the teacher's reaction was to scoff at him until he proved the method to the teacher.

What if we went with the best science we have at the time

But who gets to decide the best science?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

This claim stems from the 2009 controversy widely known as "Climategate". It does not represent modern consensus, and the premise that scientists were "skewing data to support climate change" was thoroughly investigated and refuted. [1, 2]
The essential details of this event:

• The Leak: In November 2009, thousands of private emails and documents were hacked and leaked from the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia in the UK, just weeks before the UN Climate Change Conference in Copenhagen.
• The Allegations: Critics and climate change skeptics pulled specific quotes from the emails, arguing that researchers were manipulating or "hiding" data to exaggerate the reality of global warming.
• The Investigations: Following the public outcry, several independent inquiries were conducted, including reviews by the UK House of Commons Science and Technology Committee and an Independent Climate Change Email Review.
• The Verdict: The investigations exonerated the scientists of major scientific misconduct or fraud. Reviewers found that the phrases cited by critics (such as using a "trick" to "hide the decline") were taken out of context; they actually referred to standard, legitimate statistical methods used by climatologists to combine different types of data (like tree-ring measurements and instrumental thermometer readings).
• The Aftermath: While the scientists were cleared of falsifying data, independent review panels did criticize them for a lack of transparency and for how they handled Freedom of Information (FOI) requests. [1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8]

Ultimately, multiple international science assessment panels and global meteorological organizations concluded that the emails did not alter the overwhelming, foundational scientific evidence that the climate is changing and warming. You can read a complete breakdown of the Climatic Research Unit email controversy on Wikipedia or review the original reporting via The Guardian's Climate Wars series. [1, 2, 3]


Change is certainly natural and continual. It is also the main reason species have gone extinct.


So YOU don't see a solution so we should all stop working on it? Got it.


Earth survives, sure. Mankind survives, maybe.

Critics and climate change skeptics pulled specific quotes from the emails, arguing that researchers were manipulating or "hiding" data to exaggerate the reality of global warming.

Only because they were. And also censoring skeptics.

Ultimately, multiple international science assessment panels and global meteorological organizations concluded that the emails did not alter the overwhelming, foundational scientific evidence that the climate is changing and warming.

The people who worked with or paid the corrupt scientists said they weren't corrupt, because we agree with them.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

As projected by early models, global surface temperatures have risen rapidly. According to data from the NOAA Climate.gov Portal, the Earth's temperature has risen by an average of about 0.36 degrees Fahrenheit per decade since 1982.

How much should the temperature have risen? Link?

 

[ColonelAngus]

When CC activists got GOVERNMENT GRANTS AND DONATIONS, they would fudge data to keep the grift and money flowing.

If they concluded it was bull, no more gravy train.

 

[alang1216]

Please do not lecture me on ancient scientists and philosophers, I am well acquired with the field.

Sorry to condescend. Since you are well acquainted with the field you should have no problem providing some backup evidence that "Most scientists also once believed the Earth was flat and you'd sail off the edge".

Even to this day, people in specialized fields still get their pet theories for which they scorn and deride others for not agreeing with. Do you know there is no actual proof of a big bang? Just an assumption. In fact, I think it was Fred Hoyle (an astronomer) who originally coined the term, intending it mockingly.

Math offers proof, science makes do with evidence. And there is evidence for a big bang.

When Peter Higgs proposed a massive mother scalar boson with no spin, they laughed at him. 20 years later, they awarded him for the idea and built the LHC in order to find it. When Einstein proposed his paper on special relativity, no one would even read it because Einstein was considered a loser, on the fringe of the science community, and if not for one man breaking down and reading the paper and realizing the implications, Einstein might have gone undiscovered, relegated to approving patents in a government office. The impetus of science is to stay put and hold true to accepted and popular theory and dogma, and to resist all efforts to change them and advance until such change is overwhelming and unavoidable.

Scientists are only human and are slow to accept novel theories until there is evidence. BTW, your take on Einstein is a popular myth.

But who gets to decide the best science?

Whoever has the best evidence.

 

[toobfreak]

you should have no problem providing some backup evidence that "Most scientists also once believed the Earth was flat and you'd sail off the edge".

Seriously? That is your argument? I was reading about this stuff in books when I was 12 years old. I'm sure if you want to check, humanity saw the universe as something like land held upon the backs of elephants, the seas some ether that went off to nowhere, and the Sun, Moon, and other things in the firmament were Gods or some other deities put there for a divine purpose, BEFORE they began to speculate that it made more sense to the logical mind and less superstitious mind that the Earth was a ball in some nondescript location in space.

And there is evidence for a big bang.

Only evidence that /supports/ a big bang theory, along with the assumption that an expanding universe must have, at some point, begun in some infinitesimally small and dense point for reasons we can only guess.

Whoever has the best evidence.

Seriously? That is how it is supposed to work with everything, and exactly how it has never worked. Personal gain, ambition and profit always enter the picture.

 

[markef]

At least according to those who support the theories of MMCC.


Yep. Change is constant and essential. The reason why I don't lose my shirt worrying about the world ending.


Probably very true. Climate change has probably been a factor involved in every mass and minor extinction. 99% of all species that have ever lived are extinct, all without any need for involvement or contribution by man.


Not at all. I'm all for doing our best to minimize our footprint on the world and right now we are doing our best. Problem is that we NEED fossil fuels and technology is not yet to the point where we can rely on getting 100% of our energy all from green, renewable sources, so for now, until we can, the Earth will deal with it. Put another way, we have already come a very l-o-n-g way from how we were polluting 100 years ago! So give people a little credit.

ITMT, understand that if 99% of all species are defunct via natural processes, chances are good mankind will go extinct at some point too. Who knows, with technology or a base on Mars, maybe we will beat the odds, but eventually, even the Sun will od of Noah's day.go extinct.

Atheists refuse to believe the mass extinction events of the past are related to the worldwide flood of Noah's day.

 

[markef]

You mean most scientists around the world?

Over 99% of actively publishing climate scientists, alongside virtually every major scientific institution and national government worldwide, support the theory that human activities are the primary driver of climate change. [1, 2]
The scientific consensus is supported by a broad coalition of organizations and entities, including: [1]

• Global Scientific Bodies: The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) act as leading authorities, compiling research from thousands of experts worldwide.
• National Science Academies: The science academies of all major industrialized nations (including the U.S. National Academy of Sciences) endorse the consensus that global warming is human-induced.
• Major Scientific Associations: Leading organizations such as the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) and the American Geophysical Union (AGU) have issued formal statements confirming greenhouse gas emissions are the dominant cause of recent warming.
• Governments and International Coalitions: The United Nations (UN) and the signatories of the Paris Agreement incorporate this scientific foundation into their policies and global action plans

Essential to what?


I'm not as casual about having my heirs go extinct.


Do we agree that 100% renewable energy is the goal?


Sorry but I care about my offspring.

Climate change is promoted by a high percentage of 'experts' who depend on public financing of their work.

 

[markef]

I think most people may have believed that but what passed for scientists back then probably didn't.

Claudius Ptolemy (c. 150 AD) estimated the Earth's circumference to be roughly 180,000 stadia. In modern units, this roughly translates to a circumference of about \(28,800 \text{ km}\) (\(18,000 \text{ miles}\)). Using the formula for a sphere, \(C = \pi d\), this gives the ancient Greek astronomer an estimated Earth diameter of approximately \(9,165 \text{ km}\) (\(5,700 \text{ miles}\)). [1, 2, 3]
Ptolemy's measurement—which was actually adapted from the earlier work of Posidonius—underestimated the true size of the Earth by roughly 28%. Centuries earlier, Eratosthenes had come remarkably close to the correct size, but Ptolemy preferred the smaller figure. Because of Ptolemy's massive influence as a cartographer, this smaller diameter remained heavily cited into the Renaissance and is historically believed to be the figure Christopher Columbus used to plan his voyage to the Far East. [1, 2, 3, 4]
For context, the actual modern measurements of our planet are:

• Equatorial Diameter: \(12,756 \text{ km}\) (\(7,926 \text{ miles}\))
• Equatorial Circumference: \(40,075 \text{ km}\) (\(24,901 \text{ miles}\)) [1, 2, 3]

That would happen if they could not offer evidence. Einstein rewrote establish science and was revered.


Do you think the Earth cares?


What if we went with the best science we have at the time and use that as a guide while continuing to check and double check the evidence. Beats waiting to see what happens, I think.


Would it be worth encouraging the development? Maybe government incentives?


Agreed, but if you care you take action. You don't just hope for the best.

For an example of how mainstream scientists and science narratives were all wrong just look at every scientific claim made in the Scopes trial being refuted in following years.

 

[markef]

Please do not lecture me on ancient scientists and philosophers, I am well acquired with the field. Even to this day, people in specialized fields still get their pet theories for which they scorn and deride others for not agreeing with. Do you know there is no actual proof of a big bang? Just an assumption. In fact, I think it was Fred Hoyle (an astronomer) who originally coined the term, intending it mockingly.

When Peter Higgs proposed a massive mother scalar boson with no spin, they laughed at him. 20 years later, they awarded him for the idea and built the LHC in order to find it. When Einstein proposed his paper on special relativity, no one would even read it because Einstein was considered a loser, on the fringe of the science community, and if not for one man breaking down and reading the paper and realizing the implications, Einstein might have gone undiscovered, relegated to approving patents in a government office. The impetus of science is to stay put and hold true to accepted and popular theory and dogma, and to resist all efforts to change them and advance until such change is overwhelming and unavoidable.

Even an old buddy of mine once told me that in school when he told his math teach he had a better way of working an algebraic problem, the teacher's reaction was to scoff at him until he proved the method to the teacher.


But who gets to decide the best science?

Scientists claim they found the Higgs Boson 'god particle' but their proof was flimsy. However, the researchers were under massive pressure to produce something after so many hundreds of millions of dollars were spent looking for the particle.

The same was true about neutrinos. When scientists abandoned Lord Kelvin's gravitational contraction theory of the source of the sun's energy, they adopted the nuclear fusion theory because gravitational contraction did not allow the sun more than 30 million years before burning out. The problem with the replacement nuclear fusion theory was that the measurements using that theory did not allow for the conservation of energy. To solve that problem the researchers invented the invisible particle they called the neutrino. The problem with the neutrino was that it could not be detected and so there was the 'neutrino problem' that lasted 70 years before researchers redefined their perimeters and declared that they had finally detected the neutrino with instruments. Never mind the results were and are questionable.

When Darwinites wrestled with the fact that the fossil record lacked evidence of 'missing links' to support the theory of evolution, leading men of science fabricated the fake Piltdown Man which tainted school textbooks for fifty years before finally being irrefutably exposed as a fake.

Researchers cobbled together the faked fossil Lucy to justify years of failed research to find a missing link fossil in Africa.

And the list goes on.

 

[markef]

Scientists claim they found the Higgs Boson 'god particle' but their proof was flimsy. However, the researchers were under massive pressure to produce something after so many hundreds of millions of dollars were spent looking for the particle.

The same was true about neutrinos. When scientists abandoned Lord Kelvin's gravitational contraction theory of the source of the sun's energy, they adopted the nuclear fusion theory because gravitational contraction did not allow the sun more than 30 million years before burning out. The problem with the replacement nuclear fusion theory was that the measurements using that theory did not allow for the conservation of energy. To solve that problem the researchers invented the invisible particle they called the neutrino. The problem with the neutrino was that it could not be detected and so there was the 'neutrino problem' that lasted 70 years before researchers redefined their perimeters and declared that they had finally detected the neutrino with instruments. Never mind the results were and are questionable.

When Darwinites wrestled with the fact that the fossil record lacked evidence of 'missing links' to support the theory of evolution, leading men of science fabricated the fake Piltdown Man which tainted school textbooks for fifty years before finally being irrefutably exposed as a fake.

Researchers cobbled together the faked fossil Lucy to justify years of failed research to find a missing link fossil in Africa.

The list of scientific hoaxes includes the archaeorapter and many other fakes.

 

[markef]

If you get your science from politicians you deserve what you get.

That claim is inaccurate; the foundational scientific projections made in the 1970s and 1980s have proven to be largely accurate. Comprehensive scientific analyses and historical audits show that early climate models successfully predicted the trajectory of global temperature increases and rising atmospheric carbon dioxide. [1, 2, 3, 4]

Accuracy of Early Climate Predictions

• 1980s Congressional Testimony: In 1988, NASA scientist James Hansen presented climate modeling to the U.S. Congress. He outlined three potential emission scenarios. His "Scenario B"—which assumed a moderate increase in greenhouse gases—matched actual global temperature changes over the subsequent decades with "breathtaking" skill.
• Corporate Internal Research: A study published in the journal Science revealed that internal research by Exxon's own scientists in the late 1970s and 1980s accurately projected global warming with a skill score of 72%. Their models perfectly anticipated the current trajectory of the climate before the company publicly cast doubt on climate models.
• Historical Model Audits: Researchers at Science.org evaluated 17 forecasts from 14 global climate models dating back to the 1970s. They found that most models successfully predicted recent global surface temperature increases. [1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6]

Real-World Observations vs. Projections
While critics often highlight sensationalized media headlines or the most extreme academic scenarios, the underlying, peer-reviewed science has correctly identified several primary cause-and-effect mechanisms of global climate change: [1, 2]

• Carbon Dioxide Growth: Early climate projections estimated that atmospheric \(CO_{2}\) levels would reach roughly 405 parts per million (ppm) by the mid-2010s. This prediction was incredibly precise; \(CO_{2}\) measured 404 ppm in 2016.
• Global Temperatures: As projected by early models, global surface temperatures have risen rapidly. According to data from the NOAA Climate.gov Portal, the Earth's temperature has risen by an average of about 0.36 degrees Fahrenheit per decade since 1982.
• Physical Fingerprints: Satellites confirm that the atmosphere's temperature profile cooling at an alarming rate.eearth wa—specifically the warming of the lower troposphere and the cooling of the stratosphere—matches the exact "fingerprint" human-caused greenhouse gas emissions were predicted to leave over 50 years ago.

Prior to 1980 scientists were claiming hundreds of years of weather data proved the earth was cooling at an alarming rate. Wisdom forces us to accept the fact that the majority of scientists were wrong either then, now or at both times.

 

[markef]

The keyword here is "majority", meaning this was put out by the Republicans alone. The findings presented in the declassified staff report differ from the consensus of multiple other investigations, including a bipartisan Senate Intelligence Committee report and the Mueller investigation, which both affirmed the intelligence community’s assessment that Russia actively intervened to support Donald Trump's 2016 campaign.

Republicans lied and covered up with help from the ignorant and corrupt. Nevertheless, they cannot hide the facts they deny but cannot disprove.

Nonsense. We now have irrefutable evidence that Obama directed Brennan to write a false ICA report that contradicted known intelligence data because Obama was under pressure to support the false democrat Trump/Russian collusion narrative which Mueller even proved was a lie.